C-19

Exhibit 4. Current Sears ad

showing desirable consumer features

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

C-19 

Exhibit 4. Current Sears ad 

showing desirable consumer features 

- , 
EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

first time reduced! 

electric range • SeI1-C~!)n.ing-the o?,.").$I<.'sl ....... 0)" 

tc clean your oven~ 

• [te<...'"'1'1t>nic clock onCt tl:n.;;>:, 

easy 10 read and set • Auto oven s/"lut-off 

• Block gk,-s; door with "",indo" 

~nvouc~eckcoo~ng 

wt'tlOUt Opening oven door 

• lJIt-<Jp. seamk?$s. 

cooI<top makes 

499.99~'::I'r. low-est price ever! 

gas range " • Selt"cleanlng-th;, easiest way 

> 10 clean your ('''Ven! 

• Eosy··to-cfeon sealed burners 

• Ex!rO-lcrge oven 

• SeofTlless. uoswept cooktot) 

mckes cteanmg easy • Waist-t1lgh broli is easy 10 useno oanding Of stoopingl 

• Eosy·te-reod dial cloc~ and 

timer. automatic oven 
I

rw

C C

g r)

r

-'Qr

[-I2

) W 4JJ

g

I 'i

c

t:. I

tFlI

h

b

i&_\ [t

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Clean up lNith rebates on ranges $80-$130 rebates ... plus the convenience of seH-cleaning ovens 

_. 

399.99: ..... 

" 3O-in gas f'Ot1Qe with seOleo D'Jf"flets: 

.. Extro-torgo oven 

40 Di.ale!oclt; 

andt,mer 

• Solid bK;l:CK 

';;I'O::_'id::"i.:1! 

-.;:r.: ..... ""'_ 

3O-in. eIee!IIC 

"""",wlth""lf- cleaning oven 

Ddcil,)Cl.; 

ondtirn&f 

• AutOr11dtiC'". ovoo 

• Stock QK]S$ dom 

..... 1th 

5-4531 ( .. If JlJtl?Z3l..S) 

• Srnoom rodiOnt' 

cooktop 

• &eff·deanlng oven 

• Electtonic ClOCk 

ondtl!l1er 

• Av!O oven 

t:-lxk 
C-22

Exhibit 5. Literature Review on Convection Cooking

by

Arthur D. Little (ADL)

The Effects of Convection Oven Cooking on Food Quality

Executive Summary

The objective of this study is to assess, through a literature review, the effects of convection

ovens on cooking quality. A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection

oven." Six research papers were retrieved form two peer-reviewed scientific journals. Two

papers were submitted from university-sponsored research. Each paper was reviewed for

convection oven cooking quality data and summarized.

From the peer-reviewed journals, the findings were:

o Cookies should be baked in a convection oven due to significantly higher values for

flavor and texture characteristics.

• More energy was used in the convection baking process.

For heating food in ready prepared or commissary type foodservice systems,

microwave ovens yielded food of higher sensory quality with lower energy input then

food prepared in a convection oven.

• The effect of infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention was similar in

portioned menu items.

From the university-sponsored research, the findings were:

• Food prepared by convection was identifiable (lumped layer cake with crack in center,

cookies with variation in browning across the top, meats with crunchier exteriors).

• The type of heating system does not significantly affect results in baking and roasting.

Results from Individual Research Papers

1. "Sensory quality and energy use for baking of molasses cookies prepared with bleached

and unbleached flour and baked in infrared, forced air convection, and conventional

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

C-22 

Exhibit 5. Literature Review on Convection Cooking 

by 

Arthur D. Little (ADL) 

The Effects of Convection Oven Cooking on Food Quality 

Executive Summary 

The objective of this study is to assess, through a literature review, the effects of convection 

ovens on cooking qUality. A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection 

oven." Six research papers were retrieved form two peer-reviewed scientific journals. Two 

papers were submitted from university-sponsored research. Each paper was reviewed for 

convection oven cooking quality data and summarized. 

From the peer-reviewed journals, the findings were: 

• Cookies should be baked in a convection oven due to significantly higher values for 

flavor and texture characteristics. 

• More energy was used in the convection baking process. 

• For heating food in ready prepared or commissary type food service systems, 

microwave ovens yielded food of higher sensory quality with lower energy input then 

food prepared in a convection oven. 

• The effect of infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention was similar in 

portioned menu items. 

From the university-sponsored research, the findings were: 

• Food prepared by convection was identifiable (lumped layer cake with crack in center, 

cookies with variation in browning across the top, meats with crunchier exteriors). 

• The type of heating system does not significantly affect results in baking and roasting. 

Results from Individual Research Papers 

1. "Sensory qUality and energy use for baking of molasses cookies prepared with bleached 

and unbleached flour and baked in infrared, forced air convection, and conventional 
C-23

deck ovens." J. Heist and M. L. Cresser, J. Food Science, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1990,

pp. 1095-1100.

The objective was to prepare cookies with bleached and unbleached flour (two

formulas) baked in institutional deck, infrared, and convection ovens to determine the

effects on sensory qualities and energy for baking.

The results were:

Cookies baked in the convection oven were significantly different from those

baked in the deck oven and infrared oven. They had higher values for all flavor

characteristics - softness, uniformity in round shape, and intensity of surface

browning. The deck oven gave crisper, chewier, and browner cookies.

• Energy use for baking was significantly higher in the convection oven than in the

other two ovens.

• Bleached flour gave significantly higher values than unbleached flour.

2. "Sensory quality and energy use for scrambled eggs and beef patties heated in

institutional microwave and convection ovens." M. L. Cremer, J. Food Science,

Vol. 47, 1982, pp. 871-874.

The objective was to determine energy use and sensory quality of food heated in

microwave and convection ovens to temperatures considered effective for

microbiological safety.

Results showed that:

• Eggs heated in the microwave oven were scored significantly higher for all

characteristics evaluated than eggs heated in the convection oven.

• Beef patties heated in the convection oven were scored significantly higher for all

characteristics than patties heated in the microwave.

3. "Comparison of drying kinetics of foods using a fan-assisted convection oven, a

microwave oven and a combined microwave/convection oven." B. Al-Dun and

S. McIntyre, J. Food Engineering, Vol. 15, 1992, pp. 139-155.

The objective was to determine the drying rates (moisture content vs. time) for five

types of foods (skim milk powder, whole milk powder, casein powder, butter, fresh

pasta) using a mixed-facility cooker (microwave and hot air) which can be operated in

convection, microwave, and microwave/convection operations.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

C-23 

deck ovens." J. Heist and M. L. Cresser, J. Food Science, Vol. 55, No.4, 1990, 

pp. 1095-1100. 

The objective was to prepare cookies with bleached and unbleached flour (two 

formulas) baked in institutional deck, infrared, and convection ovens to determine the --

effects on sensory qualities and energy for baking. 

The results were: 

• Cookies baked in the convection oven were significantly different from those 

baked in the deck oven and infrared oven. They had higher values for all flavor 

characteristics - softness, uniformity in round shape, and intensity of surface 

browning. The deck oven gave crisper, chewier, and browner cookies. 

• Energy use for baking was significantly higher in the convection oven than in the 

other two ovens. 

• Bleached flour gave significantly higher values than unbleached flour. 

2. "Sensory quality and energy use for scrambled eggs and beef patties heated in 

institutional microwave and convection ovens." M. L. Cremer, J. Food Science, 

Vol. 47, 1982, pp. 871-874. 

The objective was to determine energy use and sensory quality of food heated in 

microwave and convection ovens to temperatures considered effective for 

microbiological safety. 

Results showed that: 

• Eggs heated in the microwave oven were scored significantly higher for all 

characteristics evaluated than eggs heated in the convection oven. 

• Beef patties heated in the convection oven were scored significantly higher for all 

characteristics than patties heated in the microwave. 

3. "Comparison of drying kinetics of foods using a fan-assisted convection oven, a 

microwave oven and a combined microwave/convection oven." B. AI-Duri and 

S. McIntyre, J. Food Engineering, Vol. 15, 1992, pp. 139-155. 

The objective was to determine the drying rates (moisture content vs. time) for five 

types of foods (skim milk powder, whole milk powder, casein powder, butter, fresh 

pasta) using a mixed-facility cooker (microwave and hot air) which can be operated in 

convection, microwave, and microwave/convection operations. 
C-24

Results indicated that:

In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with temperature

increase due to the increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer.

However, for products with a low moisture content, the convection oven is not

advantageous because the diffusion process is slow.

• Drying rate increases with power output of a microwave oven as the dielectric

properties of the food change. The uniformly dry product obtained makes

microwaving suitable for low moisture or heat sensitive materials.

• Hot air with microwave power increases drying rate, yet operation at higher

temperatures is not recommended due to burning and non-uniformity.

4. "Nutrition retention in pork, turkey breast and corned beef roasts after infrared and

convection heat processing." N. Unklesbay, M. E. Davis and C. Krause, J. of Food

Science, Vol. 48, 1983, pp. 864-904.

The objective was to determine the effect of both infrared and forced-air convection

heat processing upon the food product yield and nutrient retention of roast pork loin,

turkey breast, and corned beef.

It was concluded that for most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection

heating upon nutrient retention was similar. Either heat processing method could be

adopted with comparable results.

5. "Temperatures of spaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service locations in a

commissary foodservice system." M. L. Cremer, J. of Food Science, Vol. 43, 1978,

pp. 1062-1070.

The objective was to determine temperature variability and factors influencing

temperature of spaghetti heated in convection ovens in a commissary foodservice

system.

Results indicated that temperature variability was a significant factor in heating food in

convection ovens and that equipment model had significant influence. Factors which

appeared to have an effect on temperature included thermostatic setting, oven power

rating, placement of heating elements, number of meals heated at one time, number of

fans, and position of food in the oven.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

C-24 

Results indicated that: 

CD In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with temperature 

increase due to the increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer. 

However, for products with a low moisture content, the convection oven is not 

advantageous because the diffusion process is slow. 

• Drying rate increases with power output of a microwave oven as the dielectric 

properties of the food change. The uniformly dry product obtained makes 

microwaving suitable for low moisture or heat sensitive materials. 

• Hot air with microwave power increases drying rate, yet operation at higher 

temperatures is not recommended due to burning and non-uniformity. 

4. "Nutrition retention in pork, turkey breast and corned beef roasts after infrared and 

convection heat processing." N. Unklesbay, M. E. Davis and G. Krause, 1. of Food 

Science, Vol. 48, 1983, pp. 864-904. 

The objective was to determine the effect of both infrared and forced-air convection 

heat processing upon the food product yield and nutrient retention of roast pork loin, 

turkey breast, and corned beef. 

It was concluded that for most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection 

heating upon nutrient retention was similar. Either heat processing method could be 

adopted with comparable results. 

5. "Temperatures of spaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service locations in a 

commissary food service system." M. L. Cremer, 1. of Food Science, Vol. 43, 1978, 

pp. 1062-1070. 

The objective was to determine temperature variability and factors influencing 

temperature of spaghetti heated in convection ovens in a commissary food service 

system. 

Results indicated that temperature variability was a significant factor in heating food in 

convection ovens and that equipment model had significant influence. Factors which 

appeared to have an effect on temperature included thermostatic setting, oven power 

rating, placement of heating elements, number of meals heated at one time, number of 

fans, and position of food in the oven. 
C-25

6. "Nutrient retention of portioned menu items after infrared and convection heat

processing." N. Unklesbay, M. E. Davis and G. Krause, J. of Food Science, Vol. 48,

1983, pp. 869-873.

The objective was to determine the effect of both infrared and forced-air convection

heat processing upon food product yield and nutrient content of three protein and two

vegetable portioned menu items.

It was concluded that for most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection

heating upon nutrient retention was similar. For yield, convection oven heating gave

less loss in hamburgers, potatoes, and tomatoes.

7. "A study of design approaches to convection cooking." R. P. Lovingood, E. A.

De Merchant and L. J. Himes, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

C. M. Walsh and S. L. Kirkley, Thermador Corporation.

The objective was to compare the effects of internal and external heating on baked and

roasted products using six brands of convection wall ovens.

Results indicated that, although variability was observed between oven brands, all

products were judged acceptable:

• Angel food cakes - even color, level with pan, easy to cut.

• Yellow cakes - even color, acceptable volume and moistness, crumbly and

difficult to cut.

• Chocolate chip cookies - some gradations in color, crisper that conventional

oven baking.

• Beef roasts - evenly cooked and juicy, with a crunchy exterior.

• Chicken - mostly juicy and tender, with crunchyexteriors.

8. "Oven performance in convection vs. radiant mode." R. P. Lovingood, E. A.

De Merchant and L. J. Himes, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg

VA.

The objective was to compare the effects of forced-air movement on the baking and

roasting performance of convection wall ovens.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

C-25 

6. "Nutrient retention of portioned menu items after infrared and convection heat 

processing." N. Unklesbay, M. E. Davis and G. Krause, J. of Food Science, Vol. 48, 

1983, pp. 869-873. 

The objective was to determine the effect of both infrared and forced-air convection 

heat processing upon food product yield and nutrient content of three protein and two 

vegetable portioned menu items. 

It was concluded that for most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection 

heating upon nutrient retention was similar. For yield, convection oven heating gave 

less loss in hamburgers, potatoes, and tomatoes. 

7. "A study of design approaches to convection cooking." R. P. Lovingood, E. A. 

De Merchant and L. J. Himes, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

C. M. Walsh and S. L. Kirkley, Thermador Corporation. 

The objective was to compare the effects of internal and external heating on baked and 

roasted products using six brands of convection wall ovens. 

Results indicated that, although variability was observed between oven brands, all 

products were judged acceptable: 

• Angel food cakes - even color, level with pan, easy to cut. 

• Yellow cakes - even color, acceptable volume and moistness, crumbly and 

difficult to cut. 

• Chocolate chip cookies - some gradations in color, crisper that conventional 

oven baking. 

• Beef roasts - evenly cooked and juicy, with a crunchy exterior. 

• Chicken - mostly juicy and tender, with crunchy. exteriors. 

8. "Oven performance in convection vs. radiant mode. n R. P. Lovingood, E. A. 

De Merchant and L. J. Himes, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg 

VA. 

The objective was to compare the effects of forced-air movement on the baking and 

roasting performance of convection wall ovens. 
C-26

Results indicated that:

• Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing

convection and radiant modes.

• All foods were judged acceptable.

• Convection produces typical products - humped, cracked layer cake; cookies

with more variation in browning across the top; meats with crunchier exteriors.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

C-26 

Results indicated that: 

III Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing 

convection and radiant modes. 

• All foods were judged acceptable. 

• Convection produces typical products - humped, cracked layer cake; cookies 

with more variation in browning across the top; meats with crunchier exteriors. 
Appendix D

Calculation of Change in Annual Energy Used

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Appendix D 

Calculation of Change in Annual Energy Used 
D-1

APPENDIX D. CALCULATION OF CHANGE IN ANNUAL ENERGY USED

The analysis done in this study is based on experimental data developed by A.G.A.

Laboratories and on data reported by DOE. The laboratory test results were translated into

annual energy savings using the procedure given in the Code of Federal Regulations,'26

modified to reflect the data on average gas use from the metered appliance study27

[Appendix F]. Where experimental data were not available, data from the DOE Technical

Support Document (DOE/EE-0009), Volume A and Volume E, were used.4

Cooktop Versus Oven Gas Use

The metered gas usage study27 shows that the average cooking use of natural gas in

homes with electric ignition ranges is 2,240,000 Btu/yr. Although the study developed some

data that separated cooktop from oven use, the number of cases metered separately was

small. Therefore, an estimate of cooktop and oven usage was developed using data from the

Technical Support Document,4 [Tables 1.6, 1.10, and 1.111 for the cooktop and oven use as

follows:

Fraction of all electric ignition ovens that are self-cleaning 0.2374

Self-cleaning oven gas use including 7 cleaning cycles 2,347 kBtu

Standard oven, cooking gas only 2,717 kBtu

Ratio of cooking gas plus electrical energy use of standard

oven with intermittent ignition device to cooking gas of

standard oven with standing pilot 1.015

Electrical use, standard oven with lID 61.8 kWh

Calculated gas use, standard oven with lID

2717*1.01561.8*3.414 2,547 kBtu

Cooktop cooking gas use 2,376 kBtu

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

D-1 

APPENDIX D. CALCULATION OF CHANGE IN ANNUAL ENERGY USED 

The analysis done in this study is based on experimental data developed by A. G. A. 

Laboratories and on data reported by DOE. The laboratory test results were translated into 

annual energy savings using the procedure given in the Code of Federal Regulations,(26) 

modified to reflect the data on average gas use from the metered appliance stud y(27) 

[Appendix F]. Where experimental data were not available, data from the DOE Technical 

Support Document (DOE/EE-0009), Volume A and Volume E, were used.(4) 

Cooktop Versus Oven Gas Use 

The metered gas usage study(27) shows that the average cooking use of natural gas in 

homes with electric ignition ranges is 2,240,000 Btu/yr. Although the study developed some 

data that separated cooktop from oven use, the number of cases metered separately was 

small. Therefore, an estimate of cooktop and oven usage was developed using data from the 

Technical Support Document,(4) [Tables 1.6, 1.10, and 1.11] for the cooktop and oven use as 

follows: 

Fraction of all electric ignition ovens that are self-cleaning 0.2374 

Self-cleaning oven gas use including 7 cleaning cycles 2,347 kBtu 

Standard oven, cooking gas only 2,717 kBtu 

Ratio of cooking gas plus electrical energy use of standard 

oven with intermittent ignition device to cooking gas of 

standard oven with standing pilot 1.015 

Electrical use, standard oven with IID 61.8 kWh 

Calculated gas use, standard oven with IID 

2717*1.015-61.8*3.414 2,547 kBtu 

Cooktop cooking gas use 2,376 kBtu 

- \, 
D-2

Fraction used by cooktop in DOE study

2376/[2376+2547*(10.2374)+2347*0.23741 0.4873

Cooktop gas use, metered gas study 1,092 kBtu

Oven gas use, electric ignition ovens, metered gas study 1.148 kBtu

Gas Use in Ovens

DOE Procedure

The DOE procedure3 involves heating an 8.5-lb block from ambient temperature to

234 F above ambient while the thermostat is set at 325 F above ambient. The energy

transferred to the block can be calculated by knowing that the specific heat of aluminum is

0.23 Btu/lb-F; this gives 457.5 Btu usefully used per test. The existing procedure for

calculating the annual energy used and efficiency specifies an annual useful usage of energy

of 160,700(26) Btu The proposed DOE "adjusted" use is 124,200 Btu4 For self-cleaning

gas ovens, the energy used for 7 cycles per year is to be added when calculating the annual

oven usage. For electric ignition ovens, the energy for the clock is added. For gas pilot

ovens, cooking is specified by DOE to be 300 hours per year; 8,460 hours of pilot is added

for calculating annual energy use. These added terms are not included in the cooking use

and cooking efficiency. Dividing the 160,700 Btu/yr by 457.5 Btu/test gives 351.3 test

equivalents per year. The proposed value gives 271.5 test equivalents per year.

DOE uses 300 cooking hours per year in their adjusted use calculations. The cooking

hours should be reduced in proportion to the lower useful energy consumption, although this

is a minor correction. This report uses 142 cooking hours per year.

Metered Gas Study

The DOE useful consumption in the procedure can be compared with the input value of

1,148,000 Btu/yr of gas for electric ignition ovens determined in the metered appliance

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

D-2 

. Fraction used by cooktop in DOE study 

2376/[2376+2547*(1-0.2374)+2347*0.2374] 

Cooktop gas use, metered gas study 

Oven gas use, electric ignition ovens, metered gas study 

Gas Use in Ovens 

DOE Procedure 

0.4873 

1,092 kBtu 

1.148 kBtu 

The DOE procedure(3) involves heating an 8.5-lb block from ambient temperature to 

234 F above ambient while the thermostat is set at 325 F above ambient. The energy 

transferred to the block can be calculated by knowing that the specific heat of aluminum is 

0.23 Btu/lb-F; this gives 457.5 Btu usefully used per test. The existing procedure for 

calculating the annual energy used and efficiency specifies an annual useful usage of energy 

of 160,700(26) Btu. The proposed DOE "adjusted" use is 124,200 Btu(4). For self-cleaning 

gas ovens, the energy used for 7 cycles per year is to be added when calculating the annual 

oven usage. For electric ignition ovens, the energy for the clock is added. For gas pilot 

ovens, cooking is specified by DOE to be 300 hours per year; 8,460 hours of pilot is added 

for calculating annual energy use. These added terms are not included in the cooking use 

and cooking efficiency. Dividing the 160,700 Btu/yr by 457.5 Btu/test gives 351.3 test 

equivalents per year. The proposed value gives 271.5 test equivalents per year. 

DOE uses 300 cooking hours per year in their adjusted use calculations. The cooking 

hours should be reduced in proportion to the lower useful energy consumption, although this 

is a minor correction. This report uses 142 cooking hours per year. 

Metered Gas Study 

The DOE useful consumption in the procedure can be compared with the input value of 

1,148,000 Btu/yr of gas for electric ignition ovens determined in the metered appliance 
D-3

study27 in the following manner. The DOE data given above and the DOE estimate of

2,044 kBtu for annual gas cooking use in a self-cleaning oven and total useful consumption

of 160.7 kBtu give a composite gas cooking use efficiency of 0.0662.

1 60.71[2044*0.2374 +2547*( 1-0.2374)1 = 0.06620

Dividing 1,148,000 Btu from the metered gas study27 by 0.0662 Btu gives 76,020 Btu

usefully consumed per year for the ovens in the metered use study. The metered appliance

use thus corresponds to 47.3 percent of the DOE amount (76.02/160.7). The metered

appliance usage is equivalent to 142 cooking hours or 166.2 test equivalents per year. Using

the 0.0662 gas cooking efficiency, the annual gas consumption for the DOE procedure would

be 2,427 kBtu. Since the cooking hours are about half the current DOE level, the selfcleaning cycles were reduced from 7 to 4 for this analysis. (The DOE proposed ruie uses

7 self-clean cycles for the "adjusted" usage level.) Non-cooking pilot hours for the ovens

with standing pilots was set at 142 hours, not the 300 used by DOE for both the current and

proposed rule. If one uses the same calculation procedure for the proposed adjusted usage,

the metered gas usage is 61.2 percent of the adjusted useful consumption.

For the design option and base cases:

Annual Cooking Energy = 166.2 x Test Gas

Annual Electricity Use = Test Electricity Use + Clock Use

Annual Energy = 166.2 x Test Total Energy + Clock Use.

Because the test times are similar, the electricity use was assumed to be the same in

the design option test and baseline test. The clock use also cancels and the difference in test

energy can therefore be ascribed to natural gas use. For self-cleaning ovens, the DOE

electrical usage was used for both the design option and baseline cases.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

D-3 

studyC27) in the following manner. The DOE data given above and the DOE estimate of 

2,044 kBtu for annual gas cooking use in a self-cleaning oven and total useful consumption 

of 160.7 kBtu give a composite gas cooking use efficiency of 0.0662. 

160.7/[2044*0.2374+2547*(1-0.2374)] = 0.06620 

Dividing 1,148,000 Btu from the metered gas study(27) by 0.0662 Btu gives 76,020 Btu 

usefully consumed per year for the ovens in the metered use study. The metered appliance 

use thus corresponds to 47.3 percent of the DOE amount (76.021160.7). The metered 

appliance usage is equivalent to 142 cooking hours or 166.2 test equivalents per year. Using 

the 0.0662 gas cooking efficiency, the annual gas consumption for the DOE procedure would 

be 2,427 kBtu. Since the cooking hours are about half the current DOE level, the selfcleaning cycles were reduced from 7 to 4 for this analysis. (The DOE proposed rule(4) uses 

7 self-clean cycles for the "adjusted" usage level.) Non-cooking pilot hours for the ovens 

with standing pilots was set at 142 hours, not the 300 used by DOE for both the current and 

proposed rule. If one uses the same calculation procedure for the proposed adj usted usage, 

the metered gas usage is 61.2 percent of the adjusted useful consumption. 

For the design option and base cases: 

Annual Cooking Energy = 166.2 x Test Gas 

Annual Electricity Use = Test Electricity Use + Clock Use 

Annual Energy = 166.2 x Test Total Energy + Clock Use. 

Because the test times are similar, the electricity use was assumed to be the same in 

the design option test and baseline test. The clock use also cancels and the difference in test 

energy can therefore be ascribed to natural gas use. For self-cleaning ovens, the DOE 

electrical usage was used for both the design option and baseline cases. 
D-4

Gas pilot oven results can calculate as follows:

Annual Cooking Energy = 166.2 x Test Gas

Annual Non-Cooking Pilot Energy = (8760-142)/8760 x Pilot Rate

Annual Gas Consumption = Annual Cooking Energy

+ Annual Non-Cooking Pilot Energy

As with the electric ignition ovens, the test times were similar for the design option

and base cases, therefore the non-cooking pilot usage in the two cases is the same. The

DOE pilot rates were used for both cases.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

D-4 

Gas pilot oven results can calculate as follows: 

Annual Cooking Energy = 166.2 x Test Gas 

Annual Non-Cooking Pilot Energy = (8760-142)/8760 x Pilot Rate 

Annual Gas Consumption = Annual Cooking Energy 

+ Annual Non-Cooking Pilot Energy 

As with the electric ignition ovens, the test times were similar for the design option 

and base cases, therefore the non-cooking pilot usage in the two cases is the same. The 

DOE pilot rates were used for both cases. 
D-5

Gas Use in Cooktops

DOE Procedure

Depending on the burner size, one of two standard blocks is heated at the full burner

rate until the temperature of the block reaches 144 F above ambient, then the heat is turned

down to about 25 percent of the maximum and maintained for 15 minutes. In the experimental work done by A.G.A. Laboratories, all tests were done with an 18.5 lb block. The

weight of the block, the gas used, and the temperature reached are used to calculate the

cooking efficiency and an assumed annual useful consumption of 947,500 Btu is used to

calculate an annual consumption for cooking'26. For the proposed rule, 732,500 Btu is

specified4. Pilot use is added in calculating the total annual energy. Because the DOE test

does not specify a particular temperature rise, the useful consumption in the test cannot be

calculated from the test procedure itself.

Metered Gas Study

The metered appliance27 annual consumption of 1,148,000 Btu for the cooktop of

electric ignition ranges can be compared with the DOE procedure's useful consumption as

follows. The DOE efficiency value of 39.9 percent was assumed although the A.G.A.

Laboratories data showed a slightly lower average (38.35 percent). This means that the DOE

procedure would be equivalent to 2,375,000 Btu/yr input. The metered appliance annual

consumption of 1,148,000 Btu/yr is 48.3 percent of the DOE value. Stated differently, the

useful gas use calculated from the metered appliance study'27 results is 483,100 Btu/year. If

the metered gas results are compared with the 732,500 Btu in the DOE proposed ru1e,'4 the

metered study result is 66.0 percent of the proposed value. The proposed DOE value

corresponds to 2,922,000 Btu cooking energy.

Since the gas pilot use, if any, will cancel:

Annual Energy = Annual Cooking GaSM - Annual Cooking Gasae.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

D-5 

Gas Use in Cooktops 

DOE Procedure 

Depending on the burner size, one of two standard blocks is heated at the full burner 

rate until the temperature of the block reaches 144 F above ambient, then the heat is turned 

down to about 25 percent of the maximum and maintained for 15 minutes. In the experimental work done by A.G.A. Laboratories, all tests were done with an 18.5 lb block. The 

weight of the block, the gas used, and the temperature reached are used to calculate the 

cooking efficiency and an assumed annual useful consumption of 947,500 Btu is used to 

calculate an annual consumption for cooking (26) . For the proposed rule, 732,500 Btu is 

specified (4) • Pilot use is added in calculating the total annual energy. Because the DOE test 

does not specify a particular temperature rise, the useful consumption in the test cannot be 

calculated from the test procedure itself. 

Metered Gas Study 

The metered appliance(27) annual consumption of 1,148,000 Btu for the cooktop of 

electric ignition ranges can be compared with the DOE procedure's useful consumption as 

follows. The DOE efficiency value of 39.9 percent was assumed although the A.G.A. 

Laboratories data showed a slightly lower average (38.35 percent). This means that the DOE 

procedure would be equivalent to 2,375,000 Btu/yr input. The metered appliance annual 

consumption of 1,148,000 Btu/yr is 48.3 percent of the DOE value. Stated differently, the 

useful gas use calculated from the metered appliance study(27) results is 483,100 Btu/year. If 

the metered gas results are compared with the 732,500 Btu in the DOE proposed rule, (4) the 

metered study result is 66.0 percent of the proposed value. The proposed DOE value 

corresponds to 2,922,000 Btu cooking energy. 

Since the gas pilot use, if any, will cancel: 

Annual EnergYsaved = Annual Cooking GasMod - Annual Cooking GasBase . 
D-6

Annual total use, including the pilot, was calculated using the DOE value. No

electricity consumption was assumed, because there is no transformer and the use of the

intermittent ignition device on starting is brief.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

D-6 

Annual total use, including the pilot, was calculated using the DOE value. No 

electricity consumption was assumed, because there is no transformer and the use of the 

intermittent ignition device on starting is brief. 
Electric Oven and

Coo ktop Data

Analysis

Prepared for

Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers

July 15, 1994

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park

Cambridge, Massachusetts

02140-2390

1ur D Little Reference 47066

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

-

Artlur D LittJe 

Electric Oven and 

Cooktop Data 

Analysis 

Prepared for 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

July 15, 1994 

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

Acorn Park 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

02140-2390 

Reference 47066 
Table of Contents

............................................

........

................................................

......................................

............................................

............................

...........................

.............

.............

.......

..........................

..............

..........

..................

......

.........

.................

........................

.............

......................

...........

..............................

...................

.................

..........

............................

..............................

.........

..............................................

...............................................

1.0 Background . 1

2.0 Review of Baseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens

and Cooktops 2

2.1 Implications of the Modified (Reduced) Range Energy Usage 4

3.0 Review of DOE Baseline Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and

Cooktops 5

3.1 Efficiency Testing 5

3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Account for Manufacturing

Variability 6

4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review 7

4.1 Forced Convection Design Option 7

4.1.1 Impact of Forced Convection on Oven Utility 7

4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact on Oven Efficiency 9

4.1.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Forced Convection 10

4.2 Reflective Surfaces for Oven Cavity 11

4.2.1 Impact of Reflective Coating on Oven Utility 11

4.2.2 Impact of Reflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency 12

4.2.3 Reflective Surface Efficiency Analysis 12

4.2.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Reflective Surfaces 14

4.2.4 Reflective Surface Issues Relative to Manufacturing 15

4.3 Improved Door Seal for Standard Electric Ovens 17

4.3.1 Improved Door Seal Efficiency 18

4.3.2 Payback Associated with Improved Door Seal 18

4.4 Increased Oven Insulation Design Option 19

4.4.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Increased Insulation 20

4.5 Thermal Mass Design Option 21

4.5.1 Reduction in Thermal Mass Analysis 22

4.6 Elimination of the Oven Window Design Option 22

4.6.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Window Elimination 22

5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review 24

5.1 Improved Contact Conductance Design Option for Electric Coil Cooktop 24

5.1.1 Effect of Surface Contact Resistance on Range-Top Efficiency 24

5.1.2 Conductance Analysis 25

5.2 Impact of Contact Conductance on Coil Efficiency - Testing 26

Appendix A A-i

Appendix B B-i

Arthw Little

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table of Contents 

1.0 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 

2.0 Review of Baseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens 

and Cooktops ............................................ 2 

2.1 Implications of the Modified (Reduced) Range Energy Usage ........ 4 

3.0 Review of DOE Baseline Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and 

Cooktops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 

3.1 Efficiency Testing ...................................... 5 

3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Account for Manufacturing 

Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 

4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 

4.1 Forced Convection Design Option ........................... 7 

4.1.1 Impact of Forced Convection on Oven Utility ............. 7 

4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact on Oven Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 

4.1.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Forced Convection . . . . . .. 10 

4.2 Reflective Surfaces for Oven Cavity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 

4.2.1 Impact of Reflective Coating on Oven Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 

4.2.2 Impact of Reflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency .......... 12 

4.2.3 Reflective Surface Efficiency Analysis .................. 12 

4.2.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Reflective Surfaces ...... 14 

4.2.4 Reflective Surface Issues Relative to Manufacturing . . . . . . . .. 15 

4.3 Improved Door Seal for Standard Electric Ovens .......... . . . . . .. 17 

4.3.1 Improved Door Seal Efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 

4.3.2 Payback Associated with Improved Door Seal ............. 18 

4.4 Increased Oven Insulation Design Option ...................... 19 

4.4.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Increased Insulation . . . . . . . . . .. 20 

4.5 Thermal Mass Design Option .............................. 21 

4.5.1 Reduction in Thermal Mass Analysis ................... 22 

4.6 Elimination of the Oven Window Design Option ................. 22 

4.6.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Window Elimination .......... 22 

5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review ............................ 24 

5.1 Improved Contact Conductance Design Option for Electric Coil Cooktop 24 

5.1.1 Effect of Surface Contact Resistance on Range-Top Efficiency . 24 

5.1.2 Conductance Analysis ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 

5.2 Impact of Contact Conductance on Coil Efficiency - Testing. . . . . . . .. 26 .. Appendix A A-I 

Appendix B B-1 

Artlur D little 
1.0 Background

The objective of this study is to develop technical information for the Association of

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) relative to DOE rule making for electric

ovens and cooktops. AHAM will incorporate these data into their response to DOE.

The DOE has recommended a series of design options to improve the efficiency of

electric ovens and cooktops. These recommendations were discussed in the March 4,

1994 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (10 CFR Part 430). The proposed efficiency

levels for electric ovens would have a dramatic effect on both product price and

functionality.

The proposed electric oven design options are:

Electric Oven, Non-Self-Cleaning

Level 4 has been selected for electric ovens by DOE.

thr D Ltte

Electric Oven, Self-Cleaning

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

1.0 Background 

The objective of this study is to develop technical information for the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) relative to DOE rule making for electric 

ovens and cooktops. AHAM will incorporate these data into their response to DOE. 

The DOE has recommended a series of design options to improve the efficiency of 

electric ovens and cooktops. These recommendations were discussed in the March 4, 

1994 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (10 CFR Part 430). The proposed efficiency 

levels for electric ovens would have a dramatic effect on both product price and 

functionality. 

The proposed electric oven design options are: 

Electric Oven, Non-Self-Cleaning 

Electric Oven, Self-Cleaning 

Level 4 has been selected for electric ovens by DOE. 

Artlur D LiHle 1 
Electric cooktop design options are:

Electric CooktoD. Coil Element

Standard Level T 'esign Number Design Options

1 0 Baseline: Coil Element

2 1 0 + Improved Contact Conductance

3, 4, 5 2 1+ Reflective Surfaces

Electric Cooktop, Smooth Element

Our findings are reported as follows:

2.0 Review of Baseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens and

Cooktops

3.0 Review of Baseline DOE Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and

Cooktops

4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review

5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review

2.0 Review of Baseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens

and Cooktops

DOE' s annual energy consumption for electric ranges and ovens are approximately

25% too high. The baseline annual energy usage used by the DOE and a modified

set of energy usage data based on recent metered studies are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: DOE Electric Oven and Cooktop Data

Electric Oven*

- Standard

- Self-clean

Electric Cooktop

- Coil Elements

- Smooth

* Includes clock energy consumption

327.4 __ 245.6

346.7 260.0

271.1 203.3

293.7 220.3

Athr Lithe 2

DOE has selected level 2 for electric cooktops.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Electric cooktop design options are: 

Electric Cooktop, Coil Element 

Electric Cooktop, Smooth Element 

DOE has selected level 2 for electric cooktops. 

Our findings are reported as follows: 

2.0 Review of Baseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens and 

Cooktops 

3.0 Review of Baseline DOE Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and 

Cooktops 

4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review 

5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review 

2.0 Review of Baseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens 

and Cooktops 

DOE's annual energy consumption for electric ranges and ovens are approximately 

25% too high. The baseline annual energy usage used by the DOE and a modified 

set of energy usage data based on recent metered studies are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1: DOE Electric Oven and Cooktop Data 

Electric 

- Standard 

- Self-clean 

Electric Cooktop 

- Coil Elements 

- Smooth 

* Includes clock energy consumption 

ArtJur D Little 

327.4 

346.7 

271.1 

293.7 

- 245.6 

260.0 

203.3 

220.3 

2 
DOE's values represent adjusted (compared to earlier assumptions) annual usage

based on a review of studies that examined range electric energy requirements.

Using the five metered studies from this review DOE determined an average

consumption of 605.1 kWh/yr which they used to develop their energy usage profile.

This average range energy was then partitioned into oven and cooktop usages based

on several factors including sales of range type (self-clean versus standard). For

example, the standard oven with a coil cooktop uses 598 kWh/yr and the self-clean

oven plus coil cooktop produced a usage value of 617 kWh/yr. The DOE energy

values were based in part on metered studies that were more than 13 years old. (note:

product life assumed by DOE is 19 years). These older studies have very high

electric usage and are no longer relevant. The declining energy usage associated with

electric ranges is noted by the DOE. The modified set of electric range energy is

recommended.

The modified energy values presented in Table 1 were obtained by:

• Averaging the results of 3 recent metered studies (1988 through 1992) presented

in Table 2

• Partitioning the range value into oven and cooktop using DOE' s approach -

The recent range metered studies used to generate Table 2 were:

(1) "Residential Energy Usage Comparison Project", EPRI Report CU-6952

(2) "Integrating EIP and HESS Information for Estimating End Use Energies",

Prepared for Siena Pacific Power Co., 1988

(3) "Description of Electric Energy use in Single-Family Residences in the Pacific

Northwest: 1986-1992"; Bonneville Power Administration, Dec 1992 (ELCAP)

The first two studies were cited by DOE (Appendix A; v2 of TSD) but the

Bonneville Power study is omitted. This extensive study examined the range energy

use at 318 sites. Electric range energy usage results from the Bonneville study were:

• Mean: 472 kWh/yr

• Median: 403 kWh/yr

• Standard Deviation: 251 kWh/yr

• Skewness: 1.114

Summarizing these most recent studies, we find that the average range energy use is

449 kWh/yr (Table 2).

thr D Little 3

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

DOE's values represent adjusted (compared to earlier assumptions) annual usage 

based on a review of studies that examined range electric energy requirements. 

Using the five metered studies from this review DOE determined an average 

consumption of 605.1 kWh/yr which they used to develop their energy usage profile. 

This average range energy was then partitioned into oven and cooktop usages based 

on several factors including sales of range type (self-clean versus standard). For 

example, the standard oven with a coil cooktop uses 598 kWh/yr and the self-clean 

oven plus coil cooktop produced a usage value of 617 kWh/yr. The DOE energy 

values were based in part on metered studies that were more than 13 years old. (note: 

product life assumed by DOE is 19 years). These older studies have very high 

electric usage and are no longer relevant. The declining energy usage associated with 

electric ranges is noted by the DOE. The modified set of electric range energy is 

recommended. 

The modified energy values presented in Table 1 were obtained by: 

• A veraging the results of 3 recent metered studies (1988 through 1992) presented 

in Table 2 

• Partitioning the range value into oven and cooktop using DOE's approach 

The recent range metered studies used to generate Table 2 were: 

(1) "Residential Energy Usage Comparison Project", EPRI Report CU-6952 

(2) "Integrating EIP and HE55 Information for Estimating End Use Energies", 

Prepared for Siena Pacific Power Co., 1988 

(3) "Description of Electric Energy use in Single-Family Residences in the Pacific 

Northwest: 1986-1992"; Bonneville Power Administration, Dec 1992 (ELCAP) 

The first two studies were cited by DOE (Appendix A; v2 of TSD) but the 

Bonneville Power study is omitted. This extensive study examined the range energy 

use at 318 sites. Electric range energy usage results from the Bonneville study were: 

• Mean: 472 kWh/yr 

• Median: 403 kWh/yr 

• Standard Deviation: 251 kWh/yr 

• Skewness: 1.114 

Summarizing these most recent studies, we find that the average range energy use is 

449 kWh/yr (Table 2). 

Artlur D Little 3 
This new average range value (449 kWhlyr) was modified to individual oven and

cooktop usage by assuming the same energy split between cooktop and oven that

DOE used (e.g., standard oven - 245.6 kWhlyr=327.4(449/605)).

2.1 Implications of the Modified (Reduced) Range Energy Usage

The substantial reduction (25%) in range energy as compared to the DOE

assumptions has a significant impact on consumer payback per the DOE Cost

Analysis Assumptions. Product paybacks per DOE assumptions are increased by

25% given the lower energy consumption of these appliances.

Examining the DOE generated paybacks in light of the reduced energy usage for the

electric coil element stretches the level 2 payback to 6.5 years as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Electric Coil Cooktop Payback

Payback (yr) per DOE's Assumptions NA 5.2 9.3 9.8 9.8

6.5 12.3 12.3 12.3 usage*

*

per Table 2 data

The payback for the Level 4 design options for the electric self-clean oven is 11.5

years and the standard electric oven with level 4 options is 6.12 years as shown in

Table 4.

Table 4: Payback for Electric Oven Options

Electric Oven DOE N/A 7.1 7.8 9.2

Self-clean Modified* N/A 8.9 9.8 11.5

Electric Oven - Doe N/A 3.7 4.9 4.9

Standard Modified* N/A 4.6 6.1 6.1

*

per Table 2 data

4

Table 2: 1988 Through 1992 Metered Study Summaries

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 2: 1988 Through 1992 Metered Study Summaries 

(1) So Cal Edison 390 

(2) Siena 484 

(3) Bonneville 472 

Average 449 kWh/yr 

This new average range value (449 kWh/yr) was modified to individual oven and 

cooktop usage by assuming the same energy split between cooktop and oven that 

DOE used (e.g., standard oven - 245.6 kWhlyr=327.4·(449/605)). 

2.1 Implications of the Modified (Reduced) Range Energy Usage 

The substantial reduction (25 %) in range energy as compared to the DOE 

assumptions has a significant impact on consumer payback per the DOE Cost 

Analysis Assumptions. Product paybacks per DOE assumptions are increased by 

25% given the lower energy consumption of these appliances. 

Examining the DOE generated paybacks in light of the reduced energy usage for the 

electric coil element stretches the level 2 payback to 6.5 years as shown in Table 3. 

Table 3: Electric Coil Cooktop Payback 

Payback (yr) per DOE's Assumptions 

Payback with modified energy 

usage* 6.5 12.3 12.3 12.3 

* per Table 2 data 

The payback for the Level 4 design options for the electric self-clean oven is ll.5 

years and the standard electric oven with level 4 options is 6.12 years as shown in 

Table 4. 

Table 4: Payback for Electric Oven Options 

Electric Oven 

Self-clean 

Electric Oven -

Standard 

* per Table 2 data 

ArUur D Little 4 
Based on these results, the self-clean oven level 3 and 4 options exceed half of the

projected life of the product.

The design option review presented in Sections 4 and 5 of this report will use DOE

generated values of energy consumed to facilitate comparisons between the findings

presented by DOE and the results of this study. In the electric oven analyses, oven

cooking energy and self-clean energy consumption were considered (clock energy

consumption was not included). However, for future evaluation, the DOE should

adapt more current energy usage data and the information provided in this section

should be used as a guide in revising downward the energy usage of electric ovens

and cooktops.

3.0 Review of DOE Baseline Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and

Coo ktops

The DOE test procedure for determining cooking efficiency is a key technical

parameter in the evaluation of oven performance (i.e., energy factor). DOE's

assumption for baseline efficiency are in general high as compared to the efficiency

test data developed by four major range manufacturers. In addition, these average

values of efficiency (used as baseline) do not reflect the variability in product

efficiency that results in today's manufacturing of ranges, ovens, and cooktops.

Baseline efficiency levels should be established that accounts for the majority of the

units produced.

3.1 Efficiency Testing

Four manufacturers pulled several ranges off their assembly line and conducted the

DOE efficiency test for:

• Coil Cooktops

• Smooth Cooktops

• Standard Oven

• Self-Clean Oven

• Self-Clean-Convection Oven (3 manufacturers provided data)

The self-clean convection oven data on efficiency will be introduced in this section

and its implication on design viability (payback) will be discussed in a later section.

Results of the manufacturers' tests are presented in Thble 5 as the average value

calculated from total sample population. Cooktop sample size represents testing of

several elements on each range.

Bthr D Little 5

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Based on these results, the self-clean oven level 3 and 4 options exceed half of the 

projected life of the product. 

The design option review presented in Sections 4 and 5 of this report will use DOE 

generated values of energy consumed to facilitate comparisons between the findings 

presented by DOE and the results of this study. In the electric oven analyses, oven 

cooking energy and self-clean energy consumption were considered (clock energy 

consumption was not included). However, for future evaluation, the DOE should 

adapt more current energy usage data and the information provided in this section 

should be used as a guide in revising downward the energy usage of electric ovens 

and cooktops. 

3.0 Review of DOE Baseline Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and 

Cooktops 

The DOE test procedure for determining cooking efficiency is a key technical 

parameter in the evaluation of oven performance (i.e., energy factor). DOE's 

assumption for baseline efficiency are in general high as compared to the efficiency 

test data developed by four major range manufacturers. In addition, these average 

values of efficiency (used as baseline) do not reflect the variability in product 

efficiency that results in today's manufacturing of ranges, ovens, and cooktops. 

Baseline efficiency levels should be established that accounts for the majority of the 

units produced. 

3.1 Efficiency Testing 

Four manufacturers pulled several ranges off their assembly line and conducted the 

DOE efficiency test for: 

• Coil Cooktops 

• Smooth Cooktops 

• Standard Oven 

• Self-Clean Oven 

• Self-Clean-Convection Oven (3 manufacturers provided data) 

The self-clean convection oven data on efficiency will be introduced in this section 

and its implication on design viability (payback) will be discussed in a later section. 

Results of the manufacturers' tests are presented in Table 5 as the average value 

calculated from total sample population. Cooktop sample size represents testing of 

several elements on each range. 

Altlur I) little 5 
Table 5: DOE Efficiency Test Results for Electric Cooktop Elements and Ovens

These average efficiency numbers of production oven and cooktops compare

reasonably well with DOE baseline efficiency numbers as shown in Table 6. The

only large difference is in the coil cooktop results.

Table 6: Comparison Between Manufacturer Generated Efficiency Test Data and Baseline DOE

Assumptions

While the average efficiency numbers developed by the manufacturers are in

relatively close agreement with the DOE baseline, the baseline average results do not

reflect normal product variability. This change in baseline data is critical if it is

expected that in the future all units shipped must meet an efficiency target. Using

the average test value would result in half the units failing. A modified baseline

efficiency level is recommended. Using the manufacturer data base, modified

baseline efficiency numbers are presented in Table 7. These modified baseline

efficiencies would allow approximately 82% of the range product coming off the

assembly line to meet baseline assumptions.

3r.r D Little 6

3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Account for Manufacturing Variability

Table 7: Recommend Baseline Efficiencies

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 5: DOE Efficiency Test Results for Electric Cooktop Elements and Ovens 

These average efficiency numbers of production oven and cooktops compare 

reasonably well with DOE baseline efficiency numbers as shown in Table 6. The 

only large difference is in the coil cooktop results. 

Table 6: Comparison Between Manufacturer Generated Efficiency Test Data and Baseline DOE 

Assumptions 

3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Account for Manufacturing Variability 

While the average efficiency numbers developed by the manufacturers are in 

relatively close agreement with the DOE baseline, the baseline average results do not 

reflect nonnal product variability. This change in baseline data is critical if it is 

expected that in the future all units shipped must meet an efficiency target. Using 

the average test value would result in half the units failing. A modified baseline 

efficiency level is recommended. Using the manufacturer data base, modified 

baseline efficiency numbers are presented in Table 7. These modified baseline 

efficiencies would allow approximately 82% of the range product coming off the 

assembly line to meet baseline assumptions. 

Table 7: Recommend Baseline Efficiencies 

Artlur D LiHle 6 
4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review

The oven design alternatives reviewed in the following subsections describe the

impact of the individual options relative to the oven utility, oven efficiency/energy

savings, and simple payback. For these analyses, energy savings were based on the

annual total cooking energy consumption (Eco) as well as the self-clean energy

consumption (Esc)presented by DOE. These values do not include clock energy and

provide a conservative examination of payback for the several design options. Using

these high DOE usage assumptions, the paybacks calculated for the various options

usually exceeded half of the product projected life. These consumption values were

not restated to the modified results presented in Section 2 of this study given that

DOE has not yet had the opportunity to review these findings. The multiplier used to

develop the retail cost premium from the manufacturing cost estimates was set at 2.1.

This matched the lower end of the DOE assumptions for cost multipliers (Appendix

A).

4.1 Forced Convection Design Option

DOE has recommended that forced convection be adopted as part of the electric

standard oven and electric self-clean oven level 4 efficiency improvements. Based on

our evaluation of available data, information provided by the manufacturers, and oven

thermal analysis, this option does not meet consumer payback requirements and it

changes the utility of the oven.

4.1.1 Impact of Forced Convection on Oven Utility

If full-time forced convection ovens are mandated, consumers will have to change a

lifetime of cooking habits based on recipes and cooking procedures using

conventional oven cooking. Favorite family recipes would be affected by

time/temperature changes required for convection cooking. Cooking quality, or the

quality of the food resulting from the cooking process, would change, depending on

the cooking process used.

This study assesses, through a literature review, the effects of convection ovens on

cooking quality. A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection

oven". Six research papers were retrieved from two peer reviewed scientific journals.

Two papers were submitted from university sponsored research. Each paper was

reviewed for convection oven/cooking quality data.

D Little 7

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review 

The oven design alternatives reviewed in the following subsections describe the 

impact of the individual options relative to the oven utility, oven efficiency/energy 

savings, and simple payback. For these analyses, energy savings were based on the 

annual total cooking energy consumption (Eco) as well as the self-clean energy 

consumption (Esc)presented by DOE. These values do not include clock energy and 

provide a conservative examination of payback for the several design options. Using 

these high DOE usage assumptions, the paybacks calculated for the various options 

usually exceeded half of the product projected life. These consumption values were 

not restated to the modified results presented in Section 2 of this study given that 

DOE has not yet had the opportunity to review these findings. The multiplier used to 

develop the retail cost premium from the manufacturing cost estimates was set at 2.1. 

This matched the lower end of the DOE assumptions for cost multipliers (Appendix 

A). 

4.1 Forced Convection Design Option 

DOE has recommended that forced convection be adopted as part of the electric 

standard oven and electric self-clean oven level 4 efficiency improvements. Based on 

our evaluation of available data, information provided by the manufacturers, and oven 

thermal analysis, this option does not meet consumer payback requirements and it 

changes the utility of the oven. 

4.1.1 Impact of Forced Convection on Oven Utility 

If full-time forced convection ovens are mandated, consumers will have to change a 

lifetime of cooking habits based on recipes and cooking procedures using 

conventional oven cooking. Favorite family recipes would be affected by 

timeltemperature changes required for convection cooking. Cooking quality, or the 

quality of the food resulting from the cooking process, would change, depending on 

the cooking process used. 

This study assesses, through a literature review, the effects of convection ovens on 

cooking quality. A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection 

oven". Six research papers were retrieved from two peer reviewed scientific journals. 

Two papers were submitted from university sponsored research. Each paper was 

reviewed for convection oven/cooking quality data. 

Artlur D LiHJe 7 
Research Papers Reviewed

1. "Sensory quality and energy use for baking of molasses cookies prepared with

bleached and unbleached flour and baked in infrared, forced air convection, and

conventional deck ovens" J. Heist & M.L. Cresser, J. Food Science, Vol. 55, No.

4, 1990, P. 1095-1100.

2. "Sensory quality and energy use for scrambled eggs and beef patties heated in

institutional microwave and convection ovens" Cremer, M.L., J. Food Science,

Volume 47, 1982, p. 871-874.

3. "Comparison of drying kinetics of foods using a fan-assisted convection oven, a

microwave oven and a combined microwave/convection oven" Al-Duri, B. and

McIntyre, S., J. Food Engineering, Volume 15, 1992, p. 139-155.

4. "Nutrient retention in pork, turkey breast and corned beef roasts after infrared

and convection heat processing" Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G. Journal

of Food Science, Volume 48, 1983, p. 864-904.

5. "Temperatures of spaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service locations

in a commissary foodservice system." Cremer, M.L. Journal of Food Science,

Volume 43, 1978, p. 1062-1079.

6. "Nutrient retention of portioned menu items after infrared and convection heat

processing" Unklesbay, N., Davins, M.E., Krause, G. Journal of Food Science,

Volume 48, 1983, p. 869-873.

7. "A study of design approaches to convection cooking" Lovingwood, R.P.,

DeMerchant, E.A., Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Walsh, C.M., and Kiridey, S.L., Thermodor Corporation.

8. "Oven performance in convection versus. radiant mode" Lovingwood, R.P., De

Merchant, E.A., and Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State

University, Blacksburg, VA.

From the peer reviewed journals, the findings were:

• Cookies baked in a convection oven were significantly different from those baked

in standard or infrared ovens.

• More energy was used in the convection baking process.

thr D Little 8

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Research Papers Reviewed 

1. "Sensory quality and energy use for baking of molasses cookies prepared with 

bleached and unbleached flour and baked in infrared, forced air convection, and 

conventional deck ovens" J. Heist & M.L. Cresser, J. Food Science, Vol. 55, No. 

4, 1990, p. 1095-1100. 

2. "Sensory quality and energy use for scrambled eggs and beef patties heated in 

institutional microwave and convection ovens" Cremer, M.L., J. Food Science, 

Volume 47, 1982, p. 871-874. 

3. "Comparison of drying kinetics of foods using a fan-assisted convection oven, a 

microwave oven and a combined microwave/convection oven" AI-Duri, B. and 

McIntyre, S., J. Food Engineering, Volume 15, 1992, p. 139-155. 

4. "Nutrient retention in pork, turkey breast and corned beef roasts after infrared 

and convection heat processing" Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G. Journal 

of Food Science, Volume 48, 1983, p. 864-904. 

5. "Temperatures of spaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service locations 

in a commissary foodservice system." Cremer, M.L. Journal of Food Science, 

Volume 43, 1978, p. 1062-1079. 

6. "Nutrient retention of portioned menu items after infrared and convection heat 

processing" Unkles bay, N., Davins, M.E., Krause, G. Journal of Food Science, 

Volume 48, 1983, p. 869-873. 

7. "A study of design approaches to convection cooking" Lovingwood, R.P., 

DeMerchant, E.A., Himes, LJ., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Walsh, C.M., and Kirkley, S.L., Thermodor Corporation. 

8. "Oven performance in convection versus. radiant mode" Lovingwood, R.P., De 

Merchant, E.A., and Himes, LJ., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State 

University, Blacksburg, VA. 

From the peer reviewed journals, the findings were: 

• Cookies baked in a convection oven were significantly different from those baked 

in standard or infrared ovens. -

• More energy was used in the convection baking process. 

IlrUur I) Little 8 
• Heating in a conventional oven of ready prepared or commissary type food

yielded food of higher sensory quality with lower energy input than food

prepared in a convection oven.

• The effect of infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention was similar

in portioned menu items.

• In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with higher temperature

due to the greater driving forces for heat and mass transfer. For products with

low moisture content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the

diffusion process is slow.

From the university sponsored research, the findings were:

• Food prepared by convection was identifiable (lumped layer cake with crack in

center; cookies with variation in browning across the top; meats with crunchier

exterior).

• Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing

convection and standard oven modes.

4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact on Oven Efficiency

The addition of forced convection to a "standard" residential product has a marginal

impact on efficiency, and these gains are far less than those assumed by DOE.

Range manufacturers tested 14 self-clean ovens with convection and found that the

average efficiency was 14.12% as compared to 13.79% for their test of 20 self-clean

ovens.

The impact of this option on overall energy savings is less than 8 kWh/yr as

compared to DOE's assumed savings of 41 kWh/yr for self-clean ovens and 33

kWh/yr for a standard oven (using DOE's adjusted values for EAO minus the clock

energy consumption).

Table 8 presents a detailed comparison of potential energy savings of the convection

feature based on the DOE adjusted baseline energy use. Using the modified oven

energy data presented earlier would show an even smaller savings.

Artlur D Little 9

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

• Heating in a conventional oven of ready prepared or commissary type food 

yielded food of higher sensory quality with lower energy input than food 

prepared in a convection oven. 

• The effect of infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention was similar 

in portioned menu items. 

• In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with higher temperature 

due to the greater driving forces for heat and mass transfer. For products with 

low moisture content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the 

diffusion process is slow. 

From the university sponsored research, the findings were: 

• Food prepared by convection was identifiable (lumped layer cake with crack in 

center; cookies with variation in browning across the top; meats with crunchier 

exterior). 

• Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing 

convection and standard oven modes. 

4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact on Oven Efficiency 

The addition of forced convection to a "standard" residential product has a marginal 

impact on efficiency, and these gains are far less than those assumed by DOE. 

Range manufacturers tested 14 self-clean ovens with convection and found that the 

average efficiency was 14.12% as compared to 13.79% for their test of 20 self-clean 

ovens. 

The impact of this option on overall energy savings is less than 8 kWhlyr as 

compared to DOE's assumed savings of 41 kWhlyr for self-clean ovens and 33 

kWhlyr for a standard oven (using DOE's adjusted values for EAO minus the clock 

energy consumption). 

Table 8 presents a detailed comparison of potential energy savings of the convection 

feature based on the DOE adjusted baseline energy use. Using the modified oven 

energy data presented earlier would show an even smaller savings. 

Artlur D little 9 
Table 8: Energy Saved Using a Convection Option

iTàIean Oven .33% points 313 kWh 7.3 kWh** 41 kWh/yr

Standard Ovens .33% points 293 kWh 7.7 kWh 33 kWh/yr

* Assumed for standard ovens based on self-clean tests

** Example: Savings = 313 - 313 (13.79/14.12) = 7.3 kWh/yr

Our thermal analysis supports the findings of the manufacturers relative to efficiency

improvements of adding convection to standard residential ovens. Our analysis (see

Appendix B for model description) showed that competing heat transfer effects limit

the effectiveness of the convection option. For the residential oven geometry and

convection configuration, the enhancements relative to increased heat transfer to the

product is nearly balanced by greater oven cavity and door losses. The opportunity

to increase surface heat transfer to the food product is limited by the internal heat

transfer characteristics of the product (conduction limited). The current DOE test

procedure featuring an aluminum block (highly conductive) cannot simulate the

impact of forced convection on product quality and hence its use in forced convection

testing is very limited.

4.1.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Forced Convection

Examination of the consumer payback aspect of adding forced convection showed

that the payback associated with this option easily exceeds the half life of the range

and that paybacks of 100+ years are likely. For this analysis, a simple payback was

used of the form

Payback incremental price increase of the convection feature

energy savings associated with convection

The incremental price increase associated with the convection option was developed

from manufacturers' data. Three range manufacturers with extensive experience in

convection ovens provided cost premium data that was significantly higher than the

DOE assumptions. The average manufacturing costpremiums for the convection

option as provided by the range manufacturers was:

Average manufacturing cost premium for convection = $39.61/oven

Ththr D Little 10

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 8: Energy Saved Using a Convection Option 

* Assumed for standard ovens based on self-clean tests 

** Example: Savings = 313 - 313 (13.79/14.12) = 7.3 kWhfyr 

Our thermal analysis supports the findings of the manufacturers relative to efficiency 

improvements of adding convection to standard residential ovens. Our analysis (see 

Appendix B for model description) showed that competing heat transfer effects limit 

the effectiveness of the convection option. For the residential oven geometry and 

convection configuration, the enhancements relative to increased heat transfer to the 

product is nearly balanced by greater oven cavity and door losses. The opportunity 

to increase surface heat transfer to the food product is limited by the internal heat 

transfer characteristics of the product (conduction limited). The current DOE test 

procedure featuring an aluminum block (highly conductive) cannot simulate the 

impact of forced convection on product quality and hence its use in forced convection 

testing is very limited. 

4.1.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Forced Convection 

Examination of the consumer payback aspect of adding forced convection showed 

that the payback associated with this option easily exceeds the half life of the range 

and that paybacks of 100+ years are likely. For this analysis, a simple payback was 

used of the form 

Payback = incremental price increase Of the convection feature 

energy savings associated with convection 

The incremental price increase associated with the convection option was developed 

from manufacturers' data. Three range manufacturers with extensive experience in 

convection ovens provided cost premium data that was significantly higher than the 

DOE assumptions. The average manufacturing cost«t>remiums for the convection 

option as provided by the range manufacturers was: 

Average manufacturing cost premium for convection = $39.6J/oven 

Artlur D LiHJe 10 
Using a multiplier of 2.1 (see Appendix A) on manufacturing cost to achieve a sell

price results in an average price premium of:

Average Incremental Price for Convection Feature = $81.95/oven

Potential payback for this option are presented in Table 9 and they range from 106 to

141 years. These paybacks are extremely long and demonstrate that the forced

convection option is not justified based on energy cost savings. Using the modified

energy usage data would result in even longer paybacks (Section 2.0).

4.2 Reflective Surfaces for Oven Cavity

DOE has recommended that reflective surfaces be incorporated into the oven as an

energy saving technique. Our analysis of this option suggests that:

• Current oven utility is not maintainable using reflective surfaces.

• Modest energy savings are possible.

• Consumer payback is long.

• Major oven design modifications are likely in order to duplicate the current

product life.

4.2.1 Impact of Reflective Coating on Oven Utility

The addition of reflective walls to an existing oven design will change the cooking

process and, as a result, will impact the utility of the oven. A reflective oven cavity

will convey very different thermal radiation to the food as compared to the current

highly emissive cavity designs. A highly reflective ven will reflect radiant heat

from the element that has its wave length set by the very high temperatures of the

bottom heating element.

A1ur D Little 11

Table 9: Forced Convection Payback

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Using a multiplier of 2.1 (see Appendix A) on manufacturing cost to achieve a sell 

price results in an average price premium of: 

Average Incremental Price for Convection Feature = $81.95/oven 

Potential payback for this option are presented in Table 9 and they range from 106 to 

141 years. These paybacks are extremely long and demonstrate that the forced 

convection option is not justified based on energy cost savings. Using the modified 

energy usage data would result in even longer paybacks (Section 2.0). 

Table 9: Forced Convection Payback 

Self-clean Oven 81.95 

4.2 Reflective Surfaces for Oven Cavity 

DOE has recommended that reflective surfaces be incorporated into the oven as an 

energy saving technique. Our analysis of this option suggests that: 

• Current oven utility is not maintainable using reflective surfaces. 

• Modest energy savings are possible. 

• Consumer payback is long. 

• Major oven design modifications are likely in order to duplicate the current 

product life. 

4.2.1 Impact of Reflective Coating on Oven Utility 

The addition of reflective walls to an existing oven design will change the cooking 

process and, as a result, will impact the utility of the oven. A reflective oven cavity 

will convey very different thermal radiation to the food as compared to the current 

highly emissive cavity designs. A highly reflective Q,ven will reflect radiant heat 

from the element that has its wave length set by the very high temperatures of the 

bottom heating element. 

Artlur D little 11 
The characteristics of this reflected radiation is different than the thermal radiation

emitted by the current cavity. The heat re-radiated from the walls is essentially oven

set point temperature (far less than the element temperature) and this radiation has a

longer wavelength as compared to the output of the heating element. The difference

in the wavelength between the reflective cavity and the current design will have a

large effect on surface browning and food quality.

The proposed reflective surface modification to residential oven products changes the

cooking quality of the appliance possibly resulting in overbrowning of food surfaces

and underdone interiors. Underdone interiors could affect food safety, since the

interior of the food may not reach proper sterilization temperature. Additionally, the

emissivity of the reflective surface would not stay constant due to food spills, blueing

from heat, and cleaning compounds. Reflective materials degrade after the first

baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the product. In

particular, the self-cleaning oven process damages the reflective walls. Currently,

about 29% of gas ranges and 58% of electric ovens are self-cleaning. There is no

known cost effective material that will maintain reflective surfaces in a self-cleaning

oven over its 19 year life. [11[21

4.2.2 Impact of Reflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency

Our thermal analysis of the impact of reflective surfaces indicates that energy savings

are not significant when compared to today's highly emissive oven designs. The

small energy reduction is attributed to a slightly lower oven wall temperature as

compared to porcelain coated products. These effects produce lower walllcabinet

losses. In addition, we found that surface oxidation or even thin oil films eliminate

the benefit of a reflective surface. These effects are described in the balance of this

section.

4.2.3 Reflective Surface Efficiency Analysis

The maximum oven efficiency improvement resulting from the use of reflective

surfaces on the oven interior was determined to be less than .58 percentage points

(e.g., from 12.15% to 12.73%) using our oven model (see Appendix B). The

improvement in oven performance results from a larger portion of the heat source

energy being reflected off the oven wall surfaces which keeps more of the energy

within the oven cavity (less energy is absorbed by the surface) and increases the

percentage of useful heat. The net effect is a slightly lower oven wall temperature.

[1] Battelle, et aL, Technical input to NAECA Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges, GRI Interim Report No. GRI93/03 19, July 1993.

[21 Aronov, M., et al., Analysis of Design Options for Reducing the Energy Consumption of Residential Gas

Ovens, American Gas Association Laboratories Research Report, GRI Contract #5086-241-1220.

ArthrD Little 12

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

The characteristics of this reflected radiation is different than the thermal radiation 

emitted by the current cavity. The heat re-radiated from the walls is essentially oven 

set point temperature (far less than the element temperature) and this radiation has a 

longer wavelength as compared to the output of the heating element. The difference 

in the wavelength between the reflective cavity and the current design will have a 

large effect on surface browning and food qUality. 

The proposed reflective surface modification to residential oven products changes the 

cooking quality of the appliance possibly resulting in overbrowning of food surfaces 

and underdone interiors. Underdone interiors could affect food safety, since the 

interior of the food may not reach proper sterilization temperature. Additionally, the 

emissivity of the reflective surface would not stay constant due to food spills, blueing 

from heat, and cleaning compounds. Reflective materials degrade after the first 

baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the product. In 

particular, the self-cleaning oven process damages the reflective walls. Currently, 

about 29% of gas ranges and 58% of electric ovens are self-cleaning. There is no 

known cost effective material that will maintain reflective surfaces in a self-cleaning 

oven over its 19 year life. [1][2] 

4.2.2 Impact of Reflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency 

Our thermal analysis of the impact of reflective surfaces indicates that energy savings 

are not significant when compared to today's highly emissive oven designs. The 

small energy reduction is attributed to a slightly lower oven wall temperature as 

compared to porcelain coated products. These effects produce lower wall/cabinet 

losses. In addition, we found that surface oxidation or even thin oil films eliminate 

the benefit of a reflective surface. These effects are described in the balance of this 

section. 

4.2.3 Reflective Surface Efficiency Analysis 

The maximum oven efficiency improvement resulting from the use of reflective 

surfaces on the oven interior was determined to be less than .58 percentage points 

(e.g., from 12.15% to 12.73%) using our oven model (see Appendix B). The 

improvement in oven performance results from a larger portion of the heat source 

energy being reflected off the oven wall surfaces which keeps more of the energy 

within the oven cavity (less energy is absorbed by the surface) and increases the 

percentage of useful heat. The net effect is a slightly lower oven wall temperature. 

- [1] Battelle, et al., Technical Input to NAECA Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges, GR! Interim Report No. GRI93/0319, July 1993. 

[2] Aronov, M., et al., Analysis of Design Options for Reducing the Energy Consumption of Residential Gas 

Ovens, American Gas Association Laboratories Research Report, GR! Contract #5086-241-1220. 

ArtJur D little 12 
In most situations, radiation energy is either absorbed or reflected. The energy that is

absorbed is re-radiated at a different wavelength. Thus, the emissivity is equal to the

absorptivity of the surface. A highly absorptive surface will have a high emissivity

and a highly reflective surface will have a low emissivity. Therefore, to analyze the

effect of reflective surfaces, the emissivity of the oven interior is reduced to model

the appropriate coating.

The analysis of reflective surfaces focused on steady state and transient heating

improvements. Emissivity values of .1, .3, .5 and .7 were examined to determine

savings in oven efficiency. Table 10 summarizes these heat loss reductions.

Table 10: Heat Loss Reductions for Reflective Coatings Relative to the Baseline Oven

Design (Emissivity for porcelain oven = .92)

Table 11: Breakdown of Savings for Reflective Oven Surfaces

The savings associated with an emissivity of .1 may represent the highest attainable

energy savings for a reflective surface. An emissivity of .1 represents a polished,

unoxidized, and oil free surface which will only exist on a new product. As soon as

a consumer begins to cook in the oven an oil film will start to develop, the surface

will oxidize and the energy savings will quickly decrease. Table 12 illustrates how a

degradation in surface finish will affect emissitivies.

Artlur D Little 13

Table 11 breaks down the actual energy savings for the different surface emissivities

analyzed. The annual energy savings is based on adjusted DOE annual cooking

energy output including self-cleaning energy when appropriate.

* Using manufactures test data for efficiency; baseline self-clean efficiency = 13.79%; baseline standard

oven efficiency = 12.15%

** Based on adjusted DOE energy usage values (EAO minus clock energy consumption)

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

In most situations, radiation energy is either absorbed or reflected. The energy that is 

absorbed is re-radiated at a different wavelength. Thus, the emissivity is equal to the 

absorptivity of the surface. A highly absorptive surface will have a high emissivity 

and a highly reflective surface will have a low emissivity. Therefore, to analyze the 

effect of reflective surfaces, the emissivity of the oven interior is reduced to model 

the appropriate coating. 

The analysis of reflective surfaces focused on steady state and transient heating 

improvements. Emissivity values of .1, .3, .5 and .7 were examined to determine 

savings in oven efficiency. Table 10 summarizes these heat loss reductions. 

Table 10: Heat Loss Reductions for Reflective Coatings Relative to the Baseline Oven 

Design (Emissivity for porcelain oven = .92) 

Table 11 breaks down the actual energy savings for the different surface emissivities 

analyzed. The annual energy savings is based on adjusted DOE annual cooking 

energy output including self-cleaning energy when appropriate. 

Table 11: Breakdown of Savings for Reflective Oven Surfaces 

* Using manufactures test data for efficiency; baseline self-clean efficiency = 13.79%; baseline standard 

oven efficiency = 12.15% 

** Based on adjusted DOE energy usage values (EAO minus clock energy consumption) 

The savings associated with an emissivity of .1 may represent the highest attainable 

energy savings for a reflective surface. An emissivity -of .1 represents a polished, 

unoxidized, and oil free surface which will only exist on a new product. As soon as 

a consumer begins to cook in the oven an oil film will start to develop, the surface 

will oxidize and the energy savings will quickly decrease. Table 12 illustrates how a 

degradation in surface finish will affect emissitivies. 

Artlur D liHIe 13 
Table 12: Emissivities for Various Types of Surfaces

Surface I

Ernissivity

Aluminum - polished .05

Aluminum - slightly oxidized .15

Steel - polished .1

Steel - slightly oxidized .2

Stainless Steel - polished .19-.25

Stainless Steel - slightly oxidized .53

Nickel - polished (Chrome like) .06

Nickel - oxidized .49

Zinc Coating - very bright .14

Zinc Coating - slightly oxidized .28

Zinc Coating - badly furnished .53

Oil Film on Surface (on polished surface) .82

Based on the information in Table 12, we would expect highly reflective wall

surfaces in an oven to quickly erode which will raise emissivities values closer to

.5-.8. As a result, we would expect the annual energy savings to be below 5 kWh.

For self-cleaning ovens, one of the best choices for a reflective cavity would be

stainless steel. Stainless steel would be suitable wall material for an oven that will

see hundreds of 900°F self-clean cleaning cycles over the average 19-year life of the

oven.

For the stainless steel cavity, the wall emissivity would be .5 (oxidized) after the first

self-clean cycle; and the benefit of the surface would be reduced by about 60%.

Chrome coatings are best suited for the standard oven which have temperatures of

600°F. The deposits of even thin coatings of oil from normal cooking use would

quickly cause the deterioration of the reflective quality of the plating. An average

cavity emissivity of about .45 for a chrome-plated oven in daily use would be very

reasonable (assumes half the oven is still highly reflective [E=. 1J and the other half is

soiled {E=.82]). Again, about 60% of the energy savings benefit of the oven would

be lost. Frequent cleaning of the oven would improve the reflectivity cavity quality

provided the user did not scratch or damage the surface using typical cleaning pads

and oven cleaning chemicals.

42.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Reflective Surfaces

The payback associated with the standard or self-clean oven with reflective interior

surfaces was found to be greater than 8-years when using the energy savings

associated with a highly reflective cavity (ideal assumption). A 20+ year payback is

realized if the oven surface reflectance is reduced to account for surface soil or

surface oxidation that will occur oven the life of the product.

Arth ! ttIe 14

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 12: Emissivities for Various Types of Surfaces 

······•······• •.•.•• L~~~12~·;;I.2:;:[ .••• ·· .• · .• ••··•·· •• ·ii···.··.··.··{?··; ..... • ............. .;.. .......... ::... :.):/..:: ... : 

.................... : ................. .::: .. ;:.. ...................... : ..... : ..... :.: ....... : .... : •.................... : [: .... " ........... : ... : ..... : .. : .......•......... 

Aluminum - polished .05 

Aluminum - slightly oxidized .15 

Steel - polished .1 

Steel - slightly oxidized .2 

Stainless Steel - polished .19-.25 

Stainless Steel - slightly oxidized .53 

Nickel - polished (Chrome like) .06 

Nickel - oxidized .49 

Zinc Coating - very bright .14 

Zinc Coating - slightly oxidized .28 

Zinc Coating - badly furnished .53 

Oil Film on Surface ( on polished surface) .82 

Based on the information in Table 12, we would expect highly reflective wall 

surfaces in an oven to quickly erode which will raise emissivities values closer to 

.5-.8. As a result, we would expect the annual energy savings to be below 5 kWh. 

For self-cleaning ovens, one of the best choices for a reflective cavity would be 

stainless steel. Stainless steel would be suitable wall material for an oven that will 

see hundreds of 900°F self-clean cleaning cycles over the average 19-year life of the 

oven. 

For the stainless steel cavity, the wall emissivity would be .5 (oxidized) after the first 

self-clean cycle; and the benefit of the surface would be reduced by about 60%. 

Chrome coatings are best suited for the standard oven which have temperatures of 

600°F. The deposits of even thin coatings of oil from normal cooking use would 

quickly cause the deterioration of the reflective quality of the plating. An average 

cavity emissivity of about .45 for a chrome-plated oven in daily use would be very 

reasonable (assumes half the oven is still highly reflective [£=.1] and the other half is 

soiled [£=.82]). Again, about 60% of the energy savings benefit of the oven would 

be lost. Frequent cleaning of the oven would improve the reflectivity cavity quality 

provided the user did not scratch or damage the surface using typical cleaning pads 

and oven cleaning chemicals. 

4.2.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Reflective Surfaces 

The payback associated with the standard or self-clefm oven with reflective interior 

surfaces was found to be greater than 8-years when using the energy savings 

associated with a highly reflective cavity (ideal assumption). A 20+ year payback is 

realized if the oven surface reflectance is reduced to account for surface soil or 

surface oxidation that will occur oven the life of the product. 

Artlur D little 14 
This design option payback period is excessive, difficult to achieve in practice, and if

implemented would alter the utility of the product. Paybacks calculated for this

option are shown in Table 13 for both the "ideal" case and for reflective surfaces

after service and aging has occurred.

The payback analysis was based on using chrome plating on the oven cavity. While

this technique may not be suitable for a 1 9-year product life, it is probably the least

expensive method for obtaining a reflective surface; it is substantially less expensive

than a stainless steel cavity or liners. The price premium associated with chrome

plating was taken as average of Arthur D. Little, DOE and manufacturers' estimates.

4.2.4 Reflective Surface Issues Relative to Manufacturing

In the following paragraphs preliminary costs to manufacture electroplated chrome

surfaces for ovens are developed and issues relative to achieving 20-year life with

such surfaces are discussed.

We have selected electroplated chrome for the reflective surface due to the stability

of the protective oxide which forms on chrome, and electroplating for compatibility

with existing manufacturing operations for the oven cavity.

Two general classes of chrome plating are available: hard chrome and "decorative"

chrome. The first, hard chrome, is used for engineering applications where wear and

corrosion resistance are needed. Decorative chrome produces a highly reflective

surface, and would be the process of choice for the oven application. The overall

process for achieving a polished surface using decorative chrome at minimum cost

progresses through the following steps:

• Mechanical polishing of the substrate

• Copper plating (0.1 mil)

• Mechanical buffing of the copper layer

• Copper plating (flash)

• Nickel plating (2 layers 0.2 mil in thickness)

?3JurD Lithe 15

Table 13: Payback Associated with Reflective Oven Surfaces

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

This design option payback period is excessive, difficult to achieve in practice, and if 

implemented would alter the utility of the product. Paybacks calculated for this 

option are shown in Table 13 for both the "ideal" case and for reflective surfaces 

after service and aging has occurred. 

Table 13: Payback Associated with Reflective Oven Surfaces 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Self-Clean 

The payback analysis was based on using chrome plating on the oven cavity. While 

this technique may not be suitable for a 19-year product life, it is probably the least 

expensive method for obtaining a reflective surface; it is substantially less expensive 

than a stainless steel cavity or liners. The price premium associated with chrome 

plating was taken as average of Arthur D. Little, DOE and manufacturers' estimates. 

4.2.4 Reflective Surface Issues Relative to Manufacturing 

In the following paragraphs preliminary costs to manufacture electroplated chrome 

surfaces for ovens are developed and issues relative to achieving 20-year life with 

such surfaces are discussed. 

We have selected electroplated chrome for the reflective surface due to the stability 

of the protective oxide which forms on chrome, and electroplating for compatibility 

with existing manufacturing operations for the oven cavity. 

Two general classes of chrome plating are available: hard chrome and "decorative" 

chrome. The first, hard chrome, is used for engineering applications where wear and 

corrosion resistance are needed. Decorative chrome produces a highly reflective 

surface, and would be the process of choice for the oven application. The overall 

process for achieving a polished surface using decorative chrome at minimum cost 

progresses through the following steps: 

• Mechanical polishing of the substrate 

• Copper plating (0.1 mil) 

• Mechanical buffing of the copper layer 

• Copper plating (flash) 

• Nickel plating (2 layers 0.2 mil in thickness) 

Ilrtlur I) Little 15 
Chrome plating

Typically, the decorative chrome plate is less than 50 millionths of an inch. For a

part in which only the interior needs plating, masking and stripping steps may be

included to block off the external surface.

Cost of the plating can be estimated from the time in the bath, and the part loading

per tank. For purposes of this calculation, tank time costs of $40 to $50 per hour

(margins not included) and deposition of 1⁄2 mu in 15 minutes have been assumed.

The cost of a part then depends on the parts per rack, and the rack capacity of the

tank. In this calculation, 8 parts per rack or 4 oven cavities and door pieces per rack

were assumed. This leads to an oven cavity plating cost of only $2.50 to $3.00

without overheating and margins.

Polishing of the steel surface and masking of the external surfaces introduces

additional costs. For hand operations, the costs of these steps could exceed the cost

of the plating. However, for large production volumes, robotic polishing and

masking steps will significantly bring down costs. For this preliminary analysis,

surface preparation costs equaled that of plating, for a total cost of $5.00 to $6.00.

Range manufacturers would have to make major investments in an automated chrome

plating line to achieve this low cost premium. Use of plating vendors could double

the cost.

The preliminary chrome plating cost can be summarized as follows:

• Average plating and preparation cost $5.50/oven

• Incremental consumer price for reflective surface $1 1.55/oven

This incremental pure estimate is about 3 times of that assumed by the DOE

($3.06/unit retail). Another chrome plating estimate was provided by one of the

major range companies which placed the manufacturing cost premium of a chrome

plated oven over the standard product at $9.40/unit or a customer price increase of

$19.74/unit. The average of these three values is $11.45 [= (19.74 + 11.55 + 3.06)/3J

which was used in the payback analysis.

Significant materials issues relative to a 19-year chrome cavity life are:

• Chrome deposits are brittle and can microcrack depending on the thickness and

the applications. Thermal cycling of the oven stresses the oven walls further

promoting the cracking process. The effect of cracks on the corrosion rate of the

substrate due to oxidation, and food and cleaning chemicals must be determined.

Artlur D Little 16

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

• Chrome plating 

Typically, the decorative chrome plate is less than 50 millionths of an inch. For a 

part in which only the interior needs plating, masking and stripping steps may be 

included to block off the external surface. 

Cost of the plating can be estimated from the time in the bath, and the part loading 

per tank. For purposes of this calculation, tank time costs of $40 to $50 per hour 

(margins not included) and deposition of Y2 mil in 15 minutes have been assumed. 

The cost of a part then depends on the parts per rack, and the rack capacity of the 

tank. In this calculation, 8 parts per rack or 4 oven cavities and door pieces per rack 

were assumed. This leads to an oven cavity plating cost of only $2.50 to $3.00 

without overheating and margins. 

Polishing of the steel surface and masking of the external surfaces introduces 

additional costs. For hand operations, the costs of these steps could exceed the cost 

of the plating. However, for large production volumes, robotic polishing and 

masking steps will significantly bring down costs. For this preliminary analysis, 

surface preparation costs equaled that of plating, for a total cost of $5.00 to $6.00. 

Range manufacturers would have to make major investments in an automated chrome 

plating line to achieve this low cost premium. Use of plating vendors could double 

the cost. 

The preliminary chrome plating cost can be summarized as follows: 

• Average plating and preparation cost.,. $5.50/oven 

• Incremental consumer price for reflective surface 01. $1 1. 55/oven 

This incremental pure estimate is about 3 times of that assumed by the DOE 

($3.06/unit retail). Another chrome plating estimate was provided by one of the 

major range companies which placed the manufacturing cost premium of a chrome 

plated oven over the standard product at $9.40/unit or a customer price increase of 

$19.74/unit. The average of these three values is $11.45 [= (19.74 + 11.55 + 3.06)/3] 

which was used in the payback an.alysis. 

Significant materials issues relative to a 19-year chrome cavity life are: 

• Chrome deposits are brittle and can microcrack depending on the thickness and 

the applications. Thermal cycling of the oven stresses - the oven walls further 

promoting the cracking process. The effect of cracks on the corrosion rate of the 

substrate due to oxidation, and food and cleaning chemicals must be determined. 

Artlur D Little 16 
• Thermal cycling of the oven cavity stresses the deposit increasing the potential

for loss of adhesion. Quality control of bath and operating parameters becomes

critical to insure consistent adhesion of the deposit.

The cavity reflectivity will likely change over time.

In addition, the manufacturers will likely have major investments including:

• Oven design modifications since deposition of bright chrome on the interior

surface of an open welded box presents several issues:

- Crevices along the weld line and corners creates the potential for solution

retention in recesses. Residual bath solutions can contaminate subsequent

plating bathes and cause corrosion of the completed part.

- Polishing and buffing of interior surfaces with corners and right angles may

require specialized equipment.

- Conformal anodes may be needed to obtain uniform thickness and deposit

properties on the inside of the box.

- A trade-off analysis should be conducted regarding the cost benefits of

masking the outside of the cavity from plating. Masking before plating and

stripping the mask after plating can contribute significant to cost.

• An appliance manufacturer has to consider the cost benefits of setting up an

internal plating operation versus the use of external plating shops. An internal

chrome plating operation entails an investment in a waste treatment plant and

precautions for working with chromic acid.

4.3 Improved Door Seal for Standard Electric Ovens

Based on efficiency and cost data provided by manufacturers this option has a very

minor impact on oven efficiency and a price premium that creates a payback in

excess of 10 years. In addition, the door seal improvements may effect the cooking

performance of the oven. The door seal allows both fresh air to enter the oven cavity

(bottom seal) and it acts as a partial oven vent (upper door seal line). Modifications

to the door seal could have a negative impact of moisture concentration in the cavity

with a resulting negative impact on cooking perforntnce.

r D Little 17

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

• Thermal cycling of the oven cavity stresses the deposit increasing the potential 

for loss of adhesion. Quality control of bath and operating parameters becomes 

critical to insure consistent adhesion of the deposit. 

• The cavity reflectivity will likely change over time. 

In addition, the manufacturers will likely have major investments including: 

• Oven design modifications since deposition of bright chrome on the interior 

surface of an open welded box presents several issues: 

Crevices along the weld line and corners creates the potential for solution 

retention in recesses. Residual bath solutions can contaminate subsequent 

plating bathes and cause corrosion of the completed part. 

Polishing and buffing of interior surfaces with corners and right angles may 

require specialized equipment. 

Conformal anodes may be needed to obtain uniform thickness and deposit 

properties on the inside of the box. 

A trade-off analysis should be conducted regarding the cost benefits of 

masking the outside of the cavity from plating. Masking before plating and 

stripping the mask after plating can contribute significant to cost. 

• An appliance manufacturer has to consider the cost benefits of setting up an 

internal plating operation versus the use of external plating shops. An internal 

chrome plating operation entails an investment in a waste treatment plant and 

precautions for working with chromic acid. 

4.3 Improved Door Seal for Standard Electric Ovens 

Based on efficiency and cost data provided by manufacturers this option has a very 

minor impact on oven efficiency and a price premium that creates a payback in 

excess of 10 years. In addition, the door seal improvements may effect the cooking 

performance of the oven. The door seal allows both fresh air to enter the oven cavity 

(bottom seal) and it acts as a partial oven vent (upper door seal line). Modifications 

to the door seal could have a negative impact of moisture concentration in the cavity 

with a resulting negative impact on cooking perfonrl'Ifnce. 

IlrtlurD little 17 
4.3.1 Improved Door Seal Efficiency

The oven efficiency was found to increase by .24 percentage points (i.e., baseline

efficiency increased 12.15% to 12.39%) when the standard oven gasket was replaced

with the improved gasket system. As shown below in Table 14, this door seal

improvement results in 5.68 kWh being saved.

Table 14: Energy Saving Associated with an Improved Door Seal

Incremental Efficiency

Product

DOE Adjusted Oven Savings kWh Improvement Energy Use

Standard Oven with

new Door Seal

24%* 293 kWh/yr 5.68 kWh/yr

* Would raise baseline efficiency of 12.15 to 12.39%

The .24 percentage points improvement to oven efficiency was determined by

conducting efficiency tests on 5 standard ranges modified with the improved seals

(self-clean type gasket) and comparing their performance to standard oven

performance. These tests were conducted by one of the major range manufacturers.

4.3.2 Payback Associated with Improved Door Seal

Using the energy savings shown above and the price added associated with

incorporating a self-clean door into a standard oven, the payback was estimated in the

range of 13 to 17 years. Table 15 presents the payback findings.

Table 15: Payback for Standard Oven Door Seal Improvement

Product Incremental Price' E ectric nce

Energy Cost Payback of New Sea! savings

$ .08/kwh $ .45/yr 17.2 yr Standard Oven $7. 74 $ .1/kWh $ .57/yr 13.58 yr

The incremental price of adapting a self-clean door seal to a standard oven was

determined by:

• Averaging the manufacturing cost estimated provided by three major range

manufacturers.

(Average $3.69/door seal system)

• Multiplying the average manufacturer cost increment by 2.1 (i.e., price = 2.1 *

3.69)

Modifications to a standard oven for a self-clean seal include mounting brackets, door

liner (2 pieces), and the new gasket.

ArthrD Little 18

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

4.3.1 Improved Door Seal Efficiency 

The oven efficiency was found to increase by .24 percentage points (i.e., baseline 

efficiency increased 12.15% to 12.39%) when the standard oven gasket was replaced 

with the improved gasket system. As shown below in Table 14, this door seal 

improvement results in 5.68 kWh being saved. 

Table 14: Energy Saving Associated with an Improved Door Seal 

new Door Seal .24%* 

* Would raise baseline efficiency of 12.15 to 12.39% 

The .24 percentage points improvement to oven efficiency was determined by 

conducting efficiency tests on 5 standard ranges modified with the improved seals 

(self-clean type gasket) and comparing their performance to standard oven 

performance. These tests were conducted by one of the major range manufacturers. 

4.3.2 Payback Associated with Improved Door Seal 

Using the energy savings shown above and the price added associated with 

incorporating a self-clean door into a standard oven, the payback was estimated in the 

range of 13 to 17 years. Table 15 presents the payback findings. 

Table 15: Payback for Standard Oven Door Seal Improvement 

Standard Oven 

The incremental price of adapting a self-clean door seal to a standard oven was 

determined by: 

• Averaging the manufacturing cost estimated provided by three major range 

manufacturers. 

(Average $3.69/door seal system) 

• Multiplying the average manufacturer cost increment by 2.1 (i.e., price = 2.1 * 

3.69) 

Modifications to a standard oven for a self-clean seal include mounting brackets, door 

liner (2 pieces), and the new gasket. 

Ilrtlur D Little 18 
4.4 Increased Oven Insulation Design Option

DOE has recommended an increase in cavity insulation of 2 inches, that is, increasing

the insulation wrap around the oven from 2 to 4 inches. While a 2-inch increase

insulation will have a large impact (1.4 percentage points on a 12.15% baseline) on

the oven energy usage it will have a negative effect on the utility of the oven and

range appliances. The current range product is designed around a number of kitchen

constraints which include:

30-inch installed width (standard for U.S. kitchens)

30-inch countertop height (standard for U.S. kitchens)

24-inch deep countertop dimension (standard for U.S. kitchens)

• Zero clearance installation of range (i.e. appliance touching cabinet side walls

and back wall)

• Cooking cavity large enough to accommodate a large turkey roaster pan and an

oven that can cook multiple racks of food

Need to maintain cool coil cooktop surface of range (at 30-inch level)

• Need to have the oven as high as possible to minimize lifting products to and

from the oven

As a result of these needs, the oven design has evolved to the following:

23-inch wide by 16-inch wide, by 18-inch deep cavity

2 inches of insulation around cavity

^-inch side wall air wipe(needed for zero clearance)

• 1⁄2-inch clearance for constructionlinstallation tolerance (e.g., 29 1⁄2-inch wide

cabinet)

• 3-inch space clearance between the top of the oven insulation and range cooktop

surface (Note: 2 inches minimum needed for co1 elements/bowls, and 1-inch air

wide needed when all elements and oven are in use)

• 21⁄2-inch space across back of oven to provide air wipe cooling and electrical

connections of oven heating elements (bake and broil)

tIur D Little 19

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

4.4 Increased Oven Insulation Design Option 

DOE has recommended an increase in cavity insulation of 2 inches, that is, increasing 

the insulation wrap around the oven from 2 to 4 inches. While a 2-inch increase 

insulation will have a large impact (1.4 percentage points on a 12.15% baseline) on 

the oven energy usage it will have a negative effect on the utility of the oven and 

range appliances. The current range product is designed around a number of kitchen 

constraints which include: 

• 30-inch installed width (standard for U.S. kitchens) 

• 30-inch countertop height (standard for U.S. kitchens) 

• 24-inch deep countertop dimension (standard for U.S. kitchens) 

• Zero clearance installation of range (i.e. appliance touching cabinet side walls 

and back wall) 

• Cooking cavity large enough to accommodate a large turkey roaster pan and an 

oven that can cook multiple racks of food 

• Need to maintain cool coil cooktop surface of range (at 30-inch level) 

• Need to have the oven as high as possible to minimize lifting products to and 

from the oven 

As a result of these needs, the oven design has evolved to the following: 

• 23-inch wide by 16-inch wide, by 18-inch deep cavity 

• 2 inches of insulation around cavity 

• lA-inch side wall air wipe(needed for zero clearance) 

• Y2-inch clearance for construction/installation tolerance (e.g., 29 Y2-inch wide 

cabinet) 

• 3-inch space clearance between the top of the oven insulation and range cooktop 

surface (Note: 2 inches minimum needed for co'" elementslbowls, and I-inch air 

wide needed when all elements and oven are in use) 

• 2Y2-inch space across back of oven to provide air wipe cooling and electrical 

connections of oven heating elements (bake and broil) 

IlrtJurD little 19 
Increasing the insulation (2 to 4 inches) thickness would either:

Increase the size of the overall cabinet

Reduce the oven cavity volume

Both of these options would impact the utility of the appliance.

Increasing the size of the range to accommodate the additional insulation would

result in a product that could not be retrofitted into existing kitchens (range width

increase from 30 to 34 inches). In addition, the oven cavity would be lowered by

two inches within the range to accommodate the extra top insulation (need 3-inch

space between cooktop and oven insulation liner) thereby making the oven access

more difficult as users would have to lift products from lower elevations. This

additional lifting would be very difficult on the elderly and those who are physically

challenged. Finally, lowering the cavity for the additional roof insulation, and adding

the extra oven floor installation would effectively eliminate the drawer space under

the cavity. This is an important feature for today's ranges and it is a point of product

differentiation.

Taking the approach of reducing the cavity size to accommodate the additional

insulation would have a large impact on cooking utility. For example, reducing the

cavity width from 22 to 23 inches to 18 to 19 inches would eliminate the possibility

of cooking large family dinners (e.g. 25 lb. turkey). In addition, the much narrower

oven would impact typical two-pan baking performance. In two-pan or sheet-baking

performance, the clearance around the sheets or pans (18- by 131⁄2-inch) is needed for

uniform heating/cooking of racks of products. Typical two-pan baking includes

cookies, two large cakes, 4 nine-inch round cakes, pies, and roast with vegetables.

Finally, some current cookware could not be suitable for reduced oven space.

4.4.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Increased Insulation

Our analysis using the oven model agrees with the DOE finding that thicker

insulation (up to 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4 percentage point increase in oven

efficiency, but implementation of this design may affect the utility of the appliance.

Table 16 illustrates the annual energy savings and oven efficiency improvements for

both standard and self-clean electric ovens.

Artlur D Little 20

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Increasing the insulation (2 to 4 inches) thickness would either: 

• Increase the size of the overall cabinet 

• Reduce the oven cavity volume 

Both of these options would impact the utility of the appliance. 

Increasing the size of the range to accommodate the additional insulation would 

result in a product that could not be retrofitted into existing kitchens (range width 

increase from 30 to 34 inches). In addition, the oven cavity would be lowered by 

two inches within the range to accommodate the extra top insulation (need 3-inch 

space between cooktop and oven insulation liner) thereby making the oven access 

more difficult as users would have to lift products from lower elevations. This 

additional lifting would be very difficult on the elderly and those who are physically 

challenged. Finally, lowering the cavity for the additional roof insulation, and adding 

the extra oven floor installation would effectively eliminate the drawer space under 

the cavity. This is an important feature for today's ranges and it is a point of product 

differentiation. 

Taking the approach of reducing the cavity size to accommodate the additional 

insulation would have a large impact on cooking utility. For example, reducing the 

cavity width from 22 to 23 inches to 18 to 19 inches would eliminate the possibility 

of cooking large family dinners (e.g. 25 lb. turkey). In addition, the much narrower 

oven would impact typical two-pan baking performance. In two-pan or sheet-baking 

performance, the clearance around the sheets or pans (18- by 13Yz-inch) is needed for 

uniform heating/cooking of racks of products. Typical two-pan baking includes 

cookies, two large cakes, 4 nine-inch round cakes, pies, and roast with vegetables. 

Finally, some current cookware could not be suitable for reduced oven space. 

4.4.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Increased Insulation 

Our analysis using the oven model agrees with the DOE finding that thicker 

insulation (up to 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4 percentage point increase in oven 

efficiency, but implementation of this design may affect the utility of the appliance. 

Table 16 illustrates the annual energy savings and oven efficiency improvements for 

both standard and self-clean electric ovens. 

-

Artlur D liHIe 20 
Table 16: Improvement in Oven Efficiency Associated with Added Insulation

To complete the analysis, the baseline oven information was modified to reflect a

thicker insulation with the same thermal conductivity. The analysis indicates that a

thicker insulation reduces steady state heat losses, lowering the oven's energy

consumption. The model also indicates that changes in energy required to heat the

oven cavity are negligible.

45 Thermal Mass Design Option

Decreasing the thermal mass will improve the oven efficiency, but reductions in

material thickness are very limited. These limitations are based on:

An average porcelain thickness is needed for adequate wall coverage.

• Sheet metal thickness reductions are limited by the use of akeady thin materials

(typical .024 inches).

Porcelain coverage is non-uniform in the oven given the current manufacturing

techniques and the average thickness is established to provide the minimum porcelain

layer for the most difficult to coat areas of the cavity. Sheet metal thickness is close

to minimum given current tooling, existing part designs (e.g. draws) and assembly

techniques. A major range manufacturer estimates that material weight reductions of

1⁄2 lb are possible but they would still require oven redesign (e.g., ribs, door shape)

and new tooling.

The energy savings associated with a 1⁄2 lb reduction in cavity thermal mass is far

less than the assumptions made by DOE. The energy savings are presented in Table

17.

7thr D Little 21

* Based on annual adjusted cooking energy output (E0) and self-clean energy consumption (E5)

when applicable

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 16: Improvement in Oven Efficiency Associated with Added Insulation 

...... IIIIIIIIIIII[II!!IIIIIIIII!!IIIIIIIIII .... 

Added 

Insulation 10.4% 30.5 

12.10% 13.9% 

32.5 13.5% 15.5% 

Based on annual adjusted cooking energy output (Eco) and self-clean energy consumption (Esc) 

when applicable 

To complete the analysis, the baseline oven information was modified to reflect a 

thicker insulation with the same thermal conductivity. The analysis indicates that a 

thicker insulation reduces steady state heat losses, lowering the oven's energy 

consumption. The model also indicates that changes in energy required to heat the 

oven cavity are negligible. 

4.5 Thermal Mass Design Option 

Decreasing the thermal mass will improve the oven efficiency, but reductions in 

material thickness are very limited. These limitations are based on: 

• An average porcelain thickness is needed for adequate wall coverage. 

• Sheet metal thickness reductions are limited by the use of already thin materials 

(typical .024 inches). 

Porcelain coverage is non-uniform in the oven given the current manufacturing 

techniques and the average thickness is established to provide the minimum porcelain 

layer for the most difficult to coat areas of the cavity. Sheet metal thickness is close 

to minimum given current tooling, existing part designs (e.g. draws) and assembly 

techniques. A major range manufacturer estimates that material weight reductions of 

Y2 lb are possible but they would still require oven redesign (e.g., ribs, door shape) 

and new tooling. 

The energy savings associated with a Y2 lb reduction in cavity thermal mass is far 

less than the assumptions made by DOE. The energy savings are presented in Table 

17. _ 

ArtlurD little 21 
Table 17: Potential Energy Saving due to Reduced Mass

A 1⁄2 to 1 lb reduction in oven cavity thennal mass will reduce oven energy

consumption by 0.35% to 0.70%. Table 18 illustrates the effect on adjusted annual

energy consumption and oven efficiency.

Table 18: The Effect of Reducing Oven Cavity Thermal Mass on Annual Energy

Consumption and Oven Efficiency

The reduced thermal mass decreases the energy required to heat the oven cavity from

ambient temperatures. The effect of a lower thermal mass is negligible at steady

state conditions because the heat loss through the wall is dominated by the resistance

of the insulation surrounding the oven cavity wall.

4.6 Elimination of the Oven Window Design Option

Elimination of the current oven window by definition has a positive energy savings

and a good payback. This option does change the utility of the oven, that is,

consumers currently perceive a major benefit in the window option, and are willing

to pay a premium for this feature. Roughly 70% of all units shipped include a

window. The user will have to change their behavior when using the oven without a

window. In particular, baking will require more user attention as the baked product

(e.g., cake or cookies) nears completion. Rather than quickly inspecting through the

window, the user will have to open the door severalimes to determine doneness.

4.6.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Window Elimination

Our analysis indicates that the amount of energy saved relative to window

elimination is about half that reported by DOE (5 kWh/yr as compared to 10

kWhlyr). This decrease in oven efficiency is due to several door openings per cycle.

raur D Ltt!e 22

4.5.1 Reduction in Thermal Mass Analysis

* 1 lb represent much less than 10% of the oven cavity weight (sheet metal and porcelain only)

** Based on annual adjusted cooking energy output (Eo) and self-cleaning energy (Es0) when applicable

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 17: Potential Energy Saving due to Reduced Mass 

4.5.1 Reduction in Thermal Mass Analysis 

A Yz to 1 lb reduction in oven cavity thermal mass will reduce oven energy 

consumption by 0.35% to 0.70%. Table 18 illustrates the effect on adjusted annual 

energy consumption and oven efficiency. 

Table 18: The Effect of Reducing Oven Cavity Thermal Mass on Annual Energy 

Consumption and Oven Efficiency 

* 1 Ib represent much less than 10% of the oven cavity weight (sheet metal and porcelain only) 

•• Based on annual adjusted cooking energy output (Eco) and self-cleaning energy (Escl when applicable 

The reduced thermal mass decreases the energy required to heat the oven cavity from 

ambient temperatures. The effect of a lower thermal mass is negligible at steady 

state conditions because the heat loss through the wall is dominated by the resistance 

of the insulation surrounding the oven cavity wall. 

4.6 Elimination of the Oven Window Design Option 

Elimination of the current oven window by definition has a positive energy savings 

and a good payback. This option does change the utility of the oven, that is, 

consumers currently perceive a major benefit in the window option, and are willing 

to pay a premium for this feature. Roughly 70% of all units shipped include a 

window. The user will have to change their behavior when using the oven without a 

window. In particular, baking will require more user attention as the baked product 

(e.g., cake or cookies) nears completion. Rather than quickly inspecting through the 

window, the user will have to open the door severalJimes to determine doneness. 

4.6.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Window Elimination 

Our analysis indicates that the amount of energy saved relative to window 

elimination is about half that reported by DOE (5 kWh/yr as compared to 10 

kWh/yr). This decrease in oven efficiency is due to several door openings per cycle. 

ArtJur D Little 22 
Our analysis assumes three product examinations per cook cycle. For some products

where proper finishing is difficult, the number of door openings may be greater.

This suggests that the efficiency impact at best is a .25 percentage point increase and

not the .48% to .55% projected by DOE.

Eliminating an oven door window reduces the input energy requirements for cooking

by approximately 3% as determined through modelling the oven. This reduction in

energy consumption increases the oven efficiency from 12.10% to 12.47% for

standard electric oven and from 13.9% to 14.33% for a self-clean electric (Table 19).

Table 19: Effects of Reducing or Eliminating a Door Window on a Self-Clean Electric

Oven Energy Consumption

The elimination of the window saves approximately 9.7 kWh per year for a self-clean

oven. However, these values assume no door opening.

To determine the effect of door openings or energy savings, the actual energy saved

per cycle must be calculated. The number of cooking cycles can be estimated to be

about 264 by using the following information:

Adjusted annual DOE cooking energy for self-clean electric: 255 kWh

• 13.9% cooking efficiency

• The DOE established test method for heating an 8.5-lb aluminum block which

requires about 457.5 Btu to reach 305°F from 77°F

• Only cooking energy was considered since the oven door cannot be opened

during self-clean

Each cooking cycle used about .964 kWh which reslts in approximately 30 watt hrs

(102 Btus) saved per cycle when the window is eliminated.

To determine how much energy is lost by opening the oven door, all of the oven air

is assumed to be replaced by ambient air. This results in about 16 Btu heat loss per

door opening for the model oven.

Little 23

* Based on adjusted cooking energy output (E0) and selt-cleaning energy (Esc) when applicable

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Our analysis assumes three product examinations per cook cycle. For some products 

where proper finishing is difficult, the number of door openings may be greater. 

This suggests that the efficiency impact at best is a .25 percentage point increase and 

not the .48% to .55% projected by DOE. 

Eliminating an oven door window reduces the input energy requirements for cooking 

by approximately 3% as determined through modelling the oven. This reduction in 

energy consumption increases the oven efficiency from 12.10% to 12.47% for 

standard electric oven and from 13.9% to 14.33% for a self-clean electric (Table 19). 

Table 19: Effects of Reducing or Eliminating a Door Window on a Self-Clean Electric 

Oven Energy Consumption 

* Based on adjusted cooking energy output (Eco) and self-cleaning energy (Esd when applicable 

The elimination of the window saves approximately 9.7 kWh per year for a self-clean 

oven. However, these values assume no door opening. 

To determine the effect of door openings or energy savings, the actual energy saved 

per cycle must be calculated. The number of cooking cycles can be estimated to be 

about 264 by using the following information: 

• Adjusted annual DOE cooking energy for self-clean electric: 255 kWh 

• 13.9% cooking efficiency 

• The DOE established test method for heating an 8.5-lb aluminum block which 

requires about 457.5 Btu to reach 305e

F from 7TF 

• Only cooking energy was considered since the oven door cannot be opened 

during self-clean 

Each cooking cycle used about .964 kWh which results in approximately 30 watt hrs 

(102 Btus) saved per cycle when the window is eliminated. 

To determine how much energy is lost by opening the oven door, all of the oven air 

is assumed to be replaced by ambient air. This results in about 16 Btu heat loss per 

door opening for the model oven. 

IlrtJur D little 23 
Table 20 shows that the actual annual energy savings for a self-clean oven may be

reduced to about 7.0 kWh when 3 door openings occur per cooking cycle because the

window is eliminated.

Table 20: Actual Annual Energy Savings and Oven Efficiency When the Door Window is

Eliminated and 3 Extra Door Openings Occur

5.1 Improved Contact Conductance Design Option for Electric Coil Cooktop

DOE has recommended that improved contact conductance for electric cooktops

would increase the coil cooktop efficiency from DOE's baseline of 77.2% to 80.5%.

The potential for achieving this large improvement was investigated as part of this

program. Findings indicate that little real efficiency improvement is possible.

These test findings were based on cooking experiments (using the Uniform Test

Procedure) and not the DOE block test which is not suitable for measuring this

effect.

5.1.1 Effect of Surface Contact Resistance on Range-Top Efficiency

The effect of contact resistance on range-top efficiency was evaluated by performing

heat transfer calculations and conducting tests using the Uniform Test Procedure for

commercial range-tops.

Residential range-tops are manufactured with a flatness of approximately ±.005

inches. The degree of contact with the cooking surface varies with flatness and

roughness of the cooking utensil (pot or pan). As part of this program, a range of

"contact" conditions were considered on several tests boiling pasta. Findings include:

The steady state efficiency of the cooktop is 95.0%.

Increasing the contact pressure between the pot and coil by a factor of nearly

four has no impact on steady state efficiency.

If the potlcoil interface is not flat (e.g., small gap of .01 inches), the efficiency

drops to below 70%.

Artlur D !JtJe 24

5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 20 shows that the actual annual energy savings for a self-clean oven may be 

reduced to about 7.0 kWh when 3 door openings occur per cooking cycle because the 

window is eliminated. 

Table 20: Actual Annual Energy Savings and Oven Efficiency When the Door Window is 

Eliminated and 3 Extra Door Openings Occur 

5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review 

5.1 Improved Contact Conductance Design Option for Electric Coil Cooktop 

DOE has recommended that improved contact conductance for electric cooktops 

would increase the coil cooktop efficiency from DOE's baseline of 77.2% to 80.5%. 

The potential for achieving this large improvement was investigated as part of this 

program. Findings indicate that little real efficiency improvement is possible. 

These test findings were based on cooking experiments (using the Uniform Test 

Procedure) and not the DOE block test which is not suitable for measuring this 

effect. 

5.1.1 Effect of Surface Contact Resistance on Range-Top Efficiency 

The effect of contact resistance on range-top efficiency was evaluated by performing 

heat transfer calculations and conducting tests using the Uniform Test Procedure for 

commercial range-tops. 

Residential range-tops are manufactured with a flatness of approximately ±.005 

inches. The degree of contact with the cooking surface varies with flatness and 

roughness of the cooking utensil (pot or pan). As part of this program, a range of 

"contact" conditions were considered on several tests boiling pasta. Findings include: 

• The steady state efficiency of the cooktop is 95.0%. 

- • Increasing the contact pressure between the pot and coil by a factor of nearly 

four has no impact on steady state efficiency. 

• If the pot/coil interface is not flat (e.g., small gap of .01 inches), the efficiency 

drops to below 70%. 

Al1:.Iur D little 24 
5.1.2 Conductance Analysis

A simple heat transfer model was used to estimate the importance of contact

resistance in range-top coils. In this analysis, an aluminum pot containing boiling

water was considered with the following assumed values:

Pot thickness

Inside pot surface ten

Burner temperature

Pot emissivty

Range-top emissivity

Contact resistance

.125 in.

perature 212°F

1400°F

.6

.9

.002 hr. ft. °F/Btu

The contact resistance was taken from the G.E. Handbook for contact between two

milled surfaces of steel and aluminum. Three situations were modeled.

1) The coil transfers heat to the pot by radiation exchange with the burner top

surface only. This assUmes a non-conducting medium between the coil and the

pot. Reflection and emission from the burner pan under the heating element is

small and not included.

2) The burner transfers heat to the pot by conduction only with the above assumed

value for contact resistance. Data from G.E. shows strong correlation of contact

pressure and heat transfer conductance.

3) The coil transfers heat by radiation and conduction with the above assumed valve

for contact resistance.

The analytical results are given in Table 21. The model indicates that the conduction

through the gap dominates radiation by a factor of approximately 50. The results of

Situation 3 above, the most realistic, also demonstrates that radiation has a small

influence compared to conduction. In addition, contact pressure is the dominate

parameter in both contact resistance and forcing the pot and coil to conform to each

other.

Artlur D Little 25

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

5.1.2 Conductance Analysis 

A simple heat transfer model was used to estimate the importance of contact 

resistance in range-top coils. In this analysis, an aluminum pot containing boiling 

water was considered with the following assumed values: 

Pot thickness .125 in. 

Inside pot surface temperature 212 OF 

Burner temperature 1400°F 

Pot emissivty .6 

Range-top emissivity .9 

Contact resistance .002 hr. ft. °FlBtu 

The contact resistance was taken from the G.E. Handbook for contact between two 

milled surfaces of steel and aluminum. Three situations were modeled. 

1) The coil transfers heat to the pot by radiation exchange with the burner top 

surface only. This assumes a non-conducting medium between the coil and the 

pot. Reflection and emission from the burner pan under the heating element is 

small and not included. 

2) The burner transfers heat to the pot by conduction only with the above assumed 

value for contact resistance. Data from G.E. shows strong correlation of contact 

pressure and heat transfer conductance. 

3) The coil transfers heat by radiation and conduction with the above assumed valve 

for contact resistance. 

The analytical results are given in Table 21. The model indicates that the conduction 

through the gap dominates radiation by a factor of approximately 50. The results of 

Situation 3 above, the most realistic, also demonstrates that radiation has a small 

influence compared to conduction. In addition, contact pressure is the dominate 

parameter in both contact resistance and forcing the pot and coil to conform to each 

other. 

ArtJur D liHIe 25 
Table 21: Analytical Heat Transfer Results

The experimental investigation involved an efficiency test on a residential range-top

and used the proposed uniform test procedure (UTP) for commercial range-tops.

The range-top coil element tested was a typical 8-inch coil top and tests were

performed with the coil on Thigh." New 12-inch diameter aluminum pots with lids

and containing 20 lbs. of water were used per the UTP specification. The system

was stabilized by heating one pot for 30 minutes. Next, a test pot was placed on the

burner with the water initially at room temperature (approximately 70°F). A watt

hour meter measured the electrical energy required to raise the water to

approximately 200°F. A thermocouple centered in the water was used to determine

the energy transferred. Four different tests were completed.

1) A base test was completed with 20 lbs. of water and the lid positioned normally.

2) Contact resistance was then increased by placing a weight of approximately 68

lbs. on the top of the lid, increasing the pressure on the coil by a factor of 3.8.

3) The effect of a tighter lid produced in condition 2 above was investigated by

clamping the lid closed and running the test. The weight of the clamps were

negligible.

4) A space was provided between the coil and the pot to evaluate the overall effect

of the situation where the coil or pot was not flat.

All four tests outlined above were completed twice and the results are shown in

Table 22.

As indicated, efficiency results for the pot in contact with the coil are essentially the

same regardless of contact pressure. An increase in contact pressure by a factor of

almost 4 had no noticeable effect. As demonstrated in the analytical results,

conduction via physical contact with the pot is the major mechanism for heat transfer.

Artlur D Little 26

5.2 Impact of Contact Conductance on Coil Efficiency - Testing

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 21: Analytical Heat Transfer Results 

2 

3 

Radiation heat transfer only between coil 

top surface and pot 

Conduction heat transfer only via contact 

resistance between coil and pot 

Conduction and radiation heat transfer 

between coil and pot 

5.2 Impact of Contact Conductance on Coil Efficiency - Testing 

1.13 x 104 

5.75 X 105 

5.85 X 105 

The experimental investigation involved an efficiency test on a residential range-top 

and used the proposed uniform test procedure (UTP) for commercial range-tops. 

The range-top coil element tested was a typical 8-inch coil top and tests were 

performed with the coil on "high." New 12-inch diameter aluminum pots with lids 

and containing 20 lbs. of water were used per the UTP specification. The system 

was stabilized by heating one pot for 30 minutes. Next, a test pot was placed on the 

burner with the water initially at room temperature (approximately 70°F). A watt 

hour meter measured the electrical energy required to raise the water to 

approximately 200°F. A thermocouple centered in the water was used to determine 

the energy transferred. Four different tests were completed. 

1) A base test was completed with 20 lbs. of water and the lid positioned normally. 

2) Contact resistance was then increased by placing a weight of approximately 68 

lbs. on the top of the lid, increasing the pressure on the coil by a factor of 3.8. 

3) The effect of a tighter lid produced in condition 2 above was investigated by 

clamping the lid closed and running the test. The weight of the clamps were 

negligible. 

4) A space was provided between the coil and the pot to evaluate the overall effect 

of the situation where the coil or pot was not flat. 

All four tests outlined above were completed twice and the results are shown in 

Table 22. 

As indicated, efficiency results for the pot in contact -with the coil are essentially the 

same regardless of contact pressure. An increase in contact pressure by a factor of 

almost 4 had no noticeable effect. As demonstrated in the analytical results, 

conduction via physical contact with the pot is the major mechanism for heat transfer. 

Artlur D little 26 
Table 22: Range-Top Efficiency Using UTP Protocol

Impact on Efficiency 14-quart pot with 20 lb. water and lid 94.8 95.1

of Increased Same case as 1 with 68.5 lb. weight added

Conductance to lid 95.0 94.7

____________

Same case as 1 with clamped lid 94.9 96.5

Impact on Efficiency if ______________________________________ _____________ ____________

the Pot and Coil are Same case as 1 with air spacing between

Not in Good Contact - pot and burner 61.2 66.0 Small Gap Test 1: .057 in.

Test 2: .013 in.

Artlur D Little 27

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table 22: Range-Top Efficiency Using UTP Protocol 

Impact on Efficiency 14-quart pot with 20 lb. water and lid 94.8 95.1 

of Increased Same case as 1 with 68.5 lb. weight added 

Conductance to lid 95.0 94.7 

Same case as 1 with clamped lid 94.9 96.5 

Impact on Efficiency if 

the Pot and Coil are Same case as 1 with air spacing between 

Not in Good Contact - pot and burner 61.2 66.0 Small Gap Test 1: .057 in. 

Test 2: .013 in. 

-

Artlur I) little 27 
Appendix A

Estimation of Manufacturing Cost to Retail Pricing Multiplier

The DOE analysis for estimating manufacturing cost to retail cost had a net result of

producing a multiplier in the range of 2.16 to 3.01. We used a conservative value of

2.1 in our analysis. This multiplier represents the various mark-ups that occur after

manufacturing or

Approximate Retail Cost = (K) Manufacturing Cost

where K = Mark-up Factor

Table A-i presents the DOE data relative to estimated manufacturing costs and retail

options for electric oven and cooktop designs.

Table A-i: Manufacturing Cost Multiplier

**K -

Retail

-

\ Cost

Artlur D Little A-i

* = difference between level (2 or 4)

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Appendix A 

Estimation of Manufacturing Cost to Retail Pricing Multiplier 

The DOE analysis for estimating manufacturing cost to retail cost had a net result of 

producing a multiplier in the range of 2.16 to 3.0l. We used a conservative value of 

2.1 in our analysis. This multiplier represents the various mark-ups that occur after 

manufacturing or 

Approximate Retail Cost = (K) Manufacturing Cost 

where K = Mark-up Factor 

Table A-I presents the DOE data relative to estimated manufacturing costs and retail 

options for electric oven and cooktop designs. 

Table A-1: Manufacturing Cost Multiplier 

·6= difference between level (2 or 4) 

**K = 6 Retail 

6 Cost 

Artlur D LiHle 

-

A-1 
Appendix B

Oven Analysis

An oven analysis was conducted using Arthur D. Little's Transient Thermal Analysis

program and an oven model capable of investigating design changes. Modifications

such as eliminating the viewing window, reflective interior surfaces, improved

insulation and convection cooking were analyzed using this process to identify

changes in cooking energy requirements and cooking efficiency.

Description of the Transient Thermal Analysis Program

Arthur D. Little developed the Transient Thermal Analysis Program (TTA) for the Jet

Propulsion Laboratory in August 1963 [Reference 1]. This program numerically

solves the equations which are used to describe the thermal behavior of a physical

system. TTA is a FORTRAN program which is designed to solve differential

equations which arise in heat transfer problems involving conduction, radiation and

convection. TTA uses a finite difference solver with a Newton - Raphson iterative

process to solve the radiation tenns.

Thermal characteristics, such as conductivities, convective heat transfer coefficients,

radiative view factors and emissivities, and geometry are input required to model the

thermal behavior of a physical system. TTA can model both transient and steady

state behavior of a system.

Oven Model

Using TTA, a thermal model of an average residential oven (Figure 1) has been

developed to analyze the impact of various energy saving design recommendations

made in the DOE Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Proposed

Rule dated March 4, 1994. The baseline model consists of 10 nodes (Figure 2):

1. Ambient air

2. Oven cavity air

3. Top inside wall

4. Bottom inside wall

5. Right inside wall

6. Back inside wall

7. Left inside wall

8. Door - front- inside wall

9. Glass - front inside wall

10. Heat source

Artlur D Little B-i

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Appendix 8 

Oven Analysis 

An oven analysis was conducted using Arthur D. Little's Transient Thennal Analysis 

program and an oven model capable of investigating design changes. Modifications 

such as eliminating the viewing window, reflective interior surfaces, improved 

insulation and convection cooking were analyzed using this process to identify 

changes in cooking energy requirements and cooking efficiency. 

Description of the Transient Thermal Analysis Program 

Arthur D. Little developed the Transient Thennal Analysis Program (TTA) for the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory in August 1963 [Reference 1]. This program numerically 

solves the equations which are used to describe the thennal behavior of a physical 

system. TTA is a FORTRAN program which is designed to solve differential 

equations which arise in heat transfer problems involving conduction, radiation and 

convection. TTA uses a finite difference solver with a Newton - Raphson iterative 

process to solve the radiation tenns. 

Thermal characteristics, such as conductivities, convective heat transfer coefficients, 

radiative view factors and emissivities, and geometry are input required to model the 

thennal behavior of a physical system. TTA can model both transient and steady 

state behavior of a system. 

Oven Model 

Using TTA, a thermal model of an average residential oven (Figure 1) has been 

developed to analyze the impact of various energy saving design recommendations 

made in the DOE Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Proposed 

Rule dated March 4, 1994. The baseline model consists of 10 nodes (Figure 2): 

1. Ambient air 

2. Oven cavity air 

3. Top inside wall 

4. Bottom inside wall 

5. Right inside wall 

6. Back inside wall 

7. Left inside wall 

8. Door - front- inside wall 

9. Glass - front inside wall 

10. Heat source 

Artlur D Little B-1 
15.5"

22"

Porcek

'a ..4j LA

I

Figure B-i: Average Residential Oven Characteristics

The relationships between nodes and critical model assumptions can be summarized

as follows:

• Convection occurs between oven cavity air and the heating element and walls.

• Heating element radiates to oven walls, top and ottom surfaces.

• Conduction/convection occurs between the walls and the ambient air.

• Ambient air is at a fixed temperature.

• Heating element source is at a fixed temperature.

Steel .029' Insulation 2"

in .OO67"SteeI

Ineit1 MII

Artlur D Little B-2

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

15.5" 5.5" 

15" 

v 

22" 

Glass .065" Air .5" 

~ lGlass .065' 

Inside Wall ~'I 

~Insulation 2" 

Porcelain .00675" .f f 

Inside Wall 

Figure 8-1: Average Residential Oven Characteristics 

The relationships between nodes and critical model assumptions can be summarized 

as follows: 

• Convection occurs between oven cavity air and the heating element and walls. 

• Heating element radiates to oven walls, top and bottom surfaces. 

• Conduction/convection occurs between the walls and the ambient air. 

• Ambient air is at a fixed temperature. 

• Heating element source is at a fixed temperature. 

Altlur D LiHle 8-2 
3

7

6

10

4

Figure B-2: Transient Thermal Analysis Oven Model

•1

These relationships were used to write the equations to describe the heat transfer

between nodes. To write these equations, conduction, convection, radiation and heat

generation coefficients were defined. Table B-i lists thermal conductivities that were

assumed for the conduction calculations in the oven model:

Table B-i: Wall Materials Properties Used in Baseline Oven Design to Calculate

Conduction Heat Transfer Parameters

Arthur D Little B-3

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

3 

7 

6 

10 

4 

1- - - - --- - -- - - - --- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- ---------- --,"': " , ,"'...... . 

,'//// A 

......... ". -". -.. ". - --+-----t-- 8 

r----.r--t--- 5 

9 

,/',' , .. ' " , /,,/ ~ -' ,,/ . -- ~. -.,.. ,.. , - , 

,,' .':a"""",. 

'-' 

"'- - -- ------ --- ------------- --------- -- ---------- ----- -----------------

Figure B-2: Transient Thermal Analysis Oven Model 

-1 

These relationships were used to write the equations to describe the heat transfer 

between nodes. To write these equations, conduction, convection, radiation and heat 

generation coefficients were defined. Table B-1 lists thennal conductivities that were 

assumed for the conduction calculations in the oven model: 

Table B-1: Wall Materials Properties Used in Baseline Oven Design to Calculate 

Conduction Heat Transfer Parameters 

-

Altlur D Little B-3 
The basic equations used to calculate the convective heat transfer coefficients

included:

Nt hcL C(GrPr)M

Gr Grashof number 23 (Tw- 1) L3

where:

Pr = Prandtl number

L characteristic length, ft

g = 32.2 ftls2

= l/Tf, hR

T = wall temperature, F

T = oven temperature, F

v = kinematic viscosity, ft2/sec

Tf = film temperature, F (average of wall and oven air temperatures)

h = convective heat transfer coefficient Btul(hr ft2 °F)

k = thermal conductivity Btu/(hr - ft °F)

The variables c and m are dependent on the orientation of the wall to the oven air.

Table B-2 details the values of c and m used in the oven model.

Artlur D Little

Table B-2: Definitions of Variables Used in Convection Calculations

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

The basic equations used to calculate the convective heat transfer coefficients 

included: 

hcL M N~ = C(GrPr) K 

Gr = Grashof number: 2~ (Tw- 1) L 3 

y2 

where: 

Pr = Prandtl number 

L = characteristic length, ft 

g = 32.2 ft/s 2 

~ = IITf, IIR 

T w = wall temperature, F 

T = oven temperature, F 

y = kinematic viscosity, ft2/sec 

Tf = film temperature, F (average of wall and oven air temperatures) 

he = convective heat transfer coefficient Btu/(hr ft2 OF) 

k = thermal conductivity Btu/(hr - ft OF) 

The variables c and m are dependent on the orientation of the wall to the oven air. 

Table B-2 details the values of c and m used in the oven model. 

Table B-2: Definitions of Variables Used in Convection Calculations 

ArUur D little B·4 
The main parameters required for the radiation terms include the surface emissivity

and the surface view factors. The view factors which describe the interaction of

radiation energy between two surfaces were calculated from data presented in

References 2 and 3. The emissivity of porcelain was assumed to be .92.

The parameters for conduction, convection and radiation were determined to describe

the interrelationships of nodes in the oven model and listed above. These values

were used as inputs in TTA to solve the steady state and transient analyses.

All design options were compared at ambient temperatures of 80°F and an oven set

point temperature of 350°F. For steady state runs the heating element surface

temperature was varied until the oven set point temperature was reached. The

relative change in heat loss is an indication of the energy savings once the oven has

reached steady state conditions.

The model was run in a transient mode to determine the effects of design options on

heat up time. The percentage change in heat up time is an indication of the reduction

in heat required to reach the set point temperature. In these runs, the heat source

temperature was varied for each design option to maintain a constant heat input rate.

To transform the steady state energy loss savings and the reduction in heat up time

into actual annual energy savings, the relationship between each of these savings to

total energy consumed in a cooking cycle must be understood. The cooking cycle

energy consumption is made of three components: energy required to preheat the

oven, steady state heat losses and energy absorbed by the cooking food. To estimate

the energy required for a cooking cycle, information published by the DOE was

utilized. The DOE estimates that approximately 293 kWh per year (adjusted DOE

values) are used for oven cooking in a home. Considering the DOE test procedure

for heating an 8.5 lb aluminum block to 325°F (requires 457.5 Btus) and an oven

cooking efficiency of 12.10% for a conventional electric oven, the amount of cooking

cycles per year can be estimated to be approximately 264 (standard electric oven).

The average per cycle energy consumption is about 3781 Btus or 1108 watt-hrs.

To determine the approximate energy required for heat up, a conventional electric

oven, was operated to a 350°F oven set point temperature. A watt-hr meter was used

to record input power during the heat up period. The heat up time was determined to

be under 7 minutes with approximately 890 Btus required to heat the oven thermal

mass.

Table B-3 illustrates the energy breakdown for a typical electric oven. This

information is used to help calculate annual cooking energy savings from oven

efficiency improvements identified in steady state and transient oven model analyses.

Artlur D Little B-5

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

The main parameters required for the radiation terms include the surface emissivity 

and the surface view factors. The view factors which describe the interaction of 

radiation energy between two surfaces were calculated from data presented in 

References 2 and 3. The emissivity of porcelain was assumed to be .92. 

The parameters for conduction, convection and radiation were determined to describe 

the interrelationships of nodes in the oven model and listed above. These values 

were used as inputs in TTA to solve the steady state and transient analyses. 

All design options were compared at ambient temperatures of 80°F and an oven set 

point temperature of 350°F. For steady state runs the heating element surface 

temperature was varied until the oven set point temperature was reached. The 

relative change in heat loss is an indication of the energy savings once the oven has 

reached steady state conditions. 

The model was run in a transient mode to determine the effects of design options on 

heat up time. The percentage change in heat up time is an indication of the reduction 

in heat required to reach the set point temperature. In these runs, the heat source 

temperature was varied for each design option to maintain a constant heat input rate. 

To transform the steady state energy loss savings and the reduction in heat up time 

into actual annual energy savings, the relationship between each of these savings to 

total energy consumed in a cooking cycle must be understood. The cooking cycle 

energy consumption is made of three components: energy required to preheat the 

oven, steady state heat losses and energy absorbed by the cooking food. To estimate 

the energy required for a cooking cycle, information published by the DOE was 

utilized. The DOE estimates that approximately 293 kWh per year (adjusted DOE 

values) are used for oven cooking in a home. Considering the DOE test procedure 

for heating an 8.5 lb aluminum block to 325°F (requires 457.5 Btus) and an oven 

cooking efficiency of 12.10% for a conventional electric oven, the amount of cooking 

cycles per year can be estimated to be approximately 264 (standard electric oven). 

The average per cycle energy consumption is about 3781 Btus or 1108 watt-hrs. 

To determine the approximate energy required for heat up, a conventional electric 

oven, was operated to a 350°F oven set point temperature. A watt-hr meter was used 

to record input power during the heat up period. The heat up time was determined to 

be under 7 minutes with approximately 890 Btus required to heat the oven thermal 

mass. 

Table B-3 illustrates the energy breakdown for a typical electric oven. This 

information is used to help calculate annual cooking energy savings from oven 

efficiency improvements identified in steady state and transient oven model analyses. 

ArtJur D liHIe 8-5 
Table B-3: Breakdown of Energy Requirements for a Cooking Cycle

References:

Arthur D. Little, Inc., Description of a Transient Thermal Analysis Program,' report to Jet Propulsion

Laboratory, February 1967.

2. Kreish, Frank, Principles of Heat Transfer, 3rd Edition

3. Holman, J. P., Heat Tranfer, 5th Edition.

Artlur D Little B-6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table B-3: Breakdown of Energy Requirements for a Cooking Cycle 

References: 

1. Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Description of a Transient Thermal Analysis Program," report to Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory, February 1967. 

2. Kreish, Frank, Principles of Heat Transfer, 3rd Edition 

3. Holman, J. P., Heat Tranfer, 5th Edition. 

-

Artlur D Little B-6 
Engineering Sciences

Fax Transmittal Form

To: Brooks Stauffer Fax No: 1-202-434-7400

AHAM

Regulatory Atf airs

From: David Mallory Date: July 18% 1994

ARTHUR D. UTFLE, INC.

20 Acorn Park, Room 201533

Cambridge, MA 02140-2390

Pages (including this one): 1

Tel: 617/498-5856

Return FAX: 617/4987208

Messages -

Dear Mr. Stauffer:

I em sending the information you requested from Arlene Marge on annual useful cooking

energy output for electric ovens and cooktops, see Table 1.

Table I Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output For Electric Ovens And Cooktops

The modified annual energy usage values detailed in ADLs report where based on recent

metered studies that indicated the adjusted DOE values where approximately 25% too high.

This ratio was also applied to the annual useful cooking energy output for electric ovens and

cooktopa to determine the values in Table I.

If you any questions on the information, pleaBe do no hesitate to call.

Helping create the right product at the right time

Aitlur Little

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Engineering Sciences 

.Fax Transmittal Form 

To: Brooke Stauffer 

AHAM 

Fax No: 1-202-434-7400 

Regulatory Affairs 

. From: David Mallory Date: 

ARTHUR D. UTTLE, INC. 

20 Acorn Park, Room 201533 

Cambridge, MA 02140-2390 

July 18.1994 

Pages (including this one): 1 

Tel: 

Return FAX: 

Message: 

617/498-5856 

617/49&-7206 

Dear Mr. Stauffer: 

I am sending the information yOU requested from Arlene Marge on annual useful cooking 

energy output for electric ovens and cooktops, see Table 1. 

Table 1 Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output For Electric Ovens And Cooktops 

DOE Values Modified Values 

Ovens 35.15 kWhlyr 26.6 kWh/yr 

Cooktops 209.4 kWhlyr 157.0 kWh/yr 

The modified annual energy usage values detailed in AOL's report where based on recent 

metered studies that indicated the adjusted DOE values where approXimately 25% too high. 

This ratiO was also applied to the annual useful cooking energy output for electric ovens and 

cooktops to determine the values in Table 1. 

If you any questions on the information, please do no hesitate to cal!. 

Helping create the right product at the right time 

ArthIr D Little 
The Effects of Convection Oven

Cooking on Food Quality

Presentation to GRI's

NAECA Range Technical

Advisory Group

May25, 1994

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park

Cambridge, Massachusetts

02140-2390

(617) 49&-5000

Reference 42943-25

Aitlur D Little

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

The Effects of Convection Oven 

Cooking on Food Quality 

llrtlur D Little 

Presentation to GRI's 

NAECA Range Technical 

Advisory Group 

May 25,1994 

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

Acorn Park 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

02140-2390 

(617) 49a:-5000 

Reference 42943-25 
Agenda

Objective

• Approach

• Summary of Results

• Individual Studies

Artlur D Little

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Agenda 

• Objective 

• Approach 

• Summary of Results 

• Individual Studies 

Ilrtlur D LiHle 1 
Objective

To assess, through a literature review, the effects of convection ovens on

cooking quality.

Artlur D Little

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Objective 

To assess, through a literature review, the effects of convection ovens on 

cooking quality. 

Ilrtlur D Little 2 
Approach

• A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection oven".

• Six papers were retrieved from two peer reviewed scientific journals:

-Journal of Food Science

-Journal of Food Engineering

• Two papers were submitted from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State

University.

• Each paper was reviewed for convection oven/cooking quality data and

summarized.

Artlur D Little 3

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Approach 

• A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection oven". 

• Six papers were retrieved from two peer reviewed scientific journals: 

- Journal of Food Science 

- Journal of Food Engineering 

• Two papers were submitted from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State 

University. 

• Each paper was reviewed for convection oven/cooking quality data and 

summarized. 

Artlur D Little 3 
Summary of Results

Peer Reviewed Journals:

-Cookies should be baked in a convection oven due to significantly

higher values for flavor and texture characteristics.

-More energy was used in the convection baking process.

- For heating food in ready prepared or commissary type foodservice

systems, microwave ovens yielded food of higher sensory quality with

lower energy input than food prepared in a convection oven.

-The effect of infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention

was similar in portioned menu items.

-Temperature variability is a significant factor in heating food in

convection ovens, and equipment model has significant influence.

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute

- Food prepared by convection were identifiable (lumped layer cake with

crack in center; cookies with variation in browning across the top;

meats with crunchier exterior).

-The type of heating system does not significantly affect results in

baking and roasting.

Arthn'D Little 4

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Summary of Results 

• Peer Reviewed Journals: 

- Cookies should be baked in a convection oven due to significantly 

higher values for flavor and texture characteristics. 

- More energy was used in the convection baking process. 

- For heating food in ready prepared or commissary type foodservice 

systems, microwave ovens yielded food of higher sensory quality with 

lower energy input than food prepared in a convection oven. 

- The effect of infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention 

was similar in portioned menu items. 

- Temperature variability is a significant factor in heating food in 

convection ovens, and equipment model has significant inflUence. 

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

- Food prepared by convection were identifiable (lumped layer cake with 

crack in center; cookies with variation in browning across the top; 

meats with crunchier exterior). 

- The type of heating system does not significantly affect results in 

I baking and roasting. 

Artlur D Little 4 
Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Baking of Molasses Cookies

Prepared with Bleached and Unbleached Flour and Baked in Infrared,

Forced Air Convection, and Conventional Deck Ovens.

I Objective:

To prepare cookies with bleached and unbleached flour (2 formulas) baked in institutional

deck, infrared and convection ovens to determine the effects on sensory qualities and energy

for baking.

Procedure:

• Sensory quality of cookies was evaluated by trained panelists using such attributes as:

uniformity in round shape

cracking of top surface (number, width, depth of cracks)

surface browning (uniformity, intensity)

basic tastes

texture (softness, crispness, chewiness)

• Energy measurement was monitored, i.e. electricity in watt-hours, gas in cubic feet, and converted

to BTU's.

• Data was coded and analyzed by several statistical methods

Artlur D Little 5

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Baking of Molasses Cookies 

Prepared with Bleached and Unbleached Flour and Baked in Infrared, 

Forced Air Convection, and Conventional Deck Ovens. 

I~=:~:,woj To prepare cookies with bleached and unbleached flour (2 formulas) baked in institutional 

deck, infrared and convection ovens to determine the effects on sensory qualities and energy 

for baking. 

I~ 

• Sensory quality of cookies was evaluated by trained panelists using such attributes as: 

uniformity in round shape 

cracking of top surface (number, width, depth of cracks) 

surface browning (uniformity, intensity) 

basic tastes 

texture (softness, crispness, chewiness) 

• Energy measurement was monitored, i.e. electricity in watt-hours, gas in cubic feet, and converted 

to BTU's. 

• Data was coded and analyzed by several statistical methods 

Ilrtlur D Little 5 
Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Baking of Molasses Cookies

Prepared with Bleached and Unbleached Flour and Baked in Infrared,

Forced Air Convection, and Conventional Deck Ovens (continued).

Results:

• Cookies baked in the convection oven were significantly different than those baked in the deck

oven and infrared oven. They had higher values for all flavor characteristics, softness,

uniformity in round shape and intensity of surface browning. The deck oven gave crispier,

chewier, and browner cookies.

• Energy use for baking was significantly higher in the convection than the other two ovens.

• Bleached flour gave significantly higher values than unbleached flour.

Reference: J. Heist & M.L. Cresser, J. Food Science, Volume 55, No. 4, 1990. 1095-1100.

ArtlurD Little 6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Baking of Molasses Cookies 

Prepared with Bleached and Unbleached Flour and Baked in Infrared, 

Forced Air Convection, and Conventional Deck Ovens (continued). 

I Results: I iM§%*kM~:n#t .. ·¥.;····t&&"¥"i·?.f5 

• Cookies baked in the convection oven were significantly different than those baked in the deck 

oven and infrared oven. They had higher values for all flavor characteristics, softness, 

uniformity in round shape and intensity of surface browning. The deck oven gave crispier, 

chewier, and browner cookies. 

• Energy use for baking was significantly higher in the convection than the other two ovens. 

• Bleached flour gave significantly higher values than unbleached flour. 

Reference: J. Heist & M.L. Cresser, J. Food Science, Volume 55, No.4, 1990. 1095-1100. 

Artlur D Little 6 
Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Scrambled Eggs and Beef Patties

Heated in Institutional Microwave and Convection Ovens.

I Objective:

To determine energy use and sensory quality of food heated in microwave and convection

ovens to temperatures considered effective for microbiological safety.

I

ProcJj

Portions of scrambled eggs and beef patties were heated in a Blodgett Model FA-1 00 gas

convection oven (85,000 BTU per hr.) and Hobart Model M312 microwave oven (2860 W).

Sensory evaluations were performed by a trained panel using such attributes as:

Beef Patties

appearance

tenderness

juiciness

flavor

general acceptability

Scrambled Eggs

color

texture

flavor

general acceptability

Artlur P Little 7

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Scrambled Eggs and Beef Patties 

Heated in Institutional Microwave and Convection Ovens. 

To determine energy use and sensory quality of food heated in microwave and convection 

ovens to temperatures considered effective for microbiological safety. 

1==-1 

• Portions of scrambled eggs and beef patties were heated in a Blodgett Model FA-100 gas 

convection oven (85,000 BTU per hr.) and Hobart Model M312 microwave oven (2860 W). 

Sensory evaluations were performed by a trained panel using such attributes as: 

Beef Patties 

appearance 

tenderness 

juiciness 

flavor 

general acceptability 

Artlur D Little 

Scrambled Eggs 

color 

texture 

flavor 

general acceptability 

7 
Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Scrambled Eggs and Beef Patties

Heated in Institutional Microwave and Convection Ovens (continued).

Results:

• Eggs heated in the microwave oven were scored significantly higher for all characteristics

evaluated than eggs heated in the convection oven.

• Beef patties heated in the convection oven were scored significantly higher for all

characteristics than patties heated in the microwave.

Reference: Cremer, M.L., J. Food Science, Volume 47, 1982. 871 -874.

ArtlurD Little 8

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Scrambled Eggs and Beef Patties 

Heated in Institutional Microwave and Convection Ovens (continued). 

l==-l 

• Eggs heated in the microwave oven were scored significantly higher for all characteristics 

evaluated than eggs heated in the convection oven. 

• Beef patties heated in the convection oven were scored significantly higher for all 

characteristics than patties heated in the microwave. 

Reference: Cremer, M.L., J. Food Science, Volume 47, 1982. 871-874. 

IlrtJur D Little 8 
Comparison of Drying Kinetics

Convection Oven, A Microwave

Convection Oven.

of Foods Using A Fan-Assisted

Oven and A Combined Microwave/

(ctiveLj

To determine the drying rate curves (moisture content vs. time) for five types of foods (skim

milk powder, whole milk powder, casein powder, butter, fresh pasta) using a mixed-facility

cooker (microwave and hot air) which can be operated in convection, microwave, and

microwave/convection operations.

ldureJ

Uncovered petri dishes were placed in the oven with the required material. During the drying

process, the natural weight was measured at regular intervals. Drying was stopped when the

material reached a constant weight.

Results and Conclusions:

In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with temperature increase due to the

increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer. However, for products with a low moisture

content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the diffusion process is slow.

Drying rate increases with power output of a microwave oven as the dielectric properties of the

food change. The uniformly dry product obtained makes microwaving suitable for low moisture

or heat sensitive materials.

Hot air with microwave power increases drying rate, yet operation at higher temperatures is not

recommended due to burning and non-uniformity.

Reference: Al-Dun, B., and Mcintyre, S., J. Food Engineering, Volume 15, 1992. 139-155.

Arthir P Little 9

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Comparison of Drying Kinetics of Foods Using A Fan-Assisted 

Convection Oven, A Microwave Oven and A Combined Microwave/ 

Convection Oven. 

I ~.~~.:~.~~.~ .• 

To determine the drying rate curves (moisture content vs. time) for five types of foods (skim 

milk powder, whole milk powder, casein powder, butter, fresh pasta) using a mixed-facility 

cooker (microwave and hot air) which can be operated in convection, microwave, and 

microwave/convection operations. 

I~ 

Uncovered petri dishes were placed in the oven with the required material. During the drying 

process, the natural weight was measured at regular intervals. Drying was stopped when the 

material reached a constant weight. 

• In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with temperature increase due to the 

increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer. However, for products with a low moisture 

content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the diffusion process is slow. 

• Drying rate increases with power output of a microwave oven as the dielectric properties of the 

food change. The uniformly dry product obtained makes microwaving suitable for low moisture 

or heat sensitive materials. 

• Hot air with microwave power increases drying rate, yet operation at higher temperatures is not 

recommended due to burning and non-uniformity. 

Reference: AI-Ouri, B., and Mcintyre, S., J. Food Engineering, Volume 15, 1992. 139-155. 

Ilrtlur D LiHle 9 
Nutrient retention in pork, turkey breast and corned beef roasts after

infrared and convection heat processing.

To determine the effect of both infrared and forced-air convection heat processing upon the

food product yield and nutrient retention of roasts of pork loin, turkey breast and corned beef.

I jJ

Procedures were developed to produce quality roasts in an electronic, conveyorized infrared

oven (CTX-70 Cooking System) and a forced-air convection oven (Lang Model CO-20). Food

product yields were determined from the cooked roasts, and a nutrient analysis (proximate,

vitamin analysis, fatty acid analysis, amino acid analysis, and mineral content) performed.

Results: . . . .

_____________ Proximate! Vitamin Fatty Acid Amino Acid Mineral Content

Yields Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis (P. Na, Fe)

Pork Loin

Turkey Breasts

Corn Beef Roasts

NSD NSD NSD

NSD More NSD

moisture than IR

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD NSD More

riboflavin

after

ponvective

NSD NSD NSD

(Conclus neating

For most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection heating upon nutrient retention

was similar. Either heat processing method could be adopted with comparable results.

Reference:Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G. Journal Food Science,Volume 48, 1983. 864-904

Arthr D Little 10

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Nutrient retention in pork, turkey breast and corned beef roasts after 

infrared and convection heat processing. 

I Objective: &1 

To determine the effect of both infrared and forced-air convection heat processing upon the 

food product yield and nutrient retention of roasts of pork loin, turkey breast and corned beef. 

I :!!;!:~~r~,J 

Procedures were developed to produce quality roasts in an electronic, conveyorized infrared 

oven (CTX-70 Cooking System) and a forced-air convection oven (Lang Model CO-20). Food 

product yields were determined from the cooked roasts, and a nutrient analysis (proximate, 

vitamin analysis, fatty acid analysis, a~ino acid analysis, and mineral content) performed. 

Pork Loin 

Turkey Breasts 

Yields 

NSD 

NSD 

Proximate/ 

Analysis 

NSD 

More 

moisture 

than IR 

Vitamin 

Analysis 

NSD 

NSD 

Fatty Acid 

Analysis 

NSD 

NSD 

Amino Acid 

Analysis 

NSD 

NSD 

Mineral Content 

(P. Na. Fe) 

NSD 

NSD 

Corn Beef Roasts NSD NSD More NSD NSD NSD 

riboflavin 

after 

convective 

I fCon~lu:ion: I heating 

For most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection heating upon nutrient retention 

was similar. Either heat processing method could be adopted with comparable results. 

I 

Reference:Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G. Journal Food Science, Volume 48, 1983. 864-904 

Ilrtlur D little 10 
Temperatures of spaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service

locations in a commissary foodservice system.

O*ctiveLj

To determine temperature variability and factors influencing temperature of spaghetti heated

in convection ovens in a commissary foodservice system.

I

rocchire:J

Four models of convection ovens were utilized. Mean temperatures of food as heated in 12

positions in each oven were recorded.

Results:

Data indicated that temperature variability was a significant factor in heating food in convection

ovens and that equipment model had significant influence. Factors which appeared to have an

effect on temperature included:

- thermostatic setting

- oven power rating

- placement of heating elements

- number of meals heated at one time

- number of fans

- position of food in oven

Reference: Cremer, M.L., Journal of Food Science, Volume 43, 1978. 1062-1070.

Avtlur D Little 11

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Temperatures of spaghetti ·after heating in convection ovens at service 

locations in a commissary foodservice system. 

12bjecti\~e: I 

To determine temperature variability and factors influencing temperature of spaghetti heated 

in convection ovens in a commissary foodservice system. 

Four models of convection ovens were utilized. Mean temperatures of food as heated in 12 

positions in each oven were recorded. 

Data indicated that temperature variability was a significant factor in heating food in convection 

ovens and that equipment model had significant influence. Factors which appeared to have an 

effect on temperature included: 

- thermostatic setting 

- oven power rating 

- placement of heating elements 

- number of meals heated at one time 

- number of fans 

- position of food in oven 

Reference: Cremer, M.L., Journal of Food Science, Volume 43,1978.1062-1070. , 

IlrtJur D Little 11 
Nutrient retention of portioned menu items after infrared and

convection heat processing.

I Objective: J

To determine effect of both infrared and forced-air convection heat processing upon food

product yield and nutrient content of three protein and two vegetable portioned menu items.

Procedures were developed to produce quality rib eye steaks, hamburger patties, cod fillets,

baked potatoes, and baked tomato halves in an electronic conveyorized infrared oven (CTX70 Cooking system) and a forced-air convection oven (Lang Model CO-20). Food product

yields were determined for the menu items, and a nutrient analysis (proximate, vitamin

analysis, fatty acid analysis, amino acid analysis, and mineral content) performed.

Results: Vitamin Fatty Acid Amino Acid Mineral Content

Yields Analysis Analysis Analysis (P. Na. Fe)

Hamburger Patty Less loss with More riboflavin than NSD More amino acid NSD convection convection than convection

Rib Eye Steak NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD

Cod Fillet NSD NSD in riboflavin or NSD NSD NSD thiamin

Potato Less loss with

convection NSD in Vitamin C NSD

Tomato More loss with More beta carotene

with infrared

- -

NSD convection

I 222Jion:

For most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection heating upon nutrient

retention was similar. For yield, convection oven heating gave less loss in hamburgers,

potatoes, and tomatoes.

Reference: Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G., Journal of Food Science, Volume 48, 1983. 869-873.

ArtlurD Little 12

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Nutrient retention of portioned menu items after infrared and 

convection heat processing. 

I i2.~~i;~!!~:: am::1 

To determine effect of both infrared and forced-air convection heat processing upon food 

product yield and nutrient content of three protein and two vegetable portioned menu items. 

I:~~.J 

Procedures were developed to produce quality rib eye steaks, hamburger patties, cod fillets, 

baked potatoes, and baked tomato halves in an electronic conveyorized infrared oven (CTX70 Cooking system) and a forced-air convection oven (Lang Model CO-20). Food product 

yields were determined for the menu items, and a nutrient analysis (proximate, vitamin 

analysis, fatty acid analysis, amino acid analysis, and mineral content) performed. 

I ~=~.~.~.:.~¥&¥I Vitamin Fatty Acid Amino Acid 

Yields Analysis Angly~i~ 8ngly~i~ 

Hamburger Patty Less loss with More riboflavin than NSD More amino acid 

convection convection than convection 

Rib Eye Steak NSD NSD NSD NSD 

God Fillet NSD NSD in riboflavin or NSD NSD 

thiamin 

Potato Less loss with NSD in Vitamin G convection 

Tomato More loss with More beta carotene 

convection with infrared 

1£0n.C~~1 

For most nutrients analyzed, the effect of infrared and convection heating upon nutrient 

retention was similar. For yield, convection oven heating gave less loss in hamburgers, 

potatoes, and tomatoes. I 

Mineral Content 

(P, Ng, F~) 

NSD 

NSD 

NSD 

NSD 

NSD 

Reference: Unklesba'y', N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G., Journal of Food Science, Volume 48, 1983.869-873. 

Artlur I) Little 12 
A study of design approaches to convection cooking.

ObtiveJ

To compare the effects of internal and external heating on baked and roasted products using

six brands of convection wall ovens.

ProceurJ&

Angel food cakes, yellow layer cake, chocolate chip cookies, beef roast, and chicken .were

prepared in six high end brands of convection wall ovens. Performance evaluations were

based on sensory (color, appearance, exterior dryness of meats, taste, texture) and laboratory

techniques (reflectance, caliper, moisture - volatile tester, shear tester).

Results:

Although variability was observed between oven brands, all products were "acceptable."

Angel food cakes - even color, level with pan, easy to cut.

Yellow cakes - even color, acceptable volume and moistness, crumbly and difficult to frost.

Chocolate chip cookies - some gradations in color; crisper than conventional oven baking.

Beef roasts - evenly cooked and juicy with a crunchy exterior.

Chicken - mostly juicy and tender with crunchy exteriors.

Reference: Lovingood, R.P., DeMerchant, E.A., Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

Walsh, C.M., and Kirkley, S.L., Thermodor Corporation.

ArtlurD Little 13

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

A study of design approaches to convection cooking. 

I §82.!;e!i~:;&m11 

To compare the effects of internal and external heating on baked and roasted products using 

six brands of convection wall ovens. 

I !;~~:;~~.r.§:; l"i 

Angel food cakes, yellow layer cake, chocolate chip cookies, beef roast, and chicken .were 

prepared in six high end brands of convection wall ovens. Performance evaluations were 

based on sensory (color, appearance, exterior dryness of meats, taste, texture) and laboratory 

techniques (reflectance, caliper, moisture - volatile tester, shear tester). 

Results: 

Although variability was obseNed between oven brands, all products were "acceptable." 

Angel food cakes - even color, level with pan, easy to cut. 

Yellow cakes - even color, acceptable volume and moistness, crumbly and difficult to frost. 

Chocolate chip cookies - some gradations in color; crisper than conventional oven baking. 

Beef roasts - evenly cooked and juicy with a crunchy exterior. 

Chicken - mostly juicy and tender with crunchy exteriors. 

Reference: Lovingood, R.P., DeMerchant, E.A., Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University 

Walsh, C.M., and Kirkley, S.L., Thermodor Corporation. 

ArtJur D Little 13 
Oven performance in convection vs. radiant mode.

To compare the effects of forced-air movement on the baking and roasting performance of

convection wall ovens.

Procedurej

Angel food cakes, yellow layer cake, drop sugar cookies, beef roast, and chicken were

prepared in five brands of wall ovens. Performance evaluations were based on sensory

evaluations of appearance and flavor characteristics, (moist, dry, crumbly, burned, tough) and

instrumental evaluations (reflectance, cake height, moisture-volatile tester, shear tester).

1su1ts.:

• Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing convection and

radiant modes.

• All foods were "acceptable."

• Convection produces "typical" products - humped, cracked layer cake, cookies with more

variation in browning across the top, meats with crunchier exterior.

Reference: Lovingood, R.P., DeMerchant, E.A., and Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,

Blacksburg, VA..

ArthirD Little 14

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Oven performance in convection vs. radiant mode. 

I Objective: I 

'WApi * '**t'%1 § 

To compare the effects of forced-air movement on the baking and roasting performance of 

convection wall ovens. 

I :::~~;~~t!r: ~$ ,I 

Angel food cakes, yellow layer cake, drop sugar cookies, beef roast, and chicken were 

prepared in five brands of wall ovens. Performance evaluations were based on sensory 

evaluations of appearance and flavor characteristics, (moist, dry, crumbly, burned, tough) and 

instrumental evaluations (reflectance, cake height, moisture-volatile tester, shear tester). 

I Results: b 

Etiilt:mmil_;m;1 

• Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing convection and 

radiant modes. 

• All foods were "acceptable." 

• Convection produces "typical" products - humped, cracked layer cake, cookies with more 

variation in browning across the top, meats with crunchier exterior. 

Reference: Lovingood, R.P., DeMerchant, E.A., and Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 

Blacksburg, VA.. 

Ilrtlur D LiHle 14 
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 1979

Prepared for

Office of Conservation

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20461

.I$1 • C•4

1⁄4<

si

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

Jordan J. Baruch. Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

NBSIR 7B-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 1979 

Prepared for 

Office of Conservation 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20461 

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

Jordan J. Baruch. Assistant SecTetary fOT Science and Technology 

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Erne.t Ambter. DiTectoT 
Table of Contents

....................

.....................

....................

...................

.......................

........................

.......................

........................

.......................

.....

....

.................

Page

List of Figures jj

List of Tables

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary vii

Background i

Particip4nts, Eauipment, Propedures 3

Results 8

Discussion 19

Summary 21

References 23

Appendix A Research Participant Agreement 24

Appendix B - Recipes of AHAM Meals Involvina Cooking

n 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

1

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table of Contents 

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . 

List of Tables . 

Acknowledgements . 

Executive Summary . . , . . 

Background . . . . · . . 

Particip~nts~ Eauipment, Pro~edures T ~ • • • • ! , 

Results 

Discussion 

Summary T • • • • • • • • T , • • • • · . , 

References . 

Appendix A Research Participqnt Agreement 

Appendix B Recipes of AlffiM Meals lnvolvin~ Cooking 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

on Kitchen Range~ . T • • • • • • T • 

~ummary of Range Characteristics · . . Graphic Illustration of Energy Consumption 

and Variati0n for Each Rang~, Cook, and 

. Day , . . . .. "g., III • ,. • • II 

i 

Page 

iii 

iii 

v 

vii 

1 

3 

8 

19 

21 

23 

24 

25 

34 

40 
List of Figures

................

..............

...................

.......

........

............

.....

..............

......

...................

Uumber 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 N!ean kWh and EkWh used to Prepare Each enu

Day (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) on Gas and

Electric Ranges 18

List of Tables

Number Title Page

I The AHAN Menu, as Used by NBS for Range

Tests 5

II Range Energy Efficiency Measured with the

Laboratory Test Method . . . 9

III Mean kWh or Equivalent kTh (EkWh) Used by

Ranges to Cook Each Menu-Day (0.293 kWi. =

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 Ranae Means 14

VI ANOVA Summary Table for Total Energy Used on

the Gas Ranges 16

VU Nwman-Kou1s Tout ol flif1orence Potween

!ank-Ordored (as Ringc Mcins 17

VIII Percentage Differences Between the Highest

and Lowest Energy Users for Each Kitchen

Range 19

iii

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

ilur.1ber 

1 

List of Figures 

Title 

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 ~1ean k~1h and Ek~1h used to Prepare Each f~enu 

Number 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

"T I 

VIII 

Day (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) on Gas and 

Electric Ranges . . . . . . • . . . . . .. 18 

List of Tables 

The AHA11 Menu, as 

Tests . • . . • • 

Title 

Used by NBS for Range 

Range Energy Efficiency Measured with the 

5 

Laboratory Test Method . . . .. •.• 9 

M.ean kWh or Equivalent kl'lh (EkWh) Used by 

Ranges to Cook Each ~1enu-Day (0.293 kl"1h- = 

1 cubic foot of Natural Gas) .....•.. 10 

ANOVA Summary Table for Total Energy Used on 

the Electric Ranges .•...•.... 13 

Newman-Keuls Test of Differences Between 

Rank-Ordered Electric Range Mea~s . . . .. 14 

ANOVA Summary Table for Total Energy Used on 

the Gas Ranges .........• . . .. 16 

N(~wr1an-Kculs Tent of nif rcr.cnce!~ J~ct.""('("ln 

I~llnk-Ordcrcct GllS Rlmqc fv1enns • • • • • •• 17 

Percentage Differences Bet\o7een the Highest 

and Lowest Energy Users for Each Kitchen 

Range • ..• • • . . . . . . . . . . • . .. 19 

-"--. 

iii 
EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13
Acknowledgments

In addition to all members of the Human Factors Group,

many people contributed to this project. The authors extend

a special thanks to L. Andrews, M. McCabe, and E. Clark for

their help in instrumentation and programming; to C. Fried

and B. McGuire for their valuable review comments and

suggestions; to J. Lechner for his statistical comments;

and to B. Matteson and K. Leaman for their understanding

and perseverance in typing the entire report.

V

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Acknowledgments 

In addition to all members of the Human Factors Group, 

many people contributed to this project. The authors extend 

a special thanks to L. Andrews, M. McCabe, and E. Clark for 

their help in instrumentation and programming; to C. Fried 

and B. McGuire for their valuable review comments and 

suggestions; to J. Lechner for his statistical comments; 

and to B. Matteson and K. Leaman for their understanding 

and perseverance in typing the entire report. 

v 
EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13
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 mount 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.

The 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 (AHAM). In all cases, the range

energy consumption was measured and recorded.

In addition to determining the correlation between

"zeal-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

he 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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 qmount 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 beeQ 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. 

The 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 (AILruM). In all cases, the range 

energy consumption was measured and recorded. 

In addition to determining the correlation between 

"~eal-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 \'las 

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

that laboratory test ~ethod would appear to be in 

order. 

(It 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 

he 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.

viii

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

(3) Regarding energy consumption, much of range desian 

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. 

-~.- .. 

viii 
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

information to their appliances.* 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 lE, 1979.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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 

information to their appliances.* 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, ~Jo. 34--Frida~', February If ,1979. 
conservation program, the Department of Energy (DOE)

is required to provide test methods to be used in the

rroqram. 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 orocedures 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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 reco~~ended 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 m~~l 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 us~. Behavioral data included both written 

logs of the cooks' activities as well as continuous video 

tapes of their behavior. These records will serve ~n 

the future as a valuable data base of kitchen activity--

range 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 (AHAN)

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-o act naturally as at home. A full debriefing

at the end of her participation informed, each cook of

the primary reason for undertaking the project.

1Lving been selected and introduced t o the : I udv,

each cook reported to the Laboratory for seven cc)nsecut:Lve

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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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 repor~ing 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 hecame 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 NilS 

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 instea~o.act naturally as at home. A full debriefing 

at the end of her participation informed each cook of 

the primary reason for undertaking the project. 

llLlving been selected and introducc'd to lilt' !;t Ild\" 

each cook reported to the Laboratory fo l" :it'Ven C(JIl:it'ClI t i ve 

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 bean 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 additionr

some menu items were placed within the overall menu plan

so that the amount of engy 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 example,

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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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~. 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 en~~gy consumed per day, and hence, 

the amount of food preparation required per daYr 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 example, 

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 

_.-, 
TABLE I

The AHAM Menu, as Used by NBS for Range Tests*

'!r'U [isv II nIay •7 M?H flAy I HIJII ITtY #4 MENU DAY 05 ui'jIr nay IA ui cii ii v 7

(31

.AST

L ;o.

Rail Grapefruit

Oatircal with

raisins, brown

sugar

Perked coffee

Milk

'1

Crerry Juice

Dr :crcal with

s:ed ba-ar.as

and ii

least

Better or margarine

ikit water (coffee,

tea, chocolate)

03

Orange Juice

Scrambled lggs

with bacon strips

Toast - Jam

Butter or margarine

hot water (coffee,

tea, chocolate)

Milk

07

Tomato Juice

Dry Cereal

with milk

Toa;ted English

Muffins

Jam Th

Butter or margarine

hot water (coffee,

tea, chocolate)

#10

Orange Juice

Soft cooked eggs

Toast - Jam

Butter or margarine

Ikt water (coffee,

tea, chocolate)

Milk

113

______________________

-

Grapefruit Juice

Dry creal with uulk

Toast

Butter or margarine

Ikit water (coffee,

tea, chocolate)

116

_________________________

Sliced bananas fl

Orange Juice

Pancakes with syr

sausages

Butter or cargar-ino

perked coffee

Milk

#19

Grilled cheese Vceadle sp Hot dogs on bimas Oiicken noodle soup Leftover beef stew Cgg salad sarwiwacli Peanut butter

sandichcs Co bed sandwiches Potato chips Tuna and e salad Fresh fruit salad on toast jcl1' sar,.i±jches

Relish tray P:kles Pickles sandwiches Ikit water (coffee, }bt water (coffee, arrot strips and

(carrot stich's, Ict water (coffre, Fresh fruit Cookies tea) tea) celery sticks

tomato, radishes, tea) Hot water (coffee, Rat water (coffee, Milk Milk Leftover desserts a

pickles) Milk tea) f t5) fruits

Fresh fruit Milk ?'1111( Rat water (coffee,

Bet water (coffee, tea)

tj Milk

'hilk #5 #8 011 #14 #17

OlD

C B'). 'z _______________________ _______________________

Beef pot roast ic-. :-ackcn with Beef stew (with Spaghetti with meat Braised pork chops Broiled fish Steak -

LR with poratocs, ;r-.- carrots, peas, arid satc Skillet scalloped Rice pilaf Baked potatoes

carrots, onions, -:; pctatoes potatoes) Grated panresan potatoes Peas with pearl SaL:e-J cu,hr-ac

and gravy :cns Tossed greens with cheese Buttered spinach onions Brocali

Th,sed grszlns with I:t---gc1atin Freneh dressing Lettuce wedge with Red hot applesauce Broiled tociato Tc-:d ;Ja

r.Iis sLo1; Brown B Serve rolls Italian dressing Bread Hard rolls hot Eren.h bread

Irs-rich dressing er-.-a:ed Butter or margarine Garlic bread Butter or margarine laitter or margarine Butter or eargaruRat rollS cts Vanilla pudding Whipped gelatin Lemon meringue pie Tapioca pudding with Chocolate cake

ictter or margarine httrr cr argarine with strawlierry Coffee or tea Coffee or tea fruit topping Ccffe-e or tea

Ic crisp C:fee cr tea halves in syrup Milk Milk Coffee or tea Milk

Coffee or tea :ik Coffee or tea ?Iilk 021 hilk [ilk

• :. #3 It #12 'iS uS

#9

*Selected food iteina (auch aa ace crea.m for deaaert) were not included in the

:185 veraion of the JihAt .ez.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

TABLE I 

The AIIA.I.! ~Ienu, ss Used b}' NBS for Range Tests· 

;;.L;IF.-\ST lIalf Grape frui t 

OatJ1'Cal wi th 

raisins, brtJ'oon 

sugar 

rerked coffee 

~ill.. 

'I 

Grilled cheese S3fk!· ... ' i chcs 

Relish tray 

(carrot stic~s. 

tomato, radishes, 

pickles) 

Frc'sh frui t 

llot ":1 rer (coffee. 

tc·d 

~Ii I k 

Cr::l:env Juice 

Ur .. ;,:rc~l ""io::h 

S~;':eC ba.-..J.l'.as 

a:~ =ti 1,· 

l~, 

P",~~er or klrg3rine 

llot Io.;l~er (cofiee, 

tca, Chocolate) ,~ 

rc-f~~le s.:q> Co __ xef s;u-aj'.-ict.es 

Pi:iles 

Ie: o.ater (coffee. 

te3) 

~:ln 

15 

~IUW DAY , 3 

Orange Juice 

Scr,jrnhled Iggs 

with bacon strips 

Toast - Jam 

Butter or nnrgarine 

1I0t water (coffee, 

tea. chocolate) 

~Ii Ik 

'7 

Ilot dogs on bU!\S 

rotato chips 

PicrJes 

Fresh frui t 

llot lodter (coffee, 

tea) ·t· 

Hilk 

'8 

til' Nil OA;Y , 4 

Tomato Juice 

£try Cereal 

with milk 

Toa Ited [J1glish 

~ltlffins 

Jam ' 

Butter or ~,rRarine 

llot water (coffee, 

tea, chocolate) 

flO 

Olicken noodle soup 

Tuna ami egg salad 

sandwiChes 

Cookies 

llot water (coffee. 

teal 

~Iilk 

III 

\,. l. lJL • 2 

. "~i. ':. !'IO_ 

[;(ocf pot roast 

.. ith pori.ltoes, 

ca ITor s, oni ons • 

anJ ;:;1"'''\')' 

:'o>,ed grLans \Oi th 

~ .. I isi 0:, 11':C'; 

Fr(,lo:h dr('>sing 

lot roi I,; 

i:..:tt.:r or r..argarir.e 

,\PI Ie crisp 

Coffee or tea 

mlk 

'3 

!'-:"':::-.:-'': pct..:itoes 

J: ;:>: -. ~(':":-..s 

r ~ ;: : ". :. - ~ z,c 1 a tin 

'.e:~. -c:~:~ 

~'AK~tS 

;._~~~.;- cr ::&:'!'"t:.Jrine 

C:::C''! cr tea 

r:ii: 

It 

Ik-ef ste .... ( ... ·i til 

c~rrots. pc~s, and 

pot~tocs ) 

Tossed greers .... i th 

french dres sing 

BrCJlo-TI ~ Serve rolls 

Butter or r..ar.;arine 

Vanilla pudd i:1l: 

wi th stra ... bcrry 

halves in syrup 

Coffee or tea 

t.lilk 

19 

Spar;hetti with rreat 

S:1UCC 

Grntecl pa nncsan 

chce~e 

Lettuce wedge wi th 

Italian dressing 

G~rlic bread 

Whipped gelatin 

CoHee or tea 

Hilk 

112 

·Selected food items (suc~ as ~ce cream for dessert) were not included in the 

:;85 version of the kHM lYe::';. 

HENU DAY '5 

Orange Juice 

Soft conked eggs 

Toast - Jam 

Butter or margarine 

1I0t water (coffee, 

tea, chocolate) 

mlk 

113 

Leftover beef stew 

Fresh fruit salad 

llot water (coffee. 

, tea) Milk 

114 

Braised pork chops 

Shillet scalloped 

potatoes 

Eut tered spinach 

Red hot applesauce 

Ilrc3J 

Ilutt-:r or r.l3rgarinc 

Lemon meringue pie 

Coffee or tea 

Hilk 

115 

~IF"lr on '6 

Gra[1efrui t Juice 

11T)' cerc31 with milk 

Toast' 

Butter or 1!\.lT\;arino 

Ibt \o,Her (coffee, 

tea, chocolate) 

116 

Lbg salad sanJwich 

on tOolst 

llot \o'ater (coffee, 

tea) 

Milk 

Eroiled fi sh 

Rice pi 13 f 

Pc'3S wi th pearl 

onlons 

Broiled t0m3tO 

li.:Jr~ rolls 

"" ..... ttcr or r.urgarine 

T3[1ioca pudding with 

fruit topping 

(of lee (\r tea 

~li 1 k 

lIS 

'II "II [l \)' 17 

Sliced bar.aI1.lS '1'1 

Orange Juice 

Par..:3.kes ... ·ith syr~ 

~ sausages 

Butter or cargari.ne 

Perked coffee 

lolilk 

119 

Pra:1ut butter ~ 

jell y sar.d-.-iches 

CaIlOt strips and 

celery sticks 

Lefto\'er desse!"ts 0 

fruits 

!-lot \o:1ter (coffee. 

tea) 

Milk 

620 

Su.!k 

B.l~ed rota toes $.:;,.:~.-,j ,cu,hr':x:a:; 

Bm':':':'1 i 

To~s':J 3:'.~J....! 

fkn rrc.-":r. br(;.]j 

Butter or hlr6-lTl;)e 

Choco13t<! c.;;;"" 

Cuffee or tea 

IoU I k 

121 
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

rcprcsentative of those 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

ovens were not included. Appendix C presents size, wattage

or TU, 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,

i nk; were used in both. Aside from the absence

(>1 w ntk)ws in the basement kitchen, differences betwv'it

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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

used--five gas and five electric. The ranqes were selected 

to reflect the variety of technical types ~vailable, 

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 ~he chosen ranges were not statistically 

representative of those in the marketplace. The data 

therefore cannot be generalized to all rang~s 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 ~nits, and microwave 

ovens 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, 

dnd t.he same kinds of refrigerators, dishwashers, cahinets, 

<tlld :; i Ilk:; w(~re used in both. Aside from the absc'ncf' 

()! wind()w~; in the basement kitchen, differences hetwC'L'II 

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 rariges, 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 
TELEViSION

CCNTOL ROOM

0 0

D

GAS KITCHEN

0

DINING ROOM

RECEPTION

ROOM COMPUTER

ROOM

0

P o

OBSERVATION ROOMS BATHROOM

FIGURE 1

FLOOR PLAN OF UBS CONSUMER RESEARCH LABORATORY

7

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

TELEVISION 

CONTROL ROOM 

• • RECEPTION '.i--~--r---! 

C ROOM 

GAS KITCHEN COMPUTER 

ROOM " 

• 

DINING ROOM 

LIVING ROOM 

• • 

FAMILY ROOM OFFICE/ 

TEST ROOM 

o . C Itt 

OBSERVATION R"OOMS 

• 

PLAYROOM 

• 

FIRST FLOOR . .. 

• 

BATHROOM 

OBSERVATION ROOM 

,. ELECTRIC 

II KITCHEN 

STORAGE FURNACE 

BASEMENT 

FIGURE 1 

~ ~~~~RoV:ll~~ l~~~:ORS • TV CAMERA POSITION 

ED INTERCOM /M ICROPHO NE 

SPEAKER 

FLOOR PLAN OF rms CONSUMER RESEARCH LABORATORY 

7 
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 thisreport all cubic feet have been converted to

equivalent-kwh (EkWh, where 0.293 kWh = 1 cubic 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,

manufactureruust all use a standard test mçthod when

measuring the energy efficiency of kitchen ranges. The

laboratory test method under pOnsderation 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 eventua1y recommended to DOE by

NBS and specifications for the a1iiininum tesj block--including

size, weight, location of sensor 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 te peffDrm these

measurements accurately and reliably.

The ten ranges used in this study were first tosLLL1

according to those procedures eu1tant energy effic.itmcy

figures for the countertop (all surfacQ 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 co9tains 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 y 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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, ~eparate records for 

top and oven/broiler were not availaple from this range 

type. Gas consumption was measured in cubic feet, but 

for this-report all cubic feet have been converted to 

equivalent-kWh (EkWh, where 0.293 kWh = 1 cubic 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 Consumptiop vers~s Range Efficiency ; 

As discussed in the Background section of this report, 

manufacturer~ust all use a standard test m~thod when 

measuring the energy efficiency of kitchen ranges. The 

laboratory test method under fons~dera~ion at the time 

this study was done consisted of raisi~g the temperature 

of an aluminum block a specified temperature differences 

and measuring the amount of energy required to do so. 

The exact procedures eventua+ly reoommended to DOE by 

NBS and specifications for the al1,1m!i.num test block--including 

size, weight, location of sensor 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 pefform these 

measurements accurately and reliably. 

The ten ranges used in this study were first tcsLc:d 

according to those procedures 1 fe~ultant energy efficit:rtcy 

figures for the countertop (all surfacQ units) and OVl'll 

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 co~tains the mean energy 

consumption of each range on each menu day. 

Linear correlations were high between the combined 

computed efficiency of each range ~nd the overall mean 

amount of energy used per menu day py cooks. Plotted 

data are presented in Figure 2. Fdr 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

Countertop

Electric Oven (Surface Unit) Combined

Ranges Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency*

El 0.143 0.71 0.45

E2 0.115 0.76 0.42

0.104 0.68 0.38

E4 0.140 0.77 0.47

E5 0.133 0.79 0.46

Gas

Ranges**

Gi 0.058 0.40 0.22

G2 0.058 0.40 0.22

G3 0.075 0.40 0.25

G4 0.959 0.40 0.22

G5 0.06C 0.40 0.23

*As noted in section 4.3.2 of the Federal !egisLer notice,

Combined 1

bfficiency 0.145 + ______________________

oven efficiency counterLop !t iciency

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

fuel, resulting in a considerable amount of heat being

lost to the surrounding air. For both electric and

gas ranges, surface units are more efficient than ovens.

9

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table II 

Range Energy Efficiency 

Measured with the LaiJoratory Test Method 

Electric 

Ranges 

El 

1:;2 

.1:.3 

E4 

E5 

Gas - -'''~'. 

Ranges** 

Gl 

G2 

G3 

G4 

G5 

Oven 

Efficiency 

0.143 

0.115 

0.104 

0.140 

,0.133 

0.058 

0.058 

0.075 

0.,059 

0.06e 

Countertop 

(Surface unit) 

Efficiency 

0.71 

0.76 

0.68 

0.77 

0.79 

0.40 

0.40 

0.40 

0.40 

0.40 

Combined 

Efficiency* 

0.45 

() . 42 

0.38 

0.47 

0.46 

0.22 

0.22 

0.25 

0.22 

0.23 

*As noted in section 4.3.2 of the Pederal H0gist_l~r' notice, 

ComlJinccl 

I:;fficiency = 0.145 

oven efficiency 

1 

+ () • B ') ') 

counter top l' II ic i enc}, 

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

fuel, resulting in a considerable amount of heat being 

lost to the surrounding 2ir. For both electric and 

gas ranges, surface units are more efficient than ovens. 

9 
Table III

an ]d or Equivalent kh (Eki) Used

by Res to Ccxk Each enu Day (0.293 kWh = 1 cubic fcxDt of natural gas)

Eecc Gas Ranges

Menu Da'j

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

'eanof

tk mans

El E2 E3 E4 E5 Mean

J k k kWh kWh

3.97 4.24 4.44 3.91 3.32 3.97

2.39 2.61 2.82 2.31 2.06 2.43

2.76 2.75 3.G1 2.44 2.55 2.69

3.34 3.68 3.73 3.05 3.10 3.38

3.02 3.37 3.54 2.89 2.67 3.09

3.55 3.62 3.64 2.79 2.99 3.31

4.04 4.22 4.24 3.45 3.17 3.82

3.29 3.49 3.63 2.97* 2.83*

-

3.24

Gi G2 G3 G4 G5

E-kWn E-k7ri E-kWh E-kWh E-}d

8.25 8.26 6.55 8.21 6.69

5.12 4.81 3.87 4.81 3.99

5.32 4.37 3.76 4.67 4.37

8.00 6.50 5.38 6.51 5.60

6.97 6.26 5.03 6.40 5.60

7.65 5.84 5.23 6.24 5.73

7.86 7.31 5.87 6.64 6.03

7.59

4.52

4.49

6.39

6.05

6.13

6.74

7.02 6.19 5.09 6.21* 543* 598

* Data for ranges E4, ES, G4, and CS were cl lected after the 1976 NI3S Open House.

Sa.-re cxxks who later prticipead i the study becai aware of the energy use

aspect of the project during the Cpe. House when they or their friends or

family toured the Consurrer Research Laboratory. The range tests

were halted just before the Cpen House and resumed iirxnediate1y after.

Such awareness by future participants may have aUected their energy

consumption in this study.

Menu an

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mean of

the Means

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Table III 

Mean }1\h or Equivalent khll (Ekhll) Used 

t~· ? .;::.;es to Cook Each Perm Day (0.293 kvlli = 1 cubic foot of natural gas) 

£:;. e:::.= ::: ;: .;::.-:; e 5 Gas Ranges 

El E2 £3 E4 E5 Mean Gl G2 G3 G4 G5 t-lE:an 

l-'.enu Day 1O~'h k~ )G";":. ~:;;:-,. kWh kh'h E-h-wh E-J<:vih E-kvJh E-kv;n E-Jd·;'h E-J.1":h t-'e.'"1 u D<r / 

1 3.97 4.24 4.4~ 3.91 3.32 3.97 8.25 8.26 6.55 8.21 6.69 7.59 1 

2 2.39 2.61 2.82 2.31 2.06 2.43 5.12 4.81 3.87 4.81 3.99 4.52 2 

3 2.76 2.75 3.01 2.44 2.55 2.69 5.32 4.37 3.76 4.67 4.37 4.49 3 

4 3.34 3.68 3.73 3.05 3.10 3.38 8.00 6.50 5.38 6.51 5.60 6.39 4 

5 3.02 3.37 3.54 2.89 2.67 3.09 6.97 6.26 5.03 6.40 5.60 6.05 5 

6 3.55 3.62 3.64 2.79 2.99 3.31 7.65 5.84 5.23 6.24 5.73 6.13 6 

7 4.04 4.22 4.24 3.45 3.17 3.82 7.86 7.31 5.87 6.64 6.03 6.74 7 I-' 

0 Mean of Mean of 

the Means 3.29 3.49 3.63 2.97* 2.83* 3.24 7.02 6.19 5.09 6.21* 5.43* 5.98 thez.~ 

* Data for rangE:s E4, £5, G; I a.-.c G5 ·,.'O--re CXlllected after the 1976 NI3S Open House. 

So..-re (X)Qks whc later partici~':.c-::: L. the s'c.udy becarre aY/are of the energy use 

asr.-ect of the projcct durin<; t:-£:: C?'!:-. no:.:se .,hen they or their friends or 

family tou:e~ the Consw;-,e.r F.2search Laboratory. The range tests 

were halteo Just before tne C?8~ House and resumed immediately after. 

such awareness by future participants may have affected their energy consumption in this study. 
8.0

7.0 Gi

G4

'G2

6.0

>1

ía

U

a)

a)

U)

1

'Ii

a)

• G5

5.0

4.0

•E3

E2

El

3.0

2.0

• E4

E5

I

0 0.05 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Combined Efficiency of Oven and Countertop

FIGURE 2

Combined Efficiency of Each Range Plotted

Against the Mean kWh Used for Actual Cooking

11

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~ 

co 

o 

;::l 

c: 

ClJ 

)....j 

Q) 

Po. 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

'd 4.0 

ClJ 

Ul 

:::l 

3.0 

2.0 

I 

l 

t 

0 0.05 

. G1 

• G4 

• G2 

• G5 

• 83 

• E3 

• E2 

• E1 

• E4 

• E5 

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 

Combined Efficiency of Oven and Countertop 

FIGURE 2 

Combined Efficiency of Each Range Plotted 

Against the Mean kWh Used for Actual Cooking 

11 
In other words, for electric ranges, 79 percen4:

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 nalysis of these other data

may serve to assist manufacturers and others who are

involved in range improvement work.

Range 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 thegas 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

In other words, for electric ranges, 79 pcrccn l 

of the variance in measured efficiency can be predicted 

from tile 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, ~BS 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 b~ing, but an ?nalysis of these other data 

may serve to assist manufacturers and others who are 

involved in range improvement work. 

Range 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 ~ot 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 Sunimary Table for Total

Energy Used on the Electric Ranges

Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between Subjects

Ranges 19.0 4 4.75 8.18**

Subj. within group 14.7 25 0.58

Within Subjects

i'4enu days 55.0 6 9.16 l0l.78**

Ranges X menu days 3.0 24 0.12 1.33

Menu days X subj. within

group 13.2 150 0.09

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

than 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 mighL

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

be energy efficient. Thus, the present results indicate

*Ag noted on Table II.

13

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

TABLE IV 

ANOVA Summary Table for Total 

Energy Used on the Electric Ranges 

Source of Variation SS df MS F 

Between Subjects 

Ranges 19.0 4 4.75 8.18** 

Subj. within group 14.7 25 0.58 

Within Subjects 

Henu 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 

rapges [F (4, 25) = 8.18, p < 0.01], and further indicates 

that the differences between ranges were. much greater 

than 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, 1<1 ter 

cooks might tend to conserve energy purposefully bec(1use 

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 

be 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

Recuired

Range E5 E4 El E2 E3 Ratio

E5 -- 5.8 L8.3** 77** 3.3** 17.99

E4 -- 12.5 21.9** • 27.5** 17.08

El -- 9,4 15.0 15.79

E2 -- 5.6 13.78

E3 --

** p < 0.01

The resulting differences can be illustrated as:

Range Range Range Range Range

E5 E4 El E2 E3

where the "bars" indicate the overlap due to variance.

14

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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. 

Ran e 

E5 

E4 

El 

1:;2 

E3 

** P < 

TABLE V 

Newman-Keuls Test of DifferE~nces 

Between Rank-Ordered Electric Range Means 

£5 E4 El E2 E3 I I I 

L5.a l18.3** 

"'.-. '-" 

27.7**' 33.3** 

12.5 21.9**"·, 27.5** 

'.~----.... 

9.4 15.0 

5.6 

Required 

Patio 

17.99 

17.08 

15.79 

13.78 

.... ~------.. --.... -.--

0.01 

The resulting differences can be illustrated as: 

Range 

E5 

Range 

E4 

Range 

El. 

Range 

E2 

Range 

E3' 

where 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

one 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,

t 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-daV is not the approach most sensitive for comparing

the relative efficiency of ranges by using non-professional

15

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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 resul ts 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 kv!h differences, one may 

question whether small, statistically significant diff~rences 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 

one menu than another. What is surprising is that ,nenudays 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, 

~t 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-reaufremont menu (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 bhe present

tudv is appropriate, however, if the problem is concerned

with ho 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-Pbie VI produced results much like those

for electric range data.

TABLE VI

ANOVA Summary Table for Total

Energy Used on the Gas Ranges

Source of Variation SS

Between Subjects

Ranges 89.03

Subj. within group 39.68

Within Subjects

Menu days 218.73

Tangcs x menu days 11.78

Menu uiys X subj. ichin

group 47.73

**

= p < 0.01

MS F

4 22.25 12.93**

23 1.72

6 36.45 107.20**

24 0.49 1.44

138 0.34

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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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

Dcttodology would be to use just a few high energy-requircmcnt ~enu~ (with repeated measures) or better yet to 

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

200ks (replication). The approach used in the present 

~tudy is appropriate, however, if the problem is concerned 

'.,oi til how people use ranges in a wide variety of hom0 

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 AN OVA was again 

performed, but using an unweighted means analysis because 

the number of cooks per condition was unequal. The ArrOVA 

summarized in~ble VI produced results much like those 

for electric range data. 

TABLE VI 

ANOV~ Swrunary Table for Total 

Energy Used on the Gas Ranges 

Source of Variation SS df 

Detween Subjects 

tiS F 

Ranges 89.03 4 22.25 12.93** 

Subj. within group 

~ljithin Subjects 

Menu d.:lYs 

~()nCJcs x menu days 

Menu LidYS X subj. wii:.hin 

group 

** = p < 0.01 

39.68 

218.73 

11.78 

47.73 

23 1. 72 

6 36.45 l07.~0** 

24 0.49 1. 44 

IJ8 0.34 

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

----------------------------------

Wewman-Keuls Test of Differences

Between Rank-Ordered Gas Range Means

Required

Range G3 G5 G2 G4 Gi Ratio

G3 -- 2.24** 7.65** 775** K13.44** 1.24

G5 -- 5.41*.. 5.51**'11.20** 1.17

G2

G4

Gi

**

p < 0.01

Range differences

Range Range

G3 G5

-- 0.10 •- -.

579** 1.08

-- 5.69k 0.95

(from Table VII) can be illustrated as:

Range Range Range

G2 G4 Gi

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

but all other ranges did.

Figure 3 illustrates the amount of enerqy used Lo

prepare each menu day. This figure also shows the IL'IdL1VC

difference in kwh between gas and electric ranqes used

to prepare tlThsame menus.

For each range, data from the cook who used the

most overall energy and the cook who 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Range G3 

G3 

GS 

G2 

G4 

Gl 

** p < 0.01 

TABLE VII 

~ewman-Keuls Test of Differences 

Between Rank-Ordered Gas Range Means 

G5 G2 G4 Gl , 

: 2.24** 

,>, "', 7.65** ~7.75** ~13.44** """'...... "-~-~" --- - --- - " 

'-........ 

5.41**' 5.51**·-~ 11.20** .......... '-. 

"-- --.- - -. 

0.10 5.79** --. 

5.69** 

Required 

Ratio 

1. 24 

1.17 

1. 08 

0.95 

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

Range 

G3 

Range 

G5 

Range 

G2 

Range 

G4 

Range 

Gl 

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

but all other ranges did. 

Figure 3 illustrates the amount of eno.r~y u~a'd Lo 

prC'pare each menu day. This figure also shows tlit, Il' I ,It.i vo 

di ffcrcnce i I'! kWh between gas and electric ran~Tes used 

to prepare me' same menus. 

For each range, data from the cook who used the 

most overall energy and the cook who 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 
Gas Ranges

40- Electric Ranoes

LU

0

z 35

30

LU

(I)

LU

IX 20

0

-c

15

IX

10

FIGURE 3

Mean kWh and EkWh Used to flre-are Each

eriu Da! (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) on Gas and Electric Tanes

18

Day Day Day Day Day Day Day

2 3 5 6 4 7

SEVEN MENU DAYS

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

w 

" z 

<X: 

0: 

0: 

UJ 

CO 

w 

en 

::> 

..c: 

~ ~ 

W 

IX 

'0: 

0 

..c: 

3: 

~ 

IX 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

, ~ Gas Ranges 

D Electric Ranges 

Day 

2 

• 

Day Day Day Day Day 

3 5 6 4 1 

SEVEN MENU DAYS 

FIGURE 3 

Day 

1 

~'1ean kl\'h and EkNh Used to Pre-lure Each 

:'cnu Da:, (Break fas t, Lunch, Dinner) on Cas and Electric Ranc'es 

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% Gi 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%

*On 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 eiiicic'ncy

rann will consume less energy overall tha1ow viHcicncy

rn;e:; when cooks use them for real cooking. however,

the cooking habits of an individual cook may resuLL 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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% 

*On 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 thi~ 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, h iqh (' r fit' i ('ncy 

ran<]('s" will con~mme less energy overall thcJ.i11ow--(";-n-j c i l!ncy 

r.Ulql·:i whc·n cooks use ---u1Cm for real cookJ..ncf. !lOW( ~V(' t" , 

the cooking ha.bits 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 inprovements 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 
using the range. It is also tru that the most efficiently

designed appliance will not operate efficiently if it

is used improperly. Proper ue rnight be enhanced through

improved consumer education, through appliance designs

which effectively'preclude inefficient procedures, or

both.

The importance o separately adressing 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 th

other hand, if most users are not effiçient their energy

waste is probably substantial and should be further studied.

The small sample size used in this tuciy not adequate

to settle the issue.

Regarding range differenpes, special note shoulç

be made of the difference between gs and electric range

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

EkWh than electric ranges for tht same tasks. However,

the efficiency with which electric ranges ue energy

does not reflect theenergy lost in its distribution

and other factors, Gas ranges burn fu1 at the point

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

in cooking; electric ranges vise electricity generated

elsewbere where heat lqst 4uring gezwration is riot vai4ble

for subsequent use. Readers should again be cautioned

not to compare the electric and gas ranges used in this

study against one another, becau,e the same criteria

for selection were rpt used for both types of ranges

In addition, while most difference 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 Apertdix 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 4nterviews,

20

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

using the range. It is also tru~ that the most efficiently 

designed appliance will not operate efficiently if it 

is used improperly. Proper u~e might be enhanced through 

improved consumer education, through appliance designs 

which effectively preclude inefficient procedures, or 

both. 

The importance of separat~ly a~dres6ing user considerations in appliance efficiency improvement programs (i.e. 

product design, consumer attitude, and consumer education 

programs) depends on the relative and absolute numbe~ 

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 th~ 

other hand, if most users are not effi<;:ient~ th~ir energy 

waste is probably substantial and should be further studied. 

The small sample size used in this ptudy i~ not adequate 

to settle the issue. 

Regarding range differen~es, special note shauL? 

be made of the difference~ between g~s and electric range 

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

EkWh than electric ranges for th~ same tasks. However, 

the efficiency with which electric ranges upe energr 

does not reflect the energy lost in its distribution 

and other factors. Gas ranges burn fu~l at the point 

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

in cooking; ~lectric range a ~se electricity generated 

elsewnere ~ where heat lost quring g~l1e:r:-at:ion is n,ot ~vai.l.~b.l.e 

for subsequent use. Readers should again be cautioned 

not to compare the electric and gas range~ used in this 

study against one another, becau~e the same criteria 

for se~ection were q9t used for both typep of ranges r 

In addition, while most difference~ 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 0, 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 pose-test !nterviews, 

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 1/52nd 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 ca.n 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 inoai; ww;

high (differences between cooks was a hiqli ;

50 percent). Whereas some of Lhis variaLi.ozi 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

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 1/52nd 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-thehorne energy consumption. 

SUMMARY 

Fifty-eight cooks each prepared a seven-day test 

menu using real food in real kitchens. rive 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 llle.:l.J:; W.t!'; 

high (differences between cooks W.:l.S as 11 j qll d!; 

50 percent). ~7hereas some of this vuri<lLi.oll 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 energy intensive mea1

(usually dinners) would have been. sufficient td

study relative efficienqies of kitchen ranges.

22

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

(3) Regardi~g energy consumption, much of range design 

is independent of human factors, (rando~ and 

generic) as evidenced by the high correlation 

between laboratory and home simulated tests. 

Accordingly, the test procedur~s 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 AllAM menu indicated that 

only three to five of the energy intensive meafs 

(usually dinners) would have been sufficient td 

study relative efficienqies 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

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

- .. ~-. 

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 
________ P1ENPIX A _______

NtIS flt3 U.S. DEPARTMENI OF COMMERCE .''

.1', NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

441.0121

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT

IIIlk,' ,tltt.It,'I

Robert Cunitz, Ph.D.

F ii'' ''ni Njnn,' C 'tie'

Kitchen Utilization Study Program

2. Division.Sitction

441,02

Other 1', t,,'t, iv)

• [i.''. 'l't','n o' F Xe.', to',' ni

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

homemakers preparing meals for a family of four. No general types of data will

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

data, recorded on video and audio tapes szing how a hateneicer prepares her

meals.

• Rik'. to P,irfit uplift

In the rst case, risks to the participant are those normally found

in an average middle class home; i . e., electrical shock, contact burns frci hot

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

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

from spoiled foods. 'Itt reduce these risks, a rigorous safety proqram will be

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

tools/instruments. All kitchen equijiient will be standard, ccrrn'ercially available

items.

lit uo of Panic pant

Each part4.cipant will: (a) prepare three meals (i.e., breakfast,

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

as she ould in her own home, using the rrenus/rcipes provided, (c) dress

appropriately, e.g., no high heels, Cd) attend orientatior and debriefing sessions,

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

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 conplete

the seven-day test.

'F, R'i'e'n'.ubuIutu,'s of lnvoslugjteur (ill

The investigators will: () protect the participants from an

unreasonable degree of physical danger, (b) respect the diqnity of the participa.çits

I and protect thci in psychological distress, (c) provide prorrpt medical it:tention

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

participants' behavior, the inyestigatcxçs will ensure that the participants pictures

cannel- idnH fid er ethrwise associated with their ni

I I' I 'NI IF IFSTO(lfl rHA T El THE ft THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. THE PARTIC PA NT, OR THE PARTIC PANT'S PARE NI flIt lAHLiiA N MAY

1! IMINA TI THE PARTICIPANT'S INVOF VF.MENT IN THE RESEARCH AT ANY TIME WITHOUT INCURRINC LEGAL LIAhIF ITY lP SF'l:H

FIMINA I ION.

1, h,'i.'tt,t e'ntify ffl;ut fly PItntiClfl,ftuOfl us voluntary and that I have read and accept the terms ot this agreement.

I' inn punt, n, Percent or fh,.irThnri (,S,uinatuir)

Ii,, IiVli',t Iii till I S,iffl,,lui,,'/

I. tots t,',n,un,.t,on by I.S,anntu,.i

4, Li,,,itu,'n

Cit Ihe,rsf,,uri;

Date,

24 N

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~pr£. _f\lD I X A -. -. - - --------- --,---- --- -

NilS Ill] U. S. DE PARTMF.N r OF COMMEHCE 1 f 1,1 ( "II"' Ufo, 

~' . ,~. ; NATIONAL BUREAU OF $TANDARDS 

441.0121 

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT 

." "It 111.1' 111\ 1'-"llll.,t,H 2. DtV'''''lon. SOl-tlon 4. Ltll.dtl,\n 

Robert Cunitz, Ph.D . 441,02 X. (;.tlthHrc;tltj(O 

. t "'P,'IIIH"I1( N.lnl,l \.1'{11' Other (,nl" IIVI 

Kitchen utilization Study Program - - ,;. p.". IIptl\)n pi t -.;t)flrlll'"nt 

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

horrem:lkers preparing neals for a family of four. 'TWo general types of duta will 

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

data, recorded on video and audio tapes ( sQawing how a harerrak.er prepares her 

neals. 

'. AI>, .... to P.lrtl( Ip.lnt 

In the worst case, risks to the participant are those normally found 

----I 

in an average middle class horre; i. e., electrical shock, contact burns from hot 

surfaces, scalding injuries fran 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/instrurrents. All kitchen equiprent will be standard, cornrercially available 

items. 

"~p()n':->lhlllIIPS of ParttCIDt'lnt 

Each Participant will: (a) prepare three neals (Le., breakfast, 

lunch, dinner) within four hours on seven differept days, (b) prepare all neals 

as she would in her ovm hcJITe, usipg the rrenus/recipes provided, (c) dress 

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

'. and (e) r-ermit video/audio ~pe recording of her activities. 

Although all participants are free to terminate their participation at 

any tine, a tenus of $1.00 per hour will l:::e given to those participants who ~lete 

the seven-day test. 

The investigators will: (q) protect the participants from an 

wrreasonable degree of physical danger, (b) respect the dignity of the p..l rticipapts 

i nnd pr.otect them from f')sychological distress, {c) provide pr.ompt rredic.:ll zlttention 

for trcubrent. of injuries which may occur despite safegl.l.:lrds, and (d) Cll!';llH~ the 

porticipant I s personal privacy as well as maintain confidcntiali ty of ini0l"111ation 

regarding participants. since the l:::ehavioral data will consist of videotupes of the 

partici ts I ~vior, the inyestigatoJ;"s will ensure. that the participants pictures thelr name. 

'''. I; I'; "NllfRsrO(lD fHAT ~ITHfH THF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. THE PARTICIPANT. OR THF PARTICIPANT'S PARfNT (lll ';"AH{)IAN MAY 

11 H'AINA II rHF PARTICIPANT'S INVIll VEMfNT IN THE RESEARCH AT ANY riME WITHOUT INCURHIN{, LEGAL lIAlJlL IlY I [lH SI'Ui 

II HMINII liON. 

\ 1. I tWfl"n'l If·rtdv thai my pnrtlC'IOdtlon IS voluntarv and that I have read and accept the terms of thIS agreement. 

i' ,,111 Ip.lnl, nr P,Hflnt or rill,l,ttlnrl rS,unntu,,,j Onllt 

01110 

\ (. ~'I'IV T • .,rn,,"mtlon IJv ISIfJnn,urp} Daln 

---------------~--~--~-~ 24 usc OMM·NHS·DC 
Appendix B

Recipes of AllAN Meals

Involving Cooking on Kitchen Ranges

25

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Appendix B 

Recipes of AHAM Meals 

Involving Cooking on Kitchen Ranges 

25 
NU DAY 1

reakfast

MENU DAY 1

Lunch

\IINU flAY I

1)1 !ttt' t•

f

MI AL

I .'i *. tq' Wit I

1 t.p si1

1.1/3 cups Quaker Quick Oats

Raisins

I

Brown Sugar

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

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

I 3. Remove from heat (add Raisins and Brown Sutar if desired).

L_ - 4. Cover and let stand a few minutes before serving.

MEAL 2 GRILLED-cH[:EsE sANnbIcIu;s

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 U minutes).

I MEAL U 3 ARM POT ROAST

Beef arm roast (4 ibs)

4 ndhmi potatoes

4 small onions

4 carrots

1/4 cup flour

2 This, shortening

1 This. + 2 teaspoons salt

1-1/4 teaspoon pepper

1/4 cup water

Trim excess fat from meat. Mi-x flour, 1 tablespoon plus 2 teaspoons salt

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

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

• Then add meat and brown gn 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 wacr

2 ThIn. I Iuur

2 This. guwy colorIng

When pot roast is done, remove meat and vete tab 1 e fi'iu I itch oveit L3ui.

liquid into large measuring cm, skim elf excess lit • Re: inn cur

liquid to Ritch oven. Riace flour ard 'atcr in ccvert'd at, shO t u

blend. Add flour mixture and gravy colon jute tot ueat broth, bri.g

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

MEAL #3 PEPPERIDGE FARM, PARKLRIIOUSL ROLLS

1. Follow Instructions on package.

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

MEAL #3 APPLE CRISP

2 - 20 oz. cans apples (sliced)

2/3 cup light brown sugar

1.12 cup flour

1/2 cup Oats, Quick Quaker

1/2 cup margarine (soft Chiffon)

3/4 teasroon cinnamon

3/4 teaspoon nutmeg

1. Drain apples, retain juicc

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

3. Sprinkle 2 This. apple juice over apples.

4. Mix dry ingredent to'ethcr.

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

6. Sercad evenly over annics.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

""";j\U DAY 1 

Jreakfast 

~IENU DAY 1 

Lunch 

\II'NII !lAY 

Il i II II t' r 

~II 1\ I. • I 

~'EAL N 2 

lolEAL '3 

MEAL N:5 

MEAL M3 

~ llll'~ w,II,," 

1 bp ~.dt 

1-1/3 cups Qwker QtIlLk Chts 

Raisins 

Brown Sugar 

1. Place ,,'ater and sal t in a sauce pan and brir;~ to boil, 

2. Stir in oats, boil unco\'ered for 1 -'stirring OLcasion.:.llly. 

3. Remove from heat (.:Idd !bi$lfL~ and Urm\'n SUI~;lr 1 f desired). 

4. Cover and let stJr.d a [CI" nunutes before serving. 

GRILLED-CII[ESE SA~()\\'ICIII::-i 

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 des ired) . 

2. Grill tmtil golden brown on e:Jch side (:Jpproxirutdy 12 minutes). 

Beef ann TO:JSt (4 Ibs) 

4 medium potatoes 

4 small onions 

4 carrots 

1/4 cup flour 

2 ThIs. shortening 

1 ThIs. + 2 te:Jspoons salt 

1-1/4 teaspoon pepper 

1/4 cup "'3 ter 

AR..\I POT ROAST 

Trim excess fat from meat. ~Ii-x flour, 1 t:Jble~poon plus 2 teaspoons s:Jlt 

and 1-1/4 teaspoon pepper. ' Rub flour mixture into n:e:Jt, 

shake off excess. ~Ie 1 t shorte:1i ng in a [)1.Itc.h oven on r:Jnge top. 

Then add meat and brOlI1l sn botn sldes. AJj 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 tmtil do'ne, about one hour longer. 

Gravy: 

] cup mC:lt broth from rot ro.1~ t 

1/4 Clip I"a(rr 

2 '111 In. Illlll \' 

2 1111s. I:l'uvy coloring 

1I11en pot roast is done, rcmov(' meat and \'l'!'t't;l"lt'~; fr,)111 l'l1tel1 O\'CII. l'uul' 

liquid into large I:1L'.1Suring C\~1, skim ('if excess 1.1t. 1~L'11l11l I l'lIl' 

liquid to ntlteh on'n. Place flour arc! h'at('r in l('\'l'!'l'd ,i:II'. :'Il.Ilt' !l) 

blend. Add flour mixture and gravy colol'ill~: illtl' hut 1I:L':tt broth, br:I.!: 

to boil, stirring continuoLL<;lr. let cook for 1 n:inute. 

PEPPERIDGE FA~I, PARI\ERIIOUSE Rl)I.LS 

1. Follow ins tructions on pacbge. 

2. Warm rolls in a 3500 oven for 3-5 minutes. 

APPLE CRISP 

2 - 20 oz. cans apples (sliced) 

2/3 cup light br~,n su~ar 

112 cUjJ flour 

1/2 cup Oats. Quick Qu.:1ker 

1/2 cup ma rga rine (so ft Chi ffon) 

3/4 teasroon cinn3n~n 

3/4 teaspoon nutmeg 

1. Drain apples, retain JUlce. 

2. Spread applL's evenly over 8" x 8" x 2" ~reased pyrex dish. 

3. Sprinkle 2 lbls. apple juice over apples. 

4. Mix dry jnr.rcdcnt tO~'l'ther. 

'S. Blend in r.t:Jrr.arinc \Vi tit fork lUltil mixture is crun~lly. 

6. Snread evenly over :ll1nlcs. 
1 ftAV 2

.unch

EAL #5

IMEAL #6

VEGETABLE SOUP

1. Place soup in a covered sauce pan.

2. Heat until steani is noted around lid of sauce pqn and

then turn off.

BAKED CUICKEN tV/.CRj\VV

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 c}Licker. pisces in single

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

Save drippings for gravy.

GRAVY

1NI1 I)AY 2

Dinner

1 can Campbell croon of nishroom soup

1/2 cup nu.lk

In a sauce pan combine chicken drippings with soup. 1\dd

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

AL #6 HASHED POTATOES

2 oups Instant Potato Buds

2 cups Water

3 Thls. 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 unti' dcsircd

consistency.

MEAL #6 • 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 ititg:irinc

1/2 cup water

2. Bring t boil and then sinuller Lot 10 minutes.

MEAL #6 FRUIT1NGELATIN SALAF)

1 - 3 oz. packne strawberry 5db

- oz. package Birdseye Quick-thaw mixed fruit

1. Bring water to boil in a sauce pan. -

2. Add gelatin, stir in until dissolved.

3. Md frozen fruit and stir.

4. Divide mixture evenly into four custard cups.

S. Chill until gelatin sets.

AL #6 REFRIGERATED BISCUITS

1. Follow instructions on package.

2. Place biscuits on cookie sheets and place in 4000 oven.

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

28

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

\'1 ["l:\Y 2 

.. LIl1C h 

T0:tr 1)1\ Y 2 

Dinner 

~IEAL # 5 

~IEAL # 6 

I' 

~!EAL # 6 

~IEAL # 6 

~IEAL H 6 

VEGETABLE SOUP 

1. Place soup in a covered sauce pan. 

2. Heat until steam is noted arowld liJ of Sauce p:jn aruJ 

then turn off. 

BAKID CIIICHN W/GR.J\vY 

8 chicken thighs 

1 envelope· Shake-n-Bake 

Wash chicken thighs tmder cold Ivater. Then, cmt chiden accordin~ 

to instructions on Shake-n-Bake pD.ckage. Pl.Jce chicken pisces in single 

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 mi lk 

In a sauce pan corrhine chicken drippings with soup. AJd 

1/2 cup of milk gradU<llly. Bring to a boil and serve. 

2 oups Instant Pot~to Buds 

2 cups Water 

3 Tb1s. margarine 

3/4 teaspoon salt 

1/3 c!JP milk 

~tASHED POTATOES 

Place water, milk, margarine ~md salt in a sauce p;1n, bring to hail. 

Remove from hea t, stir in potatoes l.,ri th a table fork untl~ desired' 

consistency. 

BIRDSEYE GREEN CUT BEANS 

Follow package instructions using a sauce pan w/lid or 

_;0.--'. 1. Place frozen beans in sauce pan and add: 

1/2 teaspoon salt 

1 tablespoon I!l;ll'!:arinc 

1/2 cup water 

2. Bring t) boil and then sinullcr for 10 minutes. 

FRUIT-IN-GELATiN S:\L,\J) 

I - 3 oz. pac~,~e strawberry jello 

1 - ~O oz. package Birdseye Quick-th:lH mixeu fruit 

1. Bring water to boi~ in a'sauce pan. 

2. Add gelatin, stir in lliltil dissolved. 

3. Add frozen fruit and stir. 

4. Divide mixture evenly into four custard cups. 

S. Chill until gelatin sets. 

~IEAL #6 REFRIGliRATED BISCUITS 

1. Follow instructions on package. 

2. Pl~ce biscui~s on cookie sheets and place i~ ,1000 oven. 

3. Remove biscuits when light, golden brown or Jbollt 9-11 minutes. 

28 
INII RAY i eggs SCRAMBUD IiGGS W liii BACON TR I I'S

Rreakfast 1/4 cup milk

2 This. butter or margarine

1/2 lbs. bacon (8 strips)

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 bottcm.

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

1ENU DAY 3 [MEAL 118 HOT DOGS

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

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

3. Serve on a bun.

MEAL 119 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

\flMTT tL1U LmL

4 medium-size potatoes, cut in 1 inch cubes

S medium-size carrots, quartered

Dinner 1-1,2 cups frozen peas

1/4 cup water

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

seasoned flour. Brown meat in hot oil in a Dutch ovcri. Acid

water and cover tightly, s inner until meat is t c tdc r 1 ' hours)

Md onions, potatoes, and carrots. Cover and s inn:c' r I mi mcmli's. Add tc1s

cover and sinniier until all vc'etablcs ue tc'ncler. B) c'ii 1/4 ciq' watcr

with remaining flour. Add to Stew, Stirrint'. gcntly; LTLok unttl thick&'ncci.

MEAl. #9 PEPPERIDGE FARM BROWN AND SliRVIi GOLDI:N TWIST ROLLS

According to package instructions or

1. Place On ungreased cookie sheet.

2. Bake in 3750 pre-heated oven until golden brown.

29

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

"EN!) 1l:\Y 3 L- ~ 

Ilreakfast 

-".-'. 

m:NU 

Lunch 

DAY 3 L-- ~ 

~IENU DAY 3 

Dinner 

MEAL #9 

MEAl" N 9 

SCRMIRI.ED EGGS W ITII BACON STI{ [I'S 

7 eggs 

1/4 cup milk 

2 lbls. buttcr or mJrg~rine 

1/2 Ibs. "bacon (8 strIps) 

Eggs: 

1. Break eggs in bowl. 

2. Add milk and beat \\i th fork. 

3. Helt butter or marg~rine in a skillet. 

4. Add egg mixture ~d cook SlOldy stirring occ~sionally to ~lloh' 

uncooked portion to flow to bottcr.J. 

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

IIOT DOGS 

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

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

3. Serve on a bun. 

1/3 cup flour 

1-1/2 teaspoons salt 

1/8 teaspoon pepper 

BEEF STEW 

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

2 tablespoons l'lesson oil 

3 cups water 

3 medium-size onions sliced 

4 medium-size potatoes, cut in I inch cubes 

5 medium-size carrots, quartered 

1-1/,2 cups frozen peas 

1/4 cup water 

Combine flour, s~lt and pcpper (s~ve rem.1Inlnr; flour). Co.1t me~t with 

scasoncd flour. RrOIo.11 meat In hot all in a Dutcll ovcn. ,\dd 

watcr and cover tightlr, sirmncr until meat is tl'nder L1'~ hours). 

Add onions, pot:ltoC's, and C:ln·ots. CO\'cr LInd SillU:k'r I:, lIlilllltl'.s. ,\..Id pcas 

covcr and sinullcr until all vegetables are tl'ndcl". 1\\ elld 1/·' '"Iii' ""atL'1" 

with rcmaining flour. J\Jd to stel'l, stirring gl'lltly; '"l'0h. WIt tl tJlidcllCd. 

PEPPERIDGE FAR~I BROWN AND ,SERVE GOLDJ:~ TlnST ROLLS 

According to package instructions or 

1. Place bn ungreased cookie sheet. 

2. Bake in 3750 pre-heatcd oven Wltil golden brrnm. 

29 
MENU DAY 4

Lunch

MENU DAY 4

Dinner

M1:AL all C,ilCKl: s"('plj i'

1. Pisee soeq in a covered s.lte pin.

2. lIat untfl steam is noted around lid of satae p.m aM thit turn off.

I Li TUN, AD f1a S.tL.\I)

2 h.srd boil cecs

1 (3 o.) cmi tmmr.l fish

1/2 cup r.iv.'mLm iu

as it and li''cr

To cook eggs:

Place cgm mm a amve rn, cover m. rh tcr I' dome

bring l.ipm,Jtv to j L'jl. e:ver. ,covm' :rm meit • t m.m 10

tsen eggs fuve c.uind, peel aM etm:p. hitti tum'i .l t_'ss Im. iiiv.

MIAL Ill CIIOCOLArI £1111' t:,'.'im

________________ 1/3 cup nhorti'tnt

1/3 CL' ;mrar mcttme,J)

l cup prmutatcJ sml:ar

1⁄2 cup itcilt su:lr ii'.ei)

3 egg

1 teaspoon vanilla

1⁄4 cups all pmir'ee Ileur

Ii teaspoon sc.u

1⁄2 teaspoon salt

1⁄2 cup chopped tutu

1 package (b o:. each) chocolate chip psecea

1. Heat oven to 3750,

2. Mix thoroucthiy shortening, nurgarine, sugar, c'p.gs. an.I vatmi I Ia.

3. Stir in remaining ingredients.

4. Prop dough by sotmrmded teaspoonfuls, ' apart onto ungreased

cookie sheet.

S. Bake 8 to 10 minutes or until goldefl becuat.

6. Cool Slightly before renving from cookie sheet.

MEAl. 112 ITALIAN SP.\GIILTTI

1 lb. ground beef 1 envelope Italian Stv!c' spaghetti

1/2 cup onion (finely chcred) sauce tutu irooru

I green pepper (finely chopped) l'l/2 cups water

I can tomato saue 1 ThIs. nucar

I can tomato raste 1 clove of 1'arlic (cnimnl)

1 Bay leaf (cn:hlcJ) .1 - 8 0:. rack.ige itiit:i ':ummctt

1 taspoon oregano grated parmmuouor. cf:eesu

1. Place ground beef, onions, and preen puprcr ll( a ktliet, cook

snd Stir until ecat Is broms'ri and onions arc tenders.

2. Stir In remaining Ingredients etccpt spaghetti and chcso.

3. Cover, sirpsmr I hour stirring sauce occasionally.

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

package.

S. Serve neat sauce over spaghetti and pass the cheese.

MEAl. 912 CARLIC HREtI)

1. cut 2 French bread loaves In half (the long way)

2. Mix 1/2 cup soft m-.-mrnarine and 3/4 teaspoon of garlic pom.der or

I finoly minced mimic, si:ed, garlic cloud.

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

4. Plato In oven. close to broiler unit.

S. Leivo door open and toast to a golden brown.

MEAL 112 WliIPPF.D CLLATIN

_____________

I pac.ige gelatin

1 cup boilmnt water

1 cup cold water

1. MIx gelatin in a bowl • with boiling water.

2. Stir until gelatin diolved.

3. AM cold water and stir.

4. Chill in refrigerator until set (alicut 31) minuteS).

S. Thip with electric portable mIxer 3 minutes at esmtlkr speed.

6. Return to refrigerator and chill for 45 mInutes.

30

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

MENU DAY 4 

Lunch 

MENU DAY 4 

Dinner 

'tEAL III 

m:AL III 

MEAL III 

MEAL 112 

MF.AI. 112 

MEAL 112 

Cltlcn:>: ~l'lIPI.I SI'PI' 

1. PI,a .. ,'''' in 0 <overeu ~JlI('e l1.1n. 

1. lIe.t until SIc, .. is notrJ .l""uki IIJ of sou.:c r.11l .J.nJ th.:n . tum of{. 

TUlI.\ A~D n;~ S.\ L.\ 11 

2 turU boil 'I'r' I (30:.) c.," tllr.' fish 

l/~ cup r~I\\.'f\.l.ll"'u 

BAit 4.k.I il,-'pp"r 

To cool .~r.5: 

rhcc Cf(" In.l ~:\~"".(' ;":1:'10, I.."o\"\"r "'Ith .... ;tl"r I" .ll·C"\'(" (','\" 

bnne r,ll'1Jh' to.1 t' .. 'll, ~':\',,·r. ":'~'-:cn' fr ... ·1 !:\"H, !l'l :: 1:-" ... 1 In ":I!:t1tC~4 

'k.."'lcn (''t~b~ tun' ~ .. \Jh.Jt r"'~l J.:}"j .'ll_"'? .':n. kilh t~~, ",,: .. J t~'ss 1"h~ly. 

CIII)COloHt: ClIlI' t:l'l'~ II.S 

In Cl1\1 shorttnl n~ 

1/3 Ct.';' ::·:lr~·:.1r~:·I.· (~cfte:lt...J) 

;- ell? ~r.t:-.ul.1tL.·J ~tI,:Jr 

;- cup Dn,)I." Sl:!:Jr lP.l":"l..J) 

leu 

1 t~Jspc<>n \'.:1n111.1 

J'I curs III pUr,'OS'.' tl"ur ;- t("J~rocn ~(\.':"I 

Is te"r""" ,J l: 

Is cup chCi'l'CU nuts I p:>wCe (6 0:. eleh) chacollte cilip pice,·, 

1. lIeat O\'en to 3750 •. 

2. ~lix thorou~hl)' shortening, Ollrprine, SU,lT, ers', "".1 \·~"illl. 

3. Stir in re~ining inl:Tcdients. 

4. [lr(ll' dough by rounded telspoonful" ;" 'l'lTt onto un~re:l'~ 

cookie sheet. 

S. lI.ll:e 8 to 10 ",inutes or wltil colue;! b.""". 

6. Cool slightly before re:tl:>ving {ro", codic sheet. 

ITAI.IA:> Sr.\t;III:TTI 

1 lb. l:Towtd beef 

1/2 cup onIon ([I"ely cb:;-7'ed) 

1 green peprer (finel)' ch:ppcll) 

1 can tom to Slll.:e 

1 c<ln tonuto rJ>te 

I lI.ly lea f (c n:,!' led) 

1 ~5poon oreglno 

1 cnvclc!'e It:lli,,n HV!c ,p~l:hetti 

sauce "'.1:\ ,",'/~I~!tr"'-'~..::i 

l·l/~ CUj'S ... .ltcr 

1 This. ,~c~r 

1 clo\'e ot· .. "ite (en";;,,ll 

·1 - 8 0:. pck-.;:e Itl!:·,,, '":II~hetti 

I ,-rated r~~$Cr. cta:l.'s\: 

1. Pllce r.rour:d beef, onions·, and ~rcen pc·erer ill' sUllet, .:cok 

end Itir until n:"H Is bT01,'; .nd 001011.' arc tend~rs. 

Z. Stir tn rCm.1ining In~rcd1ents except spl •. het tl .nd rhoese. 

3. Covor. sl"fCr I ~.our sclrrlnr. ,.ucc occJSlollally. 

4. Using a covered sou.:e p.n, ccoi. JpJ.hettl " direct"ll on 

rac .... ' •. 

5. Sorve ,",.'.t lOuce over splr,hcttl and r'ss th~ ~hee,~. 

CARLIC "HAll 

1. CUt 2 Frencll br,-.d 100"'" In 1t.~1f (the Ion;: ~ .• y) 

2. Mix lIZ cup soft ... lr~l~ine and 3/~ te"pocn of £lTlic po"der or 

1 finoly runccd rodllr1 sl:eu, carlic clove. 

3. Spread thicklY on hreld and placc on Wlgre.sed cookie sheet. 

4. rhco in oven, close to broiler Wlit. 

S. Leavo door open and toast to 3 goldcn bTC1on. 

I p'C~.l~C rel.tin 

1 cup bot! In~ ~·'ter 

1 (UP cold ... ,tcr 

WIlIPPr.U GHATI~; 

1. MIx gel.tln In I bawl, with boiling Io';ltcr. 

Z. Stir ulltil ~I.tin di~sol".cd. 

3~ Add cold Io':1ter and HI r. 

4. Chill In refrigerator until set (allOUt 10 minules). 

S ... hlp .. lth ~I.ctric port~hle mixer 3 mlnutc, at .. ,Jh .. '(,<,00. 

6. Retum to reCrlcerllor .I'd chill Cor ~s mlnlltc,. 

30 
MENU DAY 5

[L 013

Bfëakfast

MENU DAY 5 I

Lunch I

MEAL 015

MENU DAY 5

Dinner

MEAL 015

4 eggs

SOFT -COOKL:n CCGS

1. Place eggs in 3 S3UcC pan, Cover COnqlCtcly with cold water,

leave lid oft.

2. Place sauce pan on surface wilt, turn control to highest setting,

and bring to lull boil.

3. Pensive sauce pan from hc.it, cover, let atand Icr 3 nitnutea,

LI:FTOVI:R nu: r

1. Usc Dinty Moore canned beef tcw.

2. Place 2 cups of stew in a covered sauce and heat until

vegetab1e and tacat are heated throughout.

BRALS1I) PORK ciors

6 pork loin chc!'S, 1,2" thick

3 ibIs. veFetable oiL

salt and pepper

1/2 cup water

1. Heat oil in uncovered skillet.

2. Browii chops on each side.

3. Season with salt and pepper to taste.

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

(No pink shows in meat.)

SCALLOP1:D l'OT\TES

1. Follow package instructions or

2. Remove potatoes in th' container place in 4000F pro-heated

oven.

3. Bake for 45-55 minutes or until top is golden brown.

MEAL 015 BUTTERU) SPIN.\CII (GRCL> CL\NT)

1. Follow package instructions or

2. Place 1 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 15 minutes with cover on.

S. Remove and season for table u5e.

MEAL 015 RED hOT APPLEsAUCE:

1. Place applesauce in a sauce pan.

2. Md 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.

MEAL 015 LEMON MElt I NGUL P11.

9" plc shell (ret Ritz)

4-3/4 0:. package jello lemon pie filling (Regular)

3 egg whites

6 This, sugar (confectionery ), 1/2 cup plain sugar

3 cups water

1. Pie Shell: Bake for 10 minutes in 400°F pre-heated oven.

2. Pie Filling: According to package instructions.

Mix package contents ith, sugar, cup of water, and slightly

beaten egg yolks. Stir in Z' cups of water and place

sauce pan (withcut cover) or. stirtace unit. luni

to mediza heat, stir until mixture boils, and tenove pie fill in

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). Md & Thls. of confectionary sugar and beat until stiff

peaks form.

Spread meringue over pie.

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

BaJe until meringue is golden brown (5 minutes) and remove from

oven to cool.

3].

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

MENU DAY 5 

Breakfast 

MENU DAY 5 

Lunch 

~ .. -.. 

MENU DAY 5 

Dinner 

I ~II:AI. 'I ~ 

~(EAL 'IS 

~IEAL '15 

~IEAL '15 

~IEAL , 1 5 

~IEAL , 1 5 

SOFT ·COOKHD 1:r.GS 

4 eggs 

1. Place eJ:!:s in J 5JUCr. p.:m. cover con.,letcly with colJ water, 

leave lid of{. 

2. rl~ct! 5JUCe ran on surface unit, tum control to hi\:hc5t 5ctlln!:, 

.nd brln" to full boll. 

3. Ilcll'l.lvC! IJUCO PJn (rom heJ t, cOI·ur. I.cl st.' ",I t'ur 3 nllnntc •• 

LHTUn:R nil:!' $1'1\( 

1. Usc Diney ~!oore canned beef Hel'. 

2. Place 2 CLIpS of stew in a cOI'ereJ ~':lIlce [\In amI hc.ll until 

vegetables and l:Ieat arc heated tJlrou~holl:. 

BRAISEU rORI..: C1~Or::i 

6 pork loin chcl'S, 1I~" thick 

:3 lbls. vcr.etable oil 

s~lt and prrrcr 

1/2 cup "Jter 

1. /Ieat oil in uncovered skillet. 

2. Br~n chops on each sid~. 

3. Season "i th sal t Olnd pepper to tas te. 

4. hid a Sm.1ll anuunt of ""ater, con'r tightlY .1n,1 cook lL'ltil Jonc. 

(No pink shol,s In mea t.) 

SCALLOrt:U I'OT..\TllES 

1. Follow pack.:lge instructions or 

2. Remove pot.'lto~~ in th'l containelj place in 4000

[, pre,heJteJ 

oven. 

3. Bake for 45-55 minutes or lUltil top is golden brol>ll. 

BUTTERED S r [:\.\CII ((;R[[:\ G L\:\T) 

1. Follow packlge instructions or 

%. Place 1 ~vp of \.;atcr in SJUCC pan, bring to full 

·boi1 at high setting. 

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

4. Thrn down to medium and cook for IS minutes wi th cover on. 

S. Remove and season for table use. 

RED 1I0T Arrl.l:S,\lIc:t: 

1. Place applesauce in a SOluce pan. 

2. Add 1/2 packlge of "red hot" cinmmon candy hCOlrts. 

3. /Ieat at lo .... -medium heat, stir occasionall)', for 5-6 millulC~. 

4. Taste for cirw"l.lr.1On flavor, aJd I:IOre reU hots if Jesirt'd. 

LHION ~ll:Itl:\GUL I'lL 

g" pic shell (ret Ri t:) 

1 • 4-3/4 0:. pack.:lce jello lemon pic filling (R.:~lar) 

3 egg "'hi tes . 6 TbIs. sugar (confectionery ). lIZ cup plain sugar 

3 cups wa ter 

1. Pie Shell: Bake for 10 minutes in 400°F pre-heateJ oven. 

2. Pie Filling: According to pOlck.:lge instructions. 

Hix p:lckil!!e contents "ith sU.~JT, " cup of ""ate!", Olnd sl i~htlr 

beaten cg!! folks. Stir in 2', CLIpS of "ater OlIIJ pl:u:e sauce pOln (h'ithcut cover) on Stll"l:l;:e unn. Tt.:m 

to mcdilr.1 heOlt, stir until mixture boils, an,1 rcr.ove rie fillin 

fill ing. Let cool for 5 minutes and the'll potlr into pic 

shell. 

3. Pic Heringuc: 

31 

Place egg ""hitt's in bONI and beat until fO:lmy (portJble elC'CtrL.: 

nixer). ,\Id 6 lbls. of confcctionary sugar ano.l ut'at untIl suff 

peaks form. 

Spread acringue over pic. 

Set oven to 3Z50 F and place pic in center of oven. 

Bake tultil meringue is golden brown (5 minutes) and remove from oven to cool. 
MENU DAY 6 LMEAL #17 EGG SALAD

Lunch moyonnaise

salt and pepper

To hard cook eggs:

Place eggs in sauce pan cover with water 1" above eggs.

Rapidly bring water to a boils cover, remove from heat and let stand covered

about 15 minutes.

hhen eggs have cooled, peel and chop.

Add mayonnaise, salt and pepper to taste.

_____________ Make 2 sandwiches.

MEAL P18 BROILED PISU BROILED TOMATO

2 packages (12 oz. each) frozen halibut steaks

3 This. butter

salt, peppçr and pnprika

2 mediun-size tomatoes

MENU DAY 6

Dinner

MEAl. #18

MEAL #18

MEAL #18

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. Thrn 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 onlor chopped

1 can beef consonino

1 Cup rice

I can water

1. Molt butter; sauto onion until yellow.

2. Add consmne, rice and water.

3. Bake in covered casserole at 35Q0, for 1 hour.

PEAS WITh PEARL O>UONS

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 sininer 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.

1 Cn1c n,,rlrlincv .firiinc' rnnstrintlv. until done (anoroximatoly s_i minutes).

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~IENU DAY 6 

Lunch. 

MENU DAY 6 

Dinner 

--- r------ It.mAL 117 

NEAL ns . 

MEAl. US 

~IEAL , IS 

MEAL 118 

2 crgs 

myollrulise 

salt and pepper 

To hard cook eggs: 

EGG SALAD 

Place eggs in sauce pan cover wi th lr.':lter 1" above eggs. 

R.lpidly bring ' .. ater to a boi~ cover remove from heat and let stand covered 

about IS minutes. ' 

hoen eggs hJve cooled, peel and chop. 

Add ma),ollrulise, salt and pepper to tas te. 

~lake 2 sandwiches. 

BROILED FISH & BROILED Tm!,xTO 

2 packages (12 0:. each) frozen halibut steaks 

3 ThIs. butter 

salt, pepP9r and p~prika 

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 wi th mel ted butter. 

5. Place frozen fish in colander and rinse under cold running "'~ter. 

6. Dry thoroughly I~i th paper tOll'el, 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. 'fum fish, brush with butter, sprinkle lvith salt, pepper, <lnU 

paprika. 

9. Broil an additional 10 minutes or wltil done. 

10. Remove fish and tomatoes. 

1 cup butter 

1 oniol) chopped 

1 con Deef consomno 

1 cup rico 

1 clln WIl tor 

RICE PILAF 

1. Molt butter; sauto onion until yellow. 

2. Add consOJ1U11C, rice and wa ter. 

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

PEAS WITH PEAR!. mnONS 

1. Follow package instructions using a sauco pan with 

cover or . 

2. Place frozen peas in sauce pan and·add 

1/2 teaspoon salt 

I tablespoon margarine 

1/2 cup water 

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

TAPICOA PUDDING W/FRUIT TOPPTNG 

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

2 cups milk 

I package frozen fruit 

1. Place mix in sauce pan. 

2. Slowly add milk, stirring with spatula for 2 minutes. ,_ C"nnk nllrl,lin,,_ ",ti,.,.;n" .-nnc;t:mtlv. until done (anoroximatelv 5-7 minutes). 
!I 41, I l',Nl;A I. I 1

1 CItI III! li.i v l'i,,-i'.licI 'incite HI

I cii, I*ule milk r j,,-

3 flix, IIII 1/2 tc..1'k,n ouliii oil

1 3mru c

MENU DAY 7

Breakfast

MENU DAY 7

Dinner

3, Preheat i&dlle at medium setting.

2. In larfe l'wl mix toethcr p.irake mix, milk, egg, and

1 ThIs. Cooking eel.

3. Greise griddle w&tli 1/2 teaspoon cooking oil.

4. UsIng 1/I cir rs'aaure, dip hitter onto c'rid.lic, cc$ in. rar...ikei

It a tire'. lik;':oak.: ii- I,. r.iait en e.wh s i.k' 'r tuit ii

I bubbles first a'I'car on first side, or p.ii ilea 3 1&ht oidon

br.n.

S. Repeat ccokng (or remaining t'.it.hes mike l 15 pa.akes.

MEAL '1 SAUSAGLS

10 Sausages links

2 This. vater

1. Place sausage links in cold skillet, add h.iter arid cover.

2. Cock on rv'diun scttng for 4 riinutes.

3. Rercve cover atd ccak until I inks are 1i1!it cold,n hrc',i, tumin

_______________ frequently (total cooking tiric - ill3 sunutca)

MEAL '21 RIB STLtKS

4 • 1" thick • I lb. rib steaks

1. lpc meat lightly with parer tovel.

2. Score fat by cuttjn vertical sljshcs in fat about 1 or 2 inches apart. not cut into lean.

3. PIece steaks on broiler rack in broiler pan.

4. Set oven to broil, place broiler pan tri broiler unit so that

a5out 3-1/2" clearance is left between heating unit and top of food. Leave oven door ajar.

S. troll on first side S minutes.

6. Thm and broil on second side. ,'ibout 6-3 minutes for rcslltxa done,

MEAL 111 BAKED POTITOLS

4 • 6 cx. alto Idaho baking potatoes

1. Sctub 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.

MEAL 12! SAUTEED 4USIIROOMS

1/2 lb. fresh ,oishrooms

S Ibla. buttcr

1. Melt butter ma skillet.

2. drl butter In part. AId iiohroon cook 3.5 rtiriutcs tirring

frequently until -uzhrcroras arc olJen brown (dark color

indicates overcookci).

MEAL 121 BROCCOLI SPIi.\RS

1 package (10 or.) froren broccoli spears

1/2 tcaspcon salt

1/2 CU water

1. Place water, salt. and broccoli In a sauce pan.

v/cover. Thin burner to iii" sctttr.g md bring rapidly to a

full boil, about 5.1/2 to 6-1/2 minutes.

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

for S minutes or until tcidcr. Test for tcndcrnss 1w

piercing vegetables in both stem and (loer with fcrk.

MEAL 21 lOT FRI:NcII RRF;Ar)

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

1. Place bread on cookie sheet.

2. Place cookie sheet In oven, set at 401:1°

3. Bake 10 to 12 mInutes or until crust Is browned.,

MEAL 121 Dl:VIL'S P000 CAKL

• 9 or. psk.ige Jiffy cake nix

- I large eg

1/2 cup water

2 tCSpnOns Crico to flour and crease casserole

1. RlcixicaBe mix, 1/4 cup water audi egg in mixer at Ms. I spcdd

(lowest) for iS seconds.

2. Boat for 2 atiraites at metlitus sliced, scrape bowl oftcn.

3, Md 1/4 cis water arid teat 2 mInutes Ionl'cr at attiIta speed.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

MENU DAY 7 

Breakfast 

MENU DAY 7 

Dinner 

"'"'.1111 

MrAL 'I~ 

MEAL '21 

MEAL I Z I , 

MEAL' Z1 

MEAL 121 

MEAL' 21 

IW~I;~~I :, 

I CI~' '·I1I·h'.I\' """., ...... I.,d I', ... ' "Lv ~Ih 

1 f'.' ",,,,llt' "', n th,lt. r t.1I\ h' It'·,d t',lr rhilUll'r mIll 

1 1hh. 1'1111 it: lI..'·'''I'Ik..'" ,",W"llll: \Ill 

1 lQr~1I "OIl 

1. Prthc~t iI'lJJI. at ...... 11"" ,,·ttln~. 

Z. I~ lor~c t.,·wl ",I, !<'I:,·ther p.'n.:~le IlliX, mill, tU, ~ ..... 1 Ibis. coollllil all. 

3. Crt". ~riJJle .'illt In teaspoon coo~in~ oil. 

4. Usln, I/J Cll' n·'~u"". uir hattt'r on Ttl rnd.l!c. ,:c,'I,n.~ J rJr. .... 'h •• at. tin'. (\:"<Jt.: ;'.I:}o..·..Il..':s (l-l/': r.:..L:1Uh.'.'il \'n I,~J..:h ~l.ll· ... 'r autll 

bul>blC'. IIrH al'I'Nr 011 flr,t $I.!':, or P.II""~'·' ~ l'l:ht ~ohJ.m b""'lI. 

S. atpc~t cooline (Ilr l't'mainillC ~.It'n..·s "uh' 1:,15 I'-'n.'al"., 

SAUSA~lS 

10 SlUS3~t. I inu 

Z 11011. "'~t"r 

1. Place Slus.,ce link. in c:old .lilkt, ~JJ ".:er anJ .:ovcr. 

Z. Cock on n.'<lilr.l sett :ng (or ~ ninute., 

3. at""I'" cOI'cr ,::d .:cuk I",.tli li:lb ore Ii,:!,t ~(\l~"n ~rC'..,', turnil:. 

freqUC:lltl)' (totJl 'ulll'l\~ tll'I~ - Il·ll ~Ul\ut,·.). 

RIR sn,\~s 

4 • 1" thick· I lb. rib ateals 

1. "Ipo Il('lt lI~htl)' .·ltlt r'i'er to-',,1. 

Z. Score flt by wt tin~ I'en:':ll sl~,hes in f3t 3~ut ~r inc;h,'~ IPJrt. to not cut lilto I~:u,. 

3. Nc.:e stelks on broilcr ro.:x in broiler pan. 

4. Set O\'cn to broil. p]:Ice hroiler r,n !n hroiler IUlit 50 that 

8Xtut l-1/2" c lC:Ir,:"e IS left b~tl .. een I,,·~ ting UlII t ~nu top of 

food. !.cll·e ol'Cn uoor ")Jr. 

S. Broil on (lrst side 8 minutes. 

6. Tum and broil on sec:ond side. About 6-9 mlnut,·s for rr.l\lltJr.l 0011<'. 

BAHD pon TOrS 

4 • 6 oz. Ii:c 1d.1J1O ~lIn~ l'ot3toes 

1. Scrub ,klns, plert:e each one once with coo~in~ fork. 

2. Place on o\'en shel( In 1'0.lt!on closest to bottom o( o\'en, 

3. 8.1ke at 4000F (uo not preheJt) ~5-SS III1nll:e, or until l'ot3toos ,are done. 

lIZ lb. fresh IIllihroor:t5 

3 This. butter 

SAUTI]ED ~IUSIIROO~tS 

1. ~lclt butter In a skillet. 

2. ~rl buttcr In pJn. A.lel ::'H .. hroon.. c:ook loS ninutes "tlrring 

frequently until :-.l5hroor:tS are ~ ;oIJ~n br~.n lJJtK colur 

Indicates ol'ert:ooleJ). 

8 ROCCO LIS P I:.\RS 

1 rad:3~c (100:.) (ro:en broccoli .pean 

lIZ te",pC'on salt 

J/2 CIII' ... ~ter 

1. Place ... ater, ~alt, ,r:d broccoli In, Sluce p,n. 

w/em'cr. Turn hurner to '111" 5cttlr.~ .md hring r~l'iuly to. full boil, Jbout 5,1/2 to 6-1/2 r.llnutes. 

2. SepaT3te hroccoli with fork. Cover 3nd si .. -cr at, 10"- settln~ 

far S minute, or until tCJ:dcr. Tc:it for lcr.ucrnt'~! b~' 

piercing ~e~ctlble. in both >tern Jnd flo.",r With ferl. 

1I0T fRI:NCII RRI:,\fI 

1 lb. lOo1f sllceu Rainbow Frenc:h style bread (Jpproxim,ltely 14" lonll) 

1. Place breld on cookie sheet. 

2. !'lace cooklr sheet In ol"en. set It 4000• 

S. 8.1b 10 to 12 .,Inutes or until crust Is browned •• 

DI:VIL'S 1'000 CAKh 

1 • 9 oz. pa~bee Jif(y cll.e nix 

1 hrer er.l: 

liZ cup "Jlor 

2 tc,"!"",n, Cri "CO to Clour .nd Ire~,e cassrrolr 

2 te:J$J""'ns flQur 

1. Rle,.,1 c.,.e mix. 1/4 ,,~, w,lcr "' ... I e~c In .. ller at lb. I s~ 

(1"""'1) for IS 3et:onU3. 

2. Beat for Z .. inutcs 3t """lit ... ,!,cC<i, Ic:r.,pc 00..\ oflen: 

3. hid 1/4 Cl., wter .r>.! belt 2 Dtlnutes 101l1!"r at ~tlhn IpcCtI. 
Appendix C

Summary of Range Characteristics

34

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Appendix C 

Summary of Range Characteristics 

34 
e Oven Features.

Summary of Range Characteristics

_______________ __________________ e of Surface Units Size and Rating Infoijnation

Electric Range 1 -Self cleaning oven Tubular 0.15 (6 in)

1250 watts 8 240V. 0. 6 in (30 in) wide -Oven window 0.63 cm (1⁄4 in) wide 0.20 (8 in) 2100 watts 8 240V.

-Oven liqht

0.15 (6 in) 1250 watts 8 240V. -.

0.58 wide (22.75 in)

0.43 deep (16.75 in) - -

0.40 high (15.75 in)

0.098 & vo1tme (6002 in

2700 watts 8 240V.

Electric Range 2

0.'6 m (30 in) wide

-Catalytic cleaning

oven

-Oven windcy,.i

-Oven light

Tubular

0.63 cm (1⁄4 in) wide

0.20 (8 in) 2100 watts 8 240V.

0.15 (6 in) 1250 watts 240V. --

0.58 wide (22.75 in)

0.47 deep (18.50 in) -

0.43 sigh (17.00 in)

0.117 m 1im (7155 in

0.1S (6 in)

1250 watts 8. 240V.

20 a (8 in) 2100 watts 8 240V.

3400 watts 8 240V.

20 a (8 in) 2100 watts 8 24.

3400 watts 8 240\'.

2700 wattS 8 Z4DV.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Summary of Range Characteristics 

Ran 12 e Oven Features· Type of Surface Units 

Electric Range 1 l-self cleaning ovenl Tubular 

O. -6 m (30 in) wide -Oven window 0.63 an (~ in) wide 

-Oven light 

Electric Range 2 

0.76 m (30 in) wide 

w 

Ul 

-Catalytic cleaning 

oven 

-Wen vlinCJa..l 

-OVen light 

Tubular 

0.63 an (~ in) wide 

Size and Ratin 

0.20 a (8 in) 2100 watts @ 24OV. 

tion 

0.15 .. (6 in) 

1250 .... tts @ 240V. I 

I 

I 

0.15 a (6 in) 1250 watts @ 240V. -- -0.20 m (8 in) 2100 watts @ 24(J\". ,-- "I 

0.58 a wide (22.75 in) 

0.43 a deep (16.75 in) 

0.40 a high (15.75 in) 3 

0.098 a3 volume (6002 in ) 

2700 .... tts @ Z4OV. 

0.15 .. (6 in) 

~OO watts @ 240V. 

1250 .atts @ 24OV. 

0.20 III (8 in) 2100 watts @ 240V. 

... ' ... I!ii-------.,..~ 

0.15 II (6 in) 1250 watts @ 240V. --

0.58 II wide (22.75 in) 

0.47 II deep (18.50 in) 

0.43 II ~igh (17.00 in) 3 

0.117 m volume (71 SS in ) 

2700 watts @ 1.4fN. 

_O.cO m (8 in) 2100 """US ~ 2~(J\·. 
(cont iiiuod)

0v.,n Featur Tvne of Surface Urits Size and Patina Information

Electric Range 3 -Catalytic cleaning Tubular

0.76 in (30 in) wide oven 1.59 cm (5/8 jn '.:ide

-Oven windi

-Oven light

0.15 w (6 in) 1450 watts 8 2MW.

0.15 i (6 in) 1450 watts 8 236V. - -

0.58 m wide (23.00 in)

0.43 m deep (16.75 in) - -

0.40 ig) (15.75 in)

0.099 & vhime (6068 in

m (8 in) Zt,00 wa tts2ia.

3000 w,tts 23o

3000 watts 8 236V.

roi1 eleirent active at ' voltage

cbiring baking--effectiVe 3750 watts.

Electric P.anije 4 -Oven windc

0.51 m (20 in) wide OVfl light

Tubular

0 .63 cm (1⁄4 in) iside 0.15 (6 in) 1250 watts 8 240V

..

-

0.20 rn (8 in) 2100 watts 8 240V.

0.41 rn wide (i..03 in)

0.46 rn.decp (13.00 in) -

0.37 at high (14.51 in)

0.068 rn' voijns 117b in3)

0.15 (i Lfl)

1450 watts 8 23eV.

0.15 at (6 in)

1250 watts 8 240V.

.13 o (o in 113U

30th) watis 24th

1750 watts 8 240V.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

RlJll:e 

Electric Range 3 

0.76 rn (30 in) wide 

Oven Feature:::: 

Crt t:11 Y tic c 1 ec.. :ing 

oven 

;Jen v!inc:v 

.'e..n light 

Electric P.an.ge 1 l-oven winda-l 

0.51 m (20 In) wide ·4)ven light 

w 

(T) 

(continucd) 

l\Tle of Surface ll~,i ts 

Tuhular 

1. 59 em ( 5 / 8 i n'l \.: i de 

Tubular 

o .63 on (~ in) ,,:id~ 

Size and Rating InfoIm:ltion 

o . 15 II (I, ,n) 

HSO wath @ C:\<)V. 

0.15 II (6 in) 1450 watts @ D6V. 

0.15 II (6 in) 1450 wa~ts @ 

0.58 II wide (23.00 in) 

0.43 II deep (16.75 in) 

0.40 II bigh (15.75 in) 3 

0.099 iii' wlume (6068 in ) 

.... J.~1I m (8 in) !IJOO watts 2:0 •• 

3000 waLtS @ 236V. 

8roil elerent active at ~ vo1~age 

during baking--effective 3750 watts. 

0.15 .. (6 in) 

1250 wa tts @ Z4OV. 

@ 250\. 

0.15 .. (6 in) 1250 watts @ 240\'. I ... I 

0.20 m (8 in) 2100 watts 

0.41 II wide (IS.OJ in) 

0.46 .. d~~p (13.00 in) 

0.37 II high (1 4.5[1 in) 

0.068 .. 3 VO!WCL 11I7b w 3 ) 

.... I 

'i. 

-0.15 r.i (0 lf~~ 1'::'\1 ,;3:".;, :~C"\ .. \--- '>0 'tSJ' -- - ....... . I, 300U w3ttS • 240\ 

I 

17s{) ..... tts @ 240V. 
king Oven Features Te of Surface Uni

tiectric Range 5 -Self cleaning oven TuTular

0.76 m (30 in) wide -Oven windcy.j 0.63 (1⁄4 in) wide

-Oven light

(continued)

and Rating Tnf

0.20 (8 in) 2350 watts 8 240V.

0.15 (6 in) 1325 watts 8 240V.-

0.58 wide (23.00 in)

0.46 deep (18.00 in) -

0.41 high (16.00 iii)

0.109 D3 volume (6624 in

0.20 (8 in) 2350 watts 8 240V.

3410 watts 8 240V.

2585 watts 8 240V.

Broil e1eant active at 1⁄2 voltage

zring baking- -effective 3440 watts.

Gas Range 1 -Catalytic cleaning Pilot light

0.76 m (30 in) wide oven

Pilot light consp- -Oven ,rindc.i

tion is 0.0078 ft3/ -Oven light

ruin. -Pilot light

9000

12000 B1IJ -.

0.61 ii wide (24.00 in) -

0.47 deep (18.50 in) -

0.43 high (17.00 in)

0.124 m3 vohn (7548 in

t ion

0.15 (6 in)

1325 watts 8 240V.

9000 BU

i:ooo ruii

23000 WflJ

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

R:mQe 

Llectric Range 5 

0.76 m (30 in) wide 

(',as Rang e 1 

0.76 m (30 in) wide 

Pilot light cons_. 

tion is 0.0078 ft3/ 

min. 

W 

--J 

(}I.-en Features 

-Self cleaning over. 

-OVen Windo,., 

--{)v-en light 

l i 

" 

Catalytic cleaning 

oven 

en .,..rinco,.! 

en ligr.t 

Pilot light 

(continued) 

T\~~ ~~ Surface Units 

Tur:..:lar 

0.63 ~. (~ in) wide 

Pilot light 

Size and RatinQ Information 

0.15 II (6 in) 

1325 .... tts @ HOY. 

0.20 II (8 in) 2350 watts @ 24OV. 

.. "" =------...,.-. 

0.15 1111 (6 in) 1325 watts @ 240Y. --

0.58 1111 vide (23.00 in) 

0.46 1111 deep (18.00 in) 

0.41 1111 high (16.00 in) 3 

0.109 m3 volume (6624 in ) 

,............ ~ 0.20 (8 in) 2350 watts ~ 240\'. 

II _I 

-- .... - 3410 watts @ 24OV. 

I 

2585 watts @ 24oy. 

Broil element active at ~ voltage 

during baking--effective 3440 watts. 

9000 BTIJ, 

9000 B1U 

I 

I 

'~ .. ----~--~~~ 

12000 8lU __ 

0.61 II wide (24.00 in) 

0.47 II deep (18.50 in) -- 0.43 II high (17.00 in) 3 

0.124 m3 volume (7548 in ) 

I 

23000 B1U 
(continued)

_____________________ Oven Feare Type of Surface Units Size and Pati

Gas Range 2 •Self c1ei: cver Electric spark ignition

0.To m (30 in) wide separate r:i:ar

el€zient

-Gb-bar

burner iciLor.

GSR- 108

0.51 m (20 in) wide

Pilot light Consump

tion is 0.0062 ft3/

nñn.

-Pilot light Pilot light

Information

10000 B11J.

10000 WI1J -.

0.56 a wide (22.00 in)

0.48 a deep (18.75 in)

0.35 a igh (13.75 in) -

0:093 a volure (5672 inn)

22000 BTU

Electric spark ignitici*

Sthject 111 expressed fear of the

spark ignition system and left burner on

between cooking so she ouldnt have to use

the spark. This practice is reflected in

her high energy conssrpt1'r.

12000 B11J

0.41 m wide (1O

0.46 a deep (18.mi in - -

0.36 migli (H.J

0.06dm vo1ucs p :,

9000 BTU

9000 0Th

I ici ai

'.16u0() Bill

1200d Er.

10000 0111

16000 8Th

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

R:m QC 

Gas Range 2 

0.;0 m (30 in) wiele 

Oven Fea:-~:'~3 

Se 1 f c 1 e T'. ::-.;- O.'eT. 

ser8ra~e ~~~~:sr 

elEment ::.:. ~-:'2"" .• 

lo-bar :-:.~ .-:;·:en 

burner ic:-"': -:.:.s,. 

GSR-l08 I-Pilot ll~~: 

0.51 m (20 in) wide 

Pilot light cons 

tion is 0.0062 ft3/ 

min. 

v.J 

C) 

(cont i nued) 

T\<1)e of Surface Units Size and Ratin£ Infoll11iltion 

Electric spark ignition 

Pilot light 

10()()() II1ll 

10000 B11! 

"-

'ri------------~~ 

10000 B1U -

0.56 B wide (22.00 in) 

0.48 B deep (18.75 in) 

0.35 .. ~igh (13.75 in) _ 0:093 B volume (5672 in') 

I 

22000 B1U 

Electric spark ignition" 

" SIilject 111 expressed fear of tile 

spark ignition system and left burner on 

between cooking so she wouldn't have to use 

the spark. This practice is reflected in 

ber high energy cons LlTlpt lOr: . 

9000 B1U, 

9000 BTIJ 

I 

I 

'~ :tl 

12000 B1U --

0.41 m .. iJc (1(,_01, Ll i 

0.46 III deep (IS. Ou in I 

0.36 III ~igll (l1.U 

0.066 m volUIT'C (J ,,,0) 

I 

16000 B111 

1",1,,0 8'1,) 

Bl1J 
Ranie Oven Features Type of Surf

Gas Range 4 -Pilot liaht Pilot light

0.76 (30 in) wide

Pilot light consurrp

tion is 0.0066 ft3/

mm.

Gas Range 5

0.91 m (36 in) wide

Pilot light consump

tion is 0.0068 ft3/

nun.

-Pilot li-tht Pilot light

(continued)

its Size and Rating Information

10000 11J

10000 BTU -

0.61 wide (24.00 in)

0.49 deep (19.25 in) - -

0.35 nigh (13.63 in) -

0.103 & volune (6295 in)

10000 BI1J .

1000O 8Th -

0.51 m wide (20.00 in)

0.46 m deep (18.25 in) - -

0.36 m igh (14.25 in)

0.085 & vohme (5201 in

10000 !Th

13000 8Th

JO)O 811J

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Ranl2e Oven Features 

Gas Range 4 I-Pilot light 

0.76 (30 in) wide 

Pilot light cons 

tion is 0.0066 ft3/ 

min. 

Gas Range 5 I-Pilot lisht 

0.91 m (36 in) wide 

Pilot light cons 

tion is 0.0068 ft3/ 

min. 

LV 

\.0 

(continued) 

Tvoe of Surface Units Size and RatinQ Infonnation 

Pilot light 

Pilot light 

10000 B1U .... 

10000 B1lJ 

I 

I 

.. ...,_------~-"t 

10000 B1lJ 

0.61 m wide (24.00 in) 

0.49 m deep (19.25 in) --- --

0.35 • high (13.63 in) -

0.103 ~ volure (6295 in~) 

10000 B1U .... 

, 

UlSOO BW 

10000 BW 

I 

I 

.. . "'4i_-----~-, 

10000 B1lJ 

0.51 m wide (20.00 in) 

0.46 m deep (18.25 in) ___ --

0.36 m bigh (14.25 in) 3 

0.085 ",.I vol=e (5201 in J 

I 

18000 BW 

_ ! J'JOO B1lJ 

_ 1L'ooa I!1U 
Apperidic D

Graphic Illustration of iergy Consumption

and Variation for Each Range, Cook, and Day

40

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

Appendi~ D 

Graphic Illustration of ~pergy Consumption 

and Variation for Each Range, Cook, and Day 

40 
6

p E

/

V

K 4-

w

H :

3 -

*

/

\ \ / - / \- N ,

/ /

N.,,,

D Y

FIGURE Dl, TOTAL EMERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DFW FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 1.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~ 

..... 

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

V 

K 

lJ 

H 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

, 

\ 

\ 

. \ \ \ / 

\ \ / . \ / 

~ \. \ j ,,'\ \ \ ...-.-' /" .\ / ,_./ ~ "~' ' ~ 7~-.t" ~ /' '.\' .' \ \ \. . / / ~ , ' .. .. ;;" ~,.,... ---.- '~ , . \ / /,' / .,.... .'. 

'~\ /* /1 .... ,JIl/ /~ ..... , / " /' / 

1 

, ' \ /' ' 1-;" -e" ,~ / .. ' )<' 

• ' - ,£-.,> ......- ' ' , / / 

'\, h ' ~~ / ,'," I' ' .. ~r' / , .. .r.' / 

\~f1_/ . - / ' ,.' I ,,/ 

\ / - I ,I' 

• /' "0 ' 

• I' 

X' 

2 ~ ~ 4 

D~Y 

5 f) 7 

FIGUREDl, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY fOR ELECTRIC RANGE 1. 

.----. 
1,5

K

U

H

1.0

P1

A

N 0.5

D

I

0,ø

R

-

"I,

C

E

-1.0

-1.5

COOK

FIGURE D2. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC

RANGE 1 AND THE STD. DEUIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

1 2 3 4 5 6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

K 

lJ 

H 

M 

E 

A 

N 

D 

I A 

N F 

F 

t: 

R 

--£ 

N 

C 

E 

1 .5 ·.----

1 .0 

0.5 ~ I 

0 • .0 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

3 i • 1 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

COOK 

FIGURE D2, MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY MEA~ ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC 

RANGE 1 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
6

E

p

NE

-

/

RG

-

7

V

-

J:4

4- \' - v'

/ "<T z'.

/

H

-

/

\

--

--

-

\'\ / / /)

- --.\

/

3 1 \

/

-

2

I

2 5 6 7

DY

FIGURED3, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 2.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

"'" 

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

V 

W K 

lJ 

H 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

~-------------------------------------------------------------------------I 

" . 

• t\ 

*'\'. \\\ . )C'\~~'" 

\':\\', 

, 

.J 

\' \\ ~ 

\\\ .. \~", 

p 

'* J. / ~.. 

/' I~- /,~,. "1 , """ --- -'~ /' ,/' IA ".,,,,' ,,---' ". 

I I I F - - - • - - - -....... -¥.' /' -I" 

/

' /' / .. --------." --- , , ,1" \ ... I , )r , j' ./" ''';J / o" ' ' '\,/ 

\ ,,,/ ..I ,,'/ \ ":X' ,I ~L,/'/'/ "" I 'v--' b::.~----"'" I '" / ',,-' 

.... .... :; / 

~ 

2 7 4 

DAY 

5 6 7 

FIGURED3, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 2. 

I 
1.5

K

U

H

1,0

P1

E

A

N 0,5

D

I

0.0

E

R

-0.5

C

E

-1.0

-1.5

COPK

FIGURE D, MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DIL'T

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC

RANGE 2 AND THE STD. DELJIATIOt'4 OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

1 2 3 L 5 (3

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

1.5 

K 

W 

H 

1.0 

M 

E 

A 

N 0.5 

D 

I A F A 0.0 F 

E 

R 

E 

N -0.5 

C 

E 

-1.0 

-1.5 

I i I I I I 

1 "2 3 4 5 6 conK 

FIGURE D~I MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAri ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC 

RANGE 2 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
6

E

N

R -

G

-

V -

/ /

K 4

s---

-

,'

\

3

- \

\__ ____

____

2 . J.

11 2 3 4 5 6 7

DY

FIGURE JJ5, TOT ENERGY CONSUMpTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 3.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~ 

Ul 

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

Y 

K 

LJ 

H 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

• 

\ 

,. • 

,,. 

,..,...-; , 

'.~ / " 

'\ ,/ .. --4 /' '\ ,P-- _______ ._; / 

/~'.:' 

~ . . '~ , / /;'" - ,\", " ' 7'''"_---_~ ---- __ -, -r / ' ,......-.... --*, / \ \' \... " /1' --""'X-:,,-- / / .,$J , ~ I' "/ . \ y.. __ _0'// / """" ___ .' / /' 

\\\ ... - ,/ ,?/ ""-----f 

\ \\ \ /' / I / _____ \\ '.-6, 

,\" /_~~--~ ~~---~ a.--- -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D~Y 

FIGURE D5. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 3. 
1.5

K -

U -

H -

1.0 -

M

-

E

N e.sD -

I

a F -

F

E -

R -

C -

E -

-1.0 -

-1.5 -

C K

FIGURE D6. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FRO1 THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC

RANGE 3 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE,

1. 2 3 4 S 6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

K 

IJ 

H 

M 

E 

A 

N 

D 

I ~ 

0"1 F 

F 

E 

R 

E 

N 

C 

E 

1.5 

1.0 

-1 I 

1 ::. 1 

I -1 0.5 :~ i 

0.0 f I ! 

-0.5 }-

i ! 

-1 -. 0 

-1.5 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

C0°V 

FIGURE DG. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC 

RANGE 3 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
4,5

ENER

3.5

KUH

2.5

2.0

*

t

A

//,\

- *

• \• -

/ - - - -

-P0'

1 2 3 4

5

DP Y

FIGURE D71 TOTAL ENERGY CONSLUIPTION

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 4.

6 7

PER COOK

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~ 

-...J 

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

V 

K 

IJ 

H 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

¥ 

~ '\ \\ 

\' 

.... ~,\~ 

1 

", \,~ , '\ 

, '\1, 

, \\\ 

" ~\ \ 

\ ! / ' I. 

I \ // ;' /'-- -\ / • /1.: / .: .>---'«"::-'_ Ij/ , I I ~7. "X.. "'-... ............. ' :/.,,,,7 / /.&/ \ _<"-..:..f/ . : l .. /'/"x· . ' 'y-/! 

.l\ ;:i!:~4/ ", '\ /''':,''6/ D 

. 

. . 

;.l>- . ~ ./..f -, ../ - ~ ~ . :~v _ /' - ,:" ,'./ _XI . ....-_ - ,.-/ I 

, /-,,--- ~ 

II: 

2 3 4 

DAY 

D--

r 

-' 

-. 

6 7 

FIGURE D7, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 4. 

I 
1.5

K

U

H

1.0

(1

E

A

N 0,5

D

I

0.0

E

p

-0.5

C

E

-i.e

-1.5

CORK

FIGURE f3, MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC

RANGE 4 AND THE STD. DEUIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

1 2 3 4 5 6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

1.5 

K 

W 

H 

1.0 

M 

E 

A 

N 0.5 

D 

I A F 0.0 co 

F 

E 

R 

E -0.5 N 

C 

E 

-1.e 

-1.5 

...----------------------------------------------

; + I t I • • 

j I 

1 2 3 4 5 o 

conK 

FIGURE ;'3, MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC 

RANGE 4 AND THE STD. ~EVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
E

N

E

R

C

V

K

U

H

4.0 - 1' --

I'

'I,

/

-

/

3,5 /

- \ /

/

- /

/

'-.- / v-

'I / / - /

3.0 -

)/ /\ *' /L7

,'/ ,f_

-

///// /-

2.5 -

;/ ,'j I

-/7-- -, -

V --'

2.0

-

1.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DAY

FIGURE FI. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE S.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

~ "'"' 

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

Y 

K 

lJ 

H 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

, 

~ 

~ ,''. 1" ........... 

'\ / ........... 

\ \ \ ,. I / ~ ,," j/ ;:- ~, ~ .' / ';-- / ,/ \ ' / \ ......... ./' x 1\\ ~ ~ \ / /,/ 

\ 

\ / \ ' 

" \., ,/ / /.. " /' // /" • 

, \\\' ,\ • / / I /A ,./ ;_ ' ....... ,,\ ~' / • ,/;'/ ~./ "/< "-

,., ,/111 - ",-',- "-

" //' '. ---S"'~/ ." I 1/ ~ I~' ,-

", . '\ ,/ /' .,j' " .:,,/,' 

1 

'. ;'. '¥ ./1 .,.'/ .'\ f!I"', .. ,11 I ,\ I . I . ,I

.' " J \ .' /9 

l,\lj'" ,,/ \. ,- / 

\ / ./ 

2 -. 

:J 4 

DAY 

'II 

5 

---. ~ 

6 7 

FIGURE r=, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR ELECTRIC RANGE 5. 

._-, 

! 
1.5

K

U

H

1.0

11

E

A

N 0,5

D

Ui '

0.0

E

R

-0.5

C

E

-i.e

-1S V

II

1 2 3 4 5 6

COOK

FIGURE ND MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC

RANGE 5 AND THE STD. DELJIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

1 .5 

K 

W 

H 

1.0 

M 

E 

A 

N 0.5 

D 

I U1 

F 0.0 :::> 

F 

E 

R 

E -0.5 N 

C 

E 

-1.0 

-1.5 

i I 

I ~ 

I 

• t 

I 

~ I _ I _ I . 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

cnrw 

F I G!J~E r Ii) I MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DA I L'l 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC 

RANGE 5 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
10

ENERGV

I-fl

-•K

LIH

6

*

,'\

/

/1 \.

\\\

i/,I'I

/1/;

1/

/

/

A

j1/,,;1/

84

1 23

4

5

PAY

FIGURE Dli. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTIOII

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 1.

6 7

PER COOK

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

U1 

I-' 

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

Y 

K 

W 

H 

10 

8 

6 

4 

• , ' • , ,

\ ,\:' \, I 

, . ' ' \

';'. ff . " \1 \I • A \ ' ' .r \ I \: \ ; 1 /,,' ~ ... '. :. / \ ~\ \ 111/,...."<.:.~_x:... .. J_. I /. \\ .~ I, '\ ~ ~ -.>7 . - . ~ \ \ .: \ ~I ". ~ ,1-'--c:-,/ . \' " .' " I" .' . ,., \,.- . .,.... . ---• . .\\ 

~:, /1.' ' • ;l /' !/ A / -s 

~ •• , " ' I" I 

'\ \"/ j'/" .// "" I . , I . / "I )r, ,__ / " I 

~ ::..--..... '- 1 / " '-J 

'I.... ' / ,- / , &.------

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

DAY 

FIGURE nIl. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 1. 

t· " 
.1.5

K

U

H

1.0

11

E

A

N 0,5

D

I

0.0

E

p

-e.s

C

E

-1+0

-1.5

CPK

FIGURE Fi2 MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSIJIIPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE

1 AND THE STD. DEUIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

1 2 3 4 5

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

1 .5 

K 

W 

H 

1 . e 

M 

E 

A 

N 0.5 

D 

I U1 F 0.0 I\J 

F 

E 

R 

E -0.5 N 

C 

E 

-1.0 

-1.5 

--------------- --- 1 

~ --1 

~ 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

C00K 

FIGURE r12. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE 

1 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
10

E

N

E

R

G

V

8

6

U

H

4

2

/

/

/

a

/ \

's /

/ -

<N

-

ii 2 3 4 5 6 7

DY

FIGURE D13, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 2.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

V 

~ K 

IJ 

H 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

~ 

~\ / 

x\'\ / . ~<\ :~------ / 

1 

~\\''.\ I,' " -.... " / ",;; I ~ I I--~- '/ " ,. . V - . ". \ '. / I r--~ ,--- .".~';/, 

~ \" t ' ~" '\ ,'// / \ // ___ ~ .... " "TI'" \ :/ .__ .... L'// \ \ ." ,. / \' 

.~ ,,~ !:~, ", .~-----_.><- --~",(// -...' 

'.. 

'\ 

"-_:-:.J: _'>?~¥'/ r ,. 

, ,~ V 

\ ...... .........- "II ,/ 

/ 

X_ I .... .... / 

~, .,( 

2 7' 

J 4 

nAY 

) 6 7 

FIGURE D13, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 2. 
1.5

K

U

H

1,0

M

E

A

N 0,5

D

0.0

E

-0.5

C

E

-1.0

-1.5

CPK

FIGURE MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE

2 AND THE STD. DEUIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

1 2 3 4 5 6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

K 

LJ 

H 

M 

E 

A 

N 

D 

I ~ F 

F 

E -R 

E 

N 

C 

E 

--~ 

I 

1.5 J 

1 .0 

0.5 

0.0 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

t · '. III e 

II 

.. 

'" 

1 I 

I • I 

; 

.. 

I 

1 2 "3 4 5 6 

C00K 

FIGURE ~~~. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF All COOKS USING GAS RANGE 

2 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
8

7

- II," E -

N j \

E - -

- \ \

I,

, --G

/ ,,, /

\\\ \ V / -x

-

\ /1' Y ,'

K 5 - \'\ /1 I

U - ,* \

'

H I I,;/' ,'\

4

I -

;f//

-

-

3--

2

2 3 4 5 6 7

P1W

FIGURE 1115, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 3.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

8 

t: 7 " E 

N 

E 

R 6 

G 

Y 

V1 

K V1 5 

W 

H 

4 

3 

2 

~ 

\ 

\ 

~\ . ,"~ / , -'" \\ \ /\ ' 

"'.~ / \ .'. /', 

\'\:.\ \ : ~ ______ -.:../-. J' 

. ,\ / r , · -, 

\ f/ 

I /11 

,~ \ I \ ,'- / / / / 

~ )", ,/ / '. /' "K.: / 

'\ \ .' ,,/" X -" / ._ __ /, ~..' 1/ , ' . ~.r _ • , , t- \-.;, -~ ,_.,' /",-:-.~, .... ';--./'- ,// \ \ \.. . t //' '-\,;'> / '--- ---,( / 

,\ ,_.;/ If "- -,.. \"., .. <¥/ / "- 7-· .. ",,'« : / --.j -. '" '- ,.' / '" '-.t / 

2 3 4 

n~y 

) 6 7 

FIGURE 015, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 3. 
los

K

LI

H

100

P1

E

A

N 0,5

D

I

Ui I 000

F

E

R

E

N

C

E

-1.0

105

COnK

FIGURE P16. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE

3 AND THE STD. DEUIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

1 2 3 4. S 6

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

K 

w 

H 

t; M 

E '. 

A 

N 

D 

I 

0') 

U1 F 

F 

E 

R 

E 

N 

C 

E 

I .5 -

1.0 f . i 

0.5 3 lit 

1 0.e 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

! ~ 1 I 1 

I 

• I 

I 

L 

1 2 3 4 5 6 conK 

FIGURE rIG. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE 

3 AND THE STD. DEVIATION. OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 

--
10

E

N

E

R

C

V

8

4-fl

U

H

4

2

/

• _

\\\\ •/i V

\'^/e

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DY

FIGURE 017. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 4.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

V 

~ K 

IJ 

H 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

>t. 

\ 

\\ '\'. \. 

-\\ \ 

, " .". 

\

' ' .' \ \~\\ 

\\ \\. ,. 

, . "r ~-.:- ...- \ ' . /.,1 ....:." ~,:-, '. ____ ··r /-'" \ \'\~ j2' 1/.' ~,...... ..--d 

\

, \1 •••• /.. ,i.d <:-~-<.o '" .!'-:,-/ r-.......... 

1 

, .' _ .. _ . ."''( , ,x':7' .!-" ~ \ '-t:':"":-:"" j/ );1 r • """-'. - > ~ ~ • 

\

. ~ /i • , '. ~ I , 

,'b..... " - " I • __ - .' I .. )( I 

-..... I 

I 

'~ 

.... 2 ) 4 

DAY 

5 6 1 

FIGURE DIl, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 4. 

! I 
1.s

K

U

H

1.0

M

E

A

N 0,5

D

I

e.e

E

R

-e.s

C

E

-1.0

-1.5

1 2 3 4 5 6

COfl K

FIGURE DiG. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN Et'IERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE

A1D THE STD. DELIIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

- 1.5 

K 

W 

H 

1.0 

M 

E 

A 

N e.s 

D 

I 

co 

VI F e.e F 

E 

R 

E -e.5 N 

C 

E 

-1.0 

-1.5 

1 I 1 j 

I I 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

conK 

FIGURE D13. MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILV 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE 

11 AtiD THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE. 
8

E

N

E

R

G 6

V

01 K

LI

H

4

3

1 2 4 5 6 7

PAY

FIGURE 019, TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER COOK

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE S.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

E 

N 

E 

R 

G 

Y 

~ K 

IJ 

H 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, • 

. 

• 

l, 

' . 

~ 

I 

~ 

I : . • • I , 

I / 

,_ -~ 1 : 

, . --", 

----:" ~ -----4~ I 1_""- ~ I \ " r . , _ " " ' "-

\ • /; A, I ;,,_ ....... . ",-- \ \'" I,~:'~--~-/ \ \\: / /,,.' " / \ \ \... /L<~- '\, I 

1 

\ , :.' .. \ \ '., 1/ \1\ 6.1/ \ ~- Il \ ' I \ ;!l \\~ \ 

'----- \

\11- ____ _____ 

.--/ V 

-, 2 ) 4 

DAY 

) 6 7 

i 

FIGURE D19. TOTAL ENERGV CONSUMPTION PER COOK 

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 5. 
1.5

K

U

H

100

M

E

A

N 0.5

D

0,0

E

R

I

C

E

100

-1.5

1 2 3 4 S 6

CflflK

FIGURE P20, MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE

5 AND THE STD. DEL)IATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR13

1.5 

K 

lJ 

H 

1.0 

M 

E 

A 

N 0.5 

D 

I 0'1 

0 r= 0.0 

F 

E 

R 

E -0.5 N 

C 

E 

-1.0 

-l.S 

~ \ I 

~ ! 

I 

_ __I 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

cnnK 

FIGURE riO, MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAILY 

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING GAS RANGE 

5 AND THE STD. ,DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.