### C-19

Exhibit 4. Current Sears ad showing desirable consumer features C-19



### Exhibit4. CurrentSears ad showing desirable consumer features

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

.......0)"

tc cleanyour**oven~** • [te<...'"'1'1t>nic clockonCt tl:n.;;>:,

easy 10readandset • Auto ovens/"lut-off • Block gk,-s;doorwith"",indo"**~nvouc~eckcoo~ng**

wt'tlOUtOpeningoven door • lJIt-<Jp. seamk?$s.

cooI<topmakes

### 499.99~'::I'r. low-estprice ever! gas range " • Selt"cleanlng-th;,easiestway > 10cleanyour ('''Ven! • Eosy··to-cfeon sealed burners • Ex!rO-lcrgeoven • SeofTlless. uosweptcooktot)

mckescteanmgeasy • Waist-t1lgh broli iseasy 10useno oanding Ofstoopingl • Eosy·te-reod dial**cloc~**and

timer. automaticovenw 

# r

I C C 

## g r)
r

-'Qr
[-I

2 ) W 4JJ

g I 'i c t:. 

# I
tFlI

# h

# b 

# i&_\ [tCleanuplNithrebatesonranges$80-$130rebates...plustheconvenienceofseH-cleaningovens_.399.99:....."3O-ingasf'Ot1QewithseOleoD'Jf"flets:..Extro-torgooven40Di.ale!oclt;andt,mer•SolidbK;l:CK';;I'O::_'id::"i.:1!-.;:r.:.....""'_3O-in.eIee!IIC"""",wlth""lf-cleaningovenDdcil,)Cl.;ondtirn&f•AutOr11dtiC'".ovoo•StockQK]S$dom.....1th5-4531(..IfJlJtl?Z3l..S)•SrnoomrodiOnt'cooktop•&eff·deanlngoven•ElecttonicClOCkondtl!l1er•Av!Oovent:-lxk

### C-22


### Exhibit5. Literature Review on Convection Cooking

by Arthur D. Little (ADL) The Effects of Convection Oven Cooking onFood 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 IndividualResearch 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-22
Exhibit5. LiteratureReview on Convection Cooking by ArthurD. Little (ADL)

TheEffects ofConvection Oven Cooking onFoodQuality ExecutiveSummary Theobjective ofthis study is to assess, through a literaturereview, the effects ofconvection ovens on cooking qUality. A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection oven." Six research papers were retrieved form two peer-reviewed scientificjournals. Two papers were submitted from university-sponsored research. Each paper was reviewed for convection oven cooking quality data and summarized. From the peer-reviewedjournals, the findings were:

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

flavor and texture characteristics.

• More energy was used in the convection baking process.
• Forheating food in ready prepared orcommissary type foodservice systems,

microwave ovens yielded food ofhigher sensory quality with lower energy input then food prepared in a convection oven.

• Theeffect ofinfrared and convective heating upon nutrientretention was similar in

portioned menu items. From the university-sponsored research, the findings were:

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

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

• Thetype ofheating system does not significantly affect results in baking and roasting. Results from IndividualResearch Papers 1. "Sensory qUality and energy use for baking ofmolasses 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. 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. Theresults 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 ofsurface 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 beefpatties 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 offood 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.
• Beefpatties heated in theconvection oven were scored significantly higher for all

characteristics than patties heated in the microwave. 3. "Comparison ofdrying kinetics offoods using a fan-assisted convection oven, a microwave oven and a combined microwave/convection oven." B. 

### AI-Duri and S. McIntyre, J. 

### FoodEngineering, Vol. 15, 1992, pp. 139-155. Theobjective was to determine the drying rates (moisture content vs. time) for five types offoods (skim milkpowder, whole milkpowder, 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. C-24 Results indicated that:

CD 

### In a convection oven, the rate ofmoisture loss increases with temperature

increase due to the increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer. However, for products with alow moisture content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the diffusion process is slow.

• Drying rateincreases with power output ofa microwave oven as the dielectric

properties ofthe food change. The uniformly dryproduct obtained makes microwaving suitable for low moisture orheat sensitive materials.

• Hot air

### with microwavepowerincreases drying rate, yet operation at higher

temperatures is not recommended due to burning and non-uniformity. 4. 

### "Nutritionretention in pork, turkey breast and corned beefroasts after infrared and convection heat processing." N. Unklesbay, M. 

### E. Davis and G. 

### Krause, 1. 

### ofFood Science, Vol. 48, 1983, pp. 864-904. The objective was to determine the effect ofboth infrared and forced-air convection heatprocessing upon the food productyield and nutrient retention ofroast porkloin, turkey breast, and corned beef. It

### was concluded that for most nutrients analyzed, the effect ofinfrared and convection heating upon nutrientretention was similar. Either heatprocessing method could be adopted with comparableresults. 

### 5. "Temperatures ofspaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service locations in a commissary foodservice system." M. L. 

### Cremer, 1. ofFood Science, Vol. 43, 1978, pp. 1062-1070. The objective was to determine temperature variability and factors influencing temperature ofspaghetti 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 ofheating elements, number ofmeals heated at one time, number of fans, and position offood 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. C-25 6. "Nutrientretention ofportioned menu items afterinfrared and convection heat processing." N. Unklesbay, M. 

### E. Davis and 

### G. Krause, 

### J. ofFood Science, Vol. 

### 48, 1983, pp. 869-873. Theobjective was to determine the effect ofboth infrared and forced-air convection heatprocessing upon food product yield and nutrient content ofthree protein and two vegetableportioned menu items. Itwas concluded that for most nutrients analyzed, the effect ofinfrared and convection heating upon nutrientretention was similar. Foryield, convection oven heating gave less loss in hamburgers, potatoes, and tomatoes. 

### 7. "A study ofdesign approaches to convection cooking." 

### R. P. Lovingood, 

### E. A. DeMerchant and L. 

### J. Himes, Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University, C. M. Walsh and S. L. Kirkley, Thermador Corporation. The objective was to compare the effects ofinternal and external heating on baked and roasted products using six brands ofconvection wall ovens. Results indicated that, although variability was observed between oven brands, all products werejudged 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.

• Beefroasts

- evenly cooked andjuicy, with a crunchy exterior.

• Chicken

- mostlyjuicyand tender, with crunchy.exteriors. 

### 8. "Ovenperformance in convection vs. radiant mode. n 

### R. P. Lovingood, 

### E. A. DeMerchant and L. 

### J. Himes, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg VA. Theobjective was to compare the effects offorced-air movement on the baking and roasting performance ofconvection 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. C-26 Results indicated that:

III Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beefwhen comparing

convection and radiant modes.

• All foods werejudged acceptable.

• Convectionproduces typicalproducts

- humped, cracked layer cake; cookies

with morevariation in browning across the top; meats with crunchier exteriors.

### Appendix D Calculation of Change in Annual Energy Used 

### Appendix D Calculation ofChange 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 

### D-1


### APPENDIX D. CALCULATION OFCHANGEINANNUAL ENERGY USED

Theanalysis done in this study is based on experimental data developed by A.G.A. Laboratories and on data reported byDOE. Thelaboratory test results were translated into annual energy savings using the procedure given in the Code ofFederal Regulations,(26) modified to reflect the data on average gas use from the metered appliance study(27) [Appendix F]. Where experimental data were not available, data from the DOETechnical Support Document (DOE/EE-0009), Volume A 

### and VolumeE, were used.(4) CooktopVersus Oven Gas Use
The metered gas usage study(27) shows that the average cooking use ofnatural 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 ofcases metered separately was small. Therefore, an estimate ofcooktop and oven usage was developed using data from the Technical SupportDocument,(4) [Tables 1.6, 1.10, and 1.11] for the cooktop and oven use as follows: Fraction ofall 

### 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 ofcooking gas plus electrical energy use ofstandard oven with intermittentignition 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 2,376kBtu

- \,

### 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 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
DOEProcedure 0.4873 1,092 kBtu 1.148 kBtu

The DOEprocedure(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 ofaluminum 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 ofenergy of 160,700(26) Btu. The proposed DOE "adjusted" use is 124,200Btu(4). For self-cleaning gas ovens, the energy used for 7 cycles per year is to be added when calculating the annual
oven usage. Forelectric ignition ovens, the energy for the clock is added. Forgas pilot ovens, cooking is specified by DOE to be 300 hours per year; 8,460 hours ofpilot is added for calculating annual energy use. These added terms are not included in the cooking use and cooking efficiency. Dividing the 160,700Btu/yrby 457.5 Btu/testgives 351.3 test equivalents per year. Theproposed value gives 271.5 test equivalents per year. DOEuses 300 cooking hours per year in their adjusted use calculations. The cooking hours should bereduced in proportion to the loweruseful 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 1,148,000Btu/yr ofgas 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. D-3 studyC27) inthe 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 160.7kBtu give a composite gas cooking use efficiency of0.0662. 160.7/[2044*0.2374+2547*(1-0.2374)] = 

### 0.06620 Dividing 1,148,000Btu from the metered gas study(27) by 0.0662 Btu gives 76,020Btu usefully consumed peryear for the ovens in the metered use study. The metered appliance
use thus corresponds to 47.3 percent ofthe 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 be2,427kBtu. Since the cooking hours are about halfthe 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. 

### Ifone uses the same calculation procedure for the proposed adjusted usage, the metered gas usage is 61.2 percent ofthe adjusted useful consumption. Forthe design option and base cases: Annual Cooking Energy 

## = 166.2 xTest 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. Theclock use also cancels and the difference in test energy can therefore beascribed to natural gas use. For self-cleaning ovens, the DOE electrical usage was used forboth 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. D-4 

### Gas pilot oven results can calculate as follows: Annual Cooking Energy 

## = 166.2 x Test Gas Annual Non-Cooking PilotEnergy = (8760-142)/8760

### x PilotRate Annual Gas Consumption = 

### Annual Cooking Energy 

## + Annual Non-Cooking PilotEnergy As with the electric ignition ovens, the test times were similar for the design option and base cases, therefore the non-cooking pilotusage in the two cases is the same. The DOEpilot 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. D-5 

### GasUse in Cooktops
DOEProcedure
Depending on the burner size, one oftwo standard blocks is heated at the full burner rate until the temperature ofthe blockreaches 144 F above ambient, then the heatis turned down to about 25 percent ofthe maximum and maintained for 15 minutes. In the experimental workdone by A.G.A. Laboratories, all tests were done with an 18.5 lb block. The weight ofthe block, the gas used, and the temperature reached are used to calculate the cooking efficiency and an assumed annual useful consumption of947,500 Btu is used to calculate an annual consumption for cooking(26)

. Forthe proposed rule, 732,500 Btu is specified(4)• Pilotuse is added in calculating the total annual energy. Because the DOEtest 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 1,148,000Btu for the cooktop of electric ignition ranges can be compared with the DOEprocedure's useful consumption as follows. The DOEefficiency value of39.9percent 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 2,375,000Btu/yr input. The metered appliance annual consumption of 1,148,000Btu/yris 48.3 percent ofthe DOEvalue. 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 732,500Btu in the DOEproposed rule,(4) the metered study result is 

### 66.0 percent ofthe proposed value. The proposed DOEvalue corresponds to 2,922,000Btu cooking energy. Since the gas pilot use, ifany, 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. 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 ofthe intermittentignition 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 

# 1urD 

# Little Reference 47066 

# -

ArtlurD 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 2 and Cooktops 4 2.1 Implications of the Modified (Reduced) Range Energy Usage 3.0 Review of DOE Baseline Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and 5 Cooktops 5 3.1 Efficiency Testing 3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Account for Manufacturing 6 Variability 7 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 9 4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact on Oven Efficiency 10 4.1.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Forced Convection 11 4.2 Reflective Surfaces for Oven Cavity 11 4.2.1 Impact of Reflective Coating on Oven Utility 12 4.2.2 Impact of Reflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency 12 4.2.3 Reflective Surface Efficiency Analysis 14 4.2.3 Consumer Payback Associated with Reflective Surfaces 15 4.2.4 Reflective Surface Issues Relative to Manufacturing 17 4.3 Improved Door Seal for Standard Electric Ovens 18 4.3.1 Improved Door Seal Efficiency 18 4.3.2 Payback Associated with Improved Door Seal 19 4.4 Increased Oven Insulation Design Option 20 4.4.1 Energy Savings Analysis for Increased Insulation 21 4.5 Thermal Mass Design Option 22 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 24 5.0 Coil Cooktop Design Option Review 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 25 5.1.2 Conductance Analysis 26 5.2 Impact of Contact Conductance on Coil Efficiency - Testing A-i Appendix A B-i Appendix B


# Arthw Little Table of Contents

1.0 Background

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2.0 Review ofBaseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens and Cooktops

............................................ 2 2.1 Implications ofthe Modified (Reduced) Range Energy Usage

........ 4 3.0 Review ofDOEBaseline Efficiency Assumptions for Electric Ovens and Cooktops

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

...................................... 5 3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Accountfor Manufacturing Variability

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review

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

........................... 7 4.1.1 Impact ofForced Convection on Oven Utility

............. 7 4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact on Oven Efficiency

. . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 4.1.3 ConsumerPayback Associated with Forced Convection

. . . . . .. 10 4.2 Reflective Surfaces for Oven Cavity

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 4.2.1 Impact ofReflective Coating on Oven Utility

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 4.2.2 Impact ofReflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency

.......... 12 4.2.3 Reflective SurfaceEfficiency Analysis

.................. 12 4.2.3 ConsumerPayback 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 SealEfficiency.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 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 ofthe OvenWindow 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 ofSurface Contact Resistance on Range-Top Efficiency

. 24 5.1.2 Conductance Analysis

............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 5.2 Impact ofContact Conductance on Coil Efficiency

- Testing.

. . . . . . .. 26 

# .. Appendix A A-I Appendix B B-1



## ArtlurD

# 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 1.0 Background 

### The objective ofthis study is to develop technical information for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) relative to DOErule making for electric ovens and cooktops. AHAM will incorporate these data into their response to DOE. The DOE has recommended a series ofdesign options to improve the efficiency of electric ovens and cooktops. These recommendations were discussed in the March 4, 1994 Notice ofProposed 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.


# ArtlurDLiHle 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. 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 ofBaseline DOE Annual Energy Consumption for Electric Ovens and Cooktops 3.0 Review ofBaseline 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 Consumptionfor 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 ofenergy 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 

# ArtJurDLittle 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 DOE's values represent adjusted (compared to earlier assumptions) annual usage based on a review ofstudies that examined range electric energy requirements. Using the five metered studies from this review DOE determined an average consumption of605.1 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 ofrange 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 of617 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 longerrelevant. The declining energy usage associated with electric ranges is noted by the DOE. The modified set ofelectric range energy is recommended. The modified energy values presented in Table 1were obtained by: • Averaging the results of3 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 EstimatingEnd Use Energies", Prepared for Siena Pacific Power Co., 1988 (3) "Description ofElectric 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 ofTSD) but the Bonneville Power study is omitted. This extensive study examinedthe 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).



## ArtlurD 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 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 consumerpaybackperthe DOE Cost Analysis Assumptions. Productpaybacks perDOE assumptions are increased by 25% given the lower energy consumption ofthese appliances. Examining theDOEgenerated paybacks in light ofthe reduced energy usage for the electric coil element stretches the level 2 paybackto 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: Paybackfor Electric Oven Options

Electric Oven Self-clean Electric Oven
- Standard
* per Table 2 data 

# ArUurDLittle 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 

### Based on these results, the self-clean oven level 3 and 4 options exceed halfofthe projected life ofthe product. The design option review presented in Sections 4 and 5 ofthis report will use DOE generated values ofenergy consumed to facilitate comparisons between the findings presented by DOE and the results ofthis 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 ofelectric 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 akey technical parameter in the evaluation ofoven 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 ofefficiency (used as baseline) do not reflect the variability in product efficiency that results in today's manufacturing ofranges, ovens, and cooktops. Baseline efficiency levels should be established that accounts for the majority ofthe units produced. 3.1 Efficiency Testing 

### Four manufacturers pulled several ranges offtheir 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 ofthe 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.



# AltlurI)

# little 5Table 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.rD 

# Little 6 

### 3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Account for Manufacturing Variability

Table 7: Recommend Baseline Efficiencies Table 5: DOE EfficiencyTest Resultsfor Electric Cooktop Elements and Ovens



### These average efficiency numbers ofproduction 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 EfficiencyTest Data and Baseline DOE Assumptions

3.2 Modification in Baseline Numbers to Accountfor 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 ifit is expected that in the future all units shipped must meet an efficiency target. Using the average test value would result in halfthe units failing. Amodified baseline efficiency level is recommended. Using the manufacturer database, modified baseline efficiency numbers are presented in Table 7. These modified baseline efficiencies would allow approximately 82% ofthe range product coming offthe assembly line to meet baseline assumptions.
Table 7: Recommend Baseline Efficiencies



## ArtlurD 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 4.0 Electric Oven Design Option Review The oven design alternatives reviewed in the following subsections describe the impact ofthe individual options relative to the oven utility, oven efficiency/energy savings, and simple payback. Forthese 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 ofpayback for the several design options. Using these high DOE usage assumptions, the paybacks calculated for the various options usually exceeded halfofthe product projected life. These consumption values were not restated to the modified results presented in Section 2 ofthis 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 ofthe DOE assumptions for cost multipliers (Appendix A). 4.1 Forced Convection Design Option DOE has recommended that forced convection be adopted as part ofthe electric standard oven and electric self-clean oven level 4 efficiency improvements. Based on our evaluation ofavailable data, information providedby the manufacturers, and oven thermal analysis, this option does not meet consumer paybackrequirements and it changes the utility ofthe oven. 4.1.1 ImpactofForced Convection

### on Oven Utility Iffull-time forced convection ovens are mandated, consumers will have to change a lifetime ofcooking habits based onrecipes and cooking procedures using conventional oven cooking. Favorite family recipes would be affected by timeltemperature changes required for convection cooking. Cooking quality, orthe quality ofthe food resulting from the cooking process, would change, depending on the cooking process used. This study assesses, through a literature review, the effects ofconvection ovens on cooking quality. A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection oven". Six research papers were retrieved from two peerreviewed scientificjournals. Two papers were submitted from university sponsored research. Eachpaper was reviewed for convection oven/cooking quality data.



## ArtlurD 

## 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 

### Research Papers Reviewed 1. "Sensory quality and energy use for baking ofmolasses 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 beefpatties heated in institutional microwave and convection ovens" Cremer, M.L., J. Food Science, Volume 47, 1982, p. 871-874. 3. "Comparison ofdrying kinetics offoods 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. "Nutrientretention in pork, turkey breast and corned beefroasts after infrared and convection heat processing" Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G. Journal ofFood Science, Volume 48, 1983, p. 864-904. 5. "Temperatures ofspaghetti after heating in convection ovens at service locations in a commissary foodservice system." Cremer, M.L. Journal ofFood Science, Volume 43, 1978, p. 1062-1079. 6. "Nutrientretention ofportioned menu items after infrared and convection heat processing" Unklesbay, N., Davins, M.E., Krause, G. Journal ofFood Science, Volume 48, 1983, p. 869-873. 7. "A study ofdesign 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 reviewedjournals, the findings were:

• Cookies baked in a convection oven were significantly different from those baked in standard orinfrared ovens. -
• More energy was used in the convection baking process.



# IlrUurI)

# 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

• Heating in a conventional oven ofready prepared or commissary type food yielded food ofhigher sensory quality with lower energy input than food prepared in a convection oven.

• The effect ofinfrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention was similar in portioned menu items.

• In a convection oven, the rate ofmoisture 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 becausethe 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 beefwhen comparing convection and standard oven modes. 4.1.2 Forced Convection Impact

### on Oven Efficiency The addition offorced 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 of20 self-clean ovens. The impact ofthis option on overall energy savings is less than 8kWhlyr as compared to DOE's assumed savings of41 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 8presents a detailed comparison ofpotential energy savings ofthe convection feature based on the DOE adjusted baseline energy use. Using the modified oven energy datapresented earlier would show an even smaller savings.



# ArtlurD

# little 9Table 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



# ThthrD 

# Little 10 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 Ourthermal analysis supports the findings ofthe manufacturers relative to efficiency improvements ofadding convection to standardresidential ovens. Our analysis (see Appendix B for model description) showed that competing heat transfer effects limit the effectiveness ofthe convection option. Forthe residential oven geometry and convection configuration, the enhancements relative to increased heat transferto 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 ofthe product (conduction limited). The current DOE test procedure featuring an aluminum block (highly conductive) cannot simulate the impact offorced convection on product quality and hence its use in forced convection testing is very limited. 4.1.3 ConsumerPaybackAssociated with Forced Convection Examination ofthe consumer payback aspect ofadding forced convection showed that the payback associated with this option easily exceeds the halflife ofthe range and that paybacks of 100+ years are likely. Forthis analysis, a simple payback was used ofthe form Payback = incrementalprice increase Ofthe convectionfeature energy savings associated with convection The incremental price increase associated withthe convection option was developed from manufacturers' data. Three range manufacturers with extensive experience in convection ovens provided cost premium datathat 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 costpremiumfor convection = $39.6J/oven



# ArtlurD 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 

### Using a multiplier of2.1 (see Appendix A) on manufacturing cost to achieve a sell price results in an average price premium of: Average Incremental Pricefor 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 notjustified 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 ofthis option suggests that:

• Current oven utility is not maintainable using reflective surfaces. • Modest energy savings are possible. • Consumerpayback is long. • Major oven design modifications are likely in orderto duplicate the current product life. 4.2.1 ImpactofReflective Coating on Oven Utility 

### The addition ofreflective walls to an existing oven design will change the cooking process and, as a result, will impact the utility ofthe 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 reflectiveQ,ven will reflect radiant heat from the element that has its wave length set by the very high temperatures ofthe bottom heating element.



# ArtlurDlittle 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 

### The characteristics ofthis 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 ofthe 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 ofthe appliance possiblyresulting in overbrowning offood surfaces and underdone interiors. Underdone interiors could affect food safety, since the interior ofthe food may not reach proper sterilization temperature. Additionally, the emissivity ofthe 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 ofthe product. In particular, the self-cleaning oven process damages the reflective walls. Currently, about 29% ofgas ranges and 58% ofelectric ovens are self-cleaning. There is no known cost effective material that will maintain reflective surfaces in a self-cleaning oven overits 19 year life. [1][2] 4.2.2 ImpactofReflective Coatings on Oven Efficiency 

### Our thermal analysis ofthe impact ofreflective 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 ofa reflective surface. These effects are described in the balance ofthis section. 4.2.3 Reflective Surface EfficiencyAnalysis 

### The maximum oven efficiency improvementresulting from the use ofreflective 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 ofthe heat source energy being reflected offthe oven wall surfaces which keeps more ofthe energy within the oven cavity (less energy is absorbed by the surface) and increases the percentage ofuseful heat. The net effect is a slightly loweroven wall temperature.


# - [1] Battelle, et al., Technical Input to NAECA Rulemakingfor Gas-FiredRanges, GR! Interim Report No. GRI93/0319, July 1993. [2] Aronov, M., et al.,Analysis of Design OptionsforReducing the Energy Consumption ofResidentialGas Ovens, American Gas Association Laboratories Research Report, GR! Contract#5086-241-1220. 

# ArtJurDlittle 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) In most situations, radiation energy is either absorbed orreflected. The energy that is absorbed is re-radiated at a different wavelength. Thus, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity ofthe 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 ofreflective surfaces, the emissivity ofthe oven interior is reduced to model the appropriate coating. The analysis ofreflective surfaces focused on steady state and transient heating improvements. Emissivity values of .1, .3, .5 and .7 were examinedto determine savings in oven efficiency. Table 10 summarizes these heat loss reductions.
Table 10: Heat Loss Reductions for Reflective Coatings Relative tothe Baseline Oven Design (Emissivityfor 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-cleaningenergy 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 consumerbegins 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. 

# ArtlurDliHIe 13Table 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 Table 12: Emissivitiesfor 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 5kWh. For self-cleaning ovens, one ofthe best choices for a reflective cavity would be stainless steel. Stainless steel would be suitable wall material for an oven that will see hundreds of900°F self-clean cleaning cycles over the average 19-yearlife ofthe oven. Forthe stainless steel cavity, the wall emissivity would be .5 (oxidized) after the first self-clean cycle; and the benefit ofthe surface would be reduced by about 60%. Chrome coatings are best suited for the standard oven which have temperatures of 600°F. The deposits ofeventhin coatings ofoil from normal cooking use would quickly cause the deterioration ofthe reflective quality ofthe plating. An average cavity emissivity ofabout .45 for a chrome-plated oven in daily use would be very reasonable (assumes halfthe oven is still highly reflective [£=.1] and the other halfis soiled [£=.82]). Again, about 60% ofthe energy savings benefit ofthe oven would be lost. Frequent cleaning ofthe oven would improve the reflectivity cavity quality provided the user did not scratch or damage the surface using typical cleaningpads and oven cleaning chemicals. 4.2.3 ConsumerPaybackAssociated with Reflective Surfaces The payback associated with the standard or self-clefm oven with reflective interior surfaces was found to be greaterthan 8-years when using the energy savings associated with a highly reflective cavity (ideal assumption). A 20+ year payback is realized ifthe oven surface reflectance is reduced to account for surface soil or surface oxidation that will occur oven the life ofthe product.


# ArtlurDlittle 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 This design option paybackperiod is excessive, difficult to achieve in practice, and if implemented would alter the utility ofthe 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-yearproduct life, itis probably the least expensive method for obtaining a reflective surface; it is substantially less expensive than a stainless steel cavity orliners. The price premium associated with chrome plating was taken as average ofArthur 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 ofthe protective oxide which forms on chrome, and electroplating for compatibility with existing manufacturing operations for the oven cavity. Two general classes ofchrome 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 ofchoice 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 ofthe substrate • Copperplating (0.1 mil) • Mechanical buffing ofthe copperlayer • Copperplating (flash) • Nickel plating (2 layers 0.2 mil in thickness) 

# IlrtlurI)

# 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

• Chrome plating Typically, the decorative chrome plate is less than 50 millionths ofan inch. For a part in which only the interior needs plating, masking and stripping steps may be included to block offthe external surface. Cost ofthe plating can be estimated from the time in the bath, and the part loading pertank. Forpurposes ofthis calculation, tank time costs of$40 to $50 per hour (margins not included) and deposition ofY2 mil in 15 minutes have been assumed. The cost ofa part then depends on the parts perrack, and the rack capacity ofthe tank. In this calculation, 8 parts per rack or4 oven cavities and door pieces perrack were assumed. This leads to an oven cavity plating cost ofonly $2.50 to $3.00 without overheating and margins. Polishing ofthe steel surface and masking ofthe external surfaces introduces additional costs. For hand operations, the costs ofthese steps could exceed the cost ofthe plating. However, for large production volumes, robotic polishing and masking steps will significantly bring down costs. Forthis preliminary analysis, surface preparation costs equaled that ofplating, 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 ofplating vendors could double the cost. The preliminary chrome plating cost can be summarized as follows:

• Average plating and preparation cost.,. $5.50/oven • Incremental consumerprice for reflective surface 01. $1 1.55/oven This incremental pure estimate is about 3 times ofthat assumed by the DOE ($3.06/unit retail). Another chrome plating estimate was provided by one ofthe major range companies whichplaced the manufacturing cost premium ofa chrome plated oven overthe standard product at $9.40/unit or a customerprice increase of $19.74/unit. The average ofthese 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 ofthe oven stresses the oven walls further promoting the cracking process. The effect ofcracks on the corrosionrate ofthe substrate due to oxidation, and food and cleaning chemicals must be determined.



## ArtlurD 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.



# rD Little 17 • Thermal cycling ofthe oven cavity stresses the deposit increasing the potential for loss ofadhesion. Quality control ofbath and operating parameters becomes critical to insure consistent adhesion ofthe deposit.

• The cavity reflectivity will likely change overtime. In addition, the manufacturers will likely have major investments including:

• Oven design modifications since deposition ofbright chrome on the interior surface ofan open welded box presents several issues: Crevices along the weld line and corners creates the potential for solution retention inrecesses. Residual bath solutions can contaminate subsequent plating bathes and cause corrosion ofthe completed part. Polishing and buffing ofinterior surfaces with corners and right angles may require specialized equipment. Conformal anodes may be needed to obtain uniformthickness and deposit properties on the inside ofthe box. A trade-offanalysis should be conducted regarding the costbenefits of masking the outside ofthe cavity from plating. Maskingbefore plating and stripping the mask after plating can contribute significantto cost.

• An appliance manufacturer has to considerthe costbenefits ofsetting up an internal plating operation versus the use ofexternal 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 premiumthat creates apaybackin excess of 10 years. In addition, the door seal improvements may effect the cooking performance ofthe oven. The door seal allows bothfresh 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 ofmoisture concentration in the cavity with a resulting negative impact on cookingperfonrl'Ifnce.



# IlrtlurDlittle 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

4.3.1 ImprovedDoorSealEfficiency 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 theirperformance to standard oven performance. These tests were conducted by one ofthe majorrange manufacturers. 4.3.2 PaybackAssociated with ImprovedDoorSeal 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: Paybackfor Standard Oven Door Seal Improvement

Standard Oven
The incremental price ofadapting 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. 

# IlrtlurDLittle 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 4.4 Increased Oven Insulation Design Option DOE has recommended an increase in cavity insulation of2 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 (1.4percentage points on a 12.15% baseline) on the oven energy usage it will have a negative effect on the utility ofthe oven and range appliances. The current range product is designed around a number ofkitchen 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 ofrange (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 offood

• Need to maintain cool coil cooktop surface ofrange (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 ofthese needs, the oven design has evolved to the following:

• 23-inch wide by 16-inch wide, by 18-inchdeep cavity • 2 inches ofinsulation 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 ofthe 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 ofoven to provide air wipe cooling and electrical connections ofoven heating elements (bake and broil) 

# IlrtJurDlittle 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

Increasing the insulation (2 to 4 inches) thickness would either:

• Increase the size ofthe overall cabinet

• Reduce the oven cavity volume Both ofthese options would impact the utility ofthe appliance. Increasing the size ofthe range to accommodate the additional insulation would result in a product that could not be retrofitted into existing kitchens (range width increase from 30to 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 roofinsulation, 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 ofproduct differentiation. Taking the approach ofreducing the cavity size to accommodate the additional insulation would have a large impact on cooking utility. Forexample, reducing the cavity width from 22 to 23 inches to 18 to 19 inches would eliminate the possibility ofcooking large family dinners (e.g. 25 lb. turkey). In addition, the much narrower oven would impacttypical two-pan baking performance. In two-pan or sheet-baking performance, the clearance around the sheets orpans (18- by 13Yz-inch) is needed for uniform heating/cooking ofracks ofproducts. 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 EnergySavingsAnalysis forIncreasedInsulation Our analysis using the oven model agrees with the DOE finding that thicker insulation (up to 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4percentagepoint increase in oven efficiency, but implementation ofthis design may affect the utility ofthe appliance. Table 16 illustrates the annual energy savings and oven efficiency improvements for both standard and self-clean electric ovens.



# -

Artlur

# DliHIe 20Table 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 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 ofalready 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 minimumporcelain layer for the most difficult to coat areas ofthe 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 butthey 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.

_



# ArtlurDlittle 21Table 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 Table 17: Potential Energy Saving due to Reduced Mass

4.5.1 Reduction in Thermal Mass Analysis 

### A 

### Yz to 1lb 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 ofa lowerthermal mass is negligible at steady state conditions because the heat loss through the wall is dominated by the resistance ofthe insulation surrounding the oven cavity wall. 4.6 Elimination ofthe Oven Window Design Option 

### Elimination ofthe current oven window by definition has a positive energy savings and a good payback. This option does change the utility ofthe oven, that is, consumers currently perceive a majorbenefit in

### the window option, and are willing to pay a premium for this feature. Roughly 70% ofall units shipped include a window. The user will have to change theirbehavior 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. Ratherthan quickly inspecting through the window, the user will have to open the door severalJimes to determine doneness. 4.6.1 EnergySavingsAnalysis for WindowElimination 

### Our analysis indicates that the amount ofenergy saved relative to window elimination is about halfthatreported by DOE (5 kWh/yr as compared to 10 kWh/yr). This decrease in oven efficiency is due to several door openings per cycle. 

# ArtJurDLittle 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 

### Our analysis assumes three product examinations per cook cycle. For some products where proper finishing is difficult, the number ofdoor 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 ofthe window saves approximately 9.7 kWh per year for a self-clean oven. However, these values assume no door opening. To determine the effect ofdoor openings orenergy savings, the actual energy saved per cycle must be calculated. The number ofcooking 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 e

### 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 ofthe 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. 

# IlrtJurDlittle 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 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 occurper cooking cycle because the window is eliminated.
Table 20: Actual Annual Energy Savings and Oven EfficiencyWhen 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 of77.2% to 80.5%. The potential for achieving this large improvement was investigated as part ofthis 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 EffectofSurface ContactResistance on Range-Top Efficiency 

### The effect ofcontact 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 ofapproximately ±.005 inches. The degree ofcontact with the cooking surface varies with flatness and roughness ofthe cooking utensil (pot or pan). As part ofthis program, arange of "contact" conditions were considered on several tests boiling pasta. Findings include:

• The steady state efficiency ofthe cooktop is 95.0%. 

# - • Increasing the contactpressure between the pot and coil by a factor ofnearly four has no impact on steady state efficiency.

• Ifthe pot/coil interface is not flat (e.g., small gap of .01 inches), the efficiency drops to below 70%. 

# Al1:.IurDlittle 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

5.1.2 ConductanceAnalysis A simple heat transfer model was used to estimate the importance ofcontact 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 Burnertemperature 1400°F Pot emissivty .6 Range-top emissivity .9 Contactresistance .002 hr. ft. °FlBtu The contact resistance was taken from the G.E. Handbook for contact between two milled surfaces ofsteel 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 mediumbetween the coil and the pot. Reflection and emission from the burnerpan underthe heating element is small and not included. 2) The burnertransfers heat to the pot by conduction only with the above assumed value for contactresistance. Data from G.E. shows strong correlation ofcontact 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 ofapproximately 50. The results of Situation 3 above, the most realistic, also demonstrates thatradiation has a small influence comparedto conduction. In addition, contact pressure is the dominate parameterin both contact resistance and forcing the pot and coil to conform to each other.



# ArtJurDliHIe 25Table 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 Table 21: Analytical HeatTransfer 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 - Testing1.13 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. ofwater were used perthe 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 atroom temperature (approximately 70°F). A watt hour meter measured the electrical energy required to raise the waterto 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. ofwater and the lid positioned normally. 2) Contactresistance was then increased by placing a weight ofapproximately 68 lbs. on the top ofthe lid, increasing the pressure on the coil by a factor of3.8. 3) The effect ofa tighter lid produced in condition 2 above was investigated by clamping the lid closed and running the test. The weight ofthe clamps were negligible. 4) A space was provided betweenthe coil and the potto evaluate the overall effect ofthe situation where the coil orpot 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 ofcontactpressure. An increase in contact pressure by a factor of almost 4 had no noticeable effect. As demonstrated in the analytical results, conduction viaphysical contact withthe potis the major mechanism for heat transfer.


# ArtlurDlittle 26Table 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 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 1with 68.5 lb. weight added Conductance to lid 95.0 94.7 Same case as 1with clamped lid 94.9 96.5 Impact on Efficiency if the Pot and Coil are Same case as 1with air spacing between Not in Good Contact
- pot and burner 61.2 66.0 Small Gap Test 1: .057 in. Test 2: .013 in.



# -

ArtlurI)

# 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 orApproximate 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) 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 of2.16 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 orApproximateRetail 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



# ArtlurDLiHle 

# -

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 Appendix 8 Oven Analysis An oven analysis was conducted using Arthur D. Little's Transient Thennal Analysis program and an oven model capable ofinvestigating design changes. Modifications such as eliminatingthe 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 ofa 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 ofaphysical system. TTA can model both transient and steady state behavior ofa system. Oven Model Using TTA, a thermal model ofan average residential oven (Figure 1) has been developed to analyze the impact ofvarious energy saving design recommendations made in the DOEEnergy 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



# ArtlurD Little B-115.5"

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 15.5" 5.5"

15"



## v 22"

Glass .065" Air .5"

# ~

# lGlass .065' 

# Inside Wall

# ~'I**~Insulation** 2" Porcelain .00675" 

## .f f

InsideWall

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 andbottom surfaces. • Conduction/convection occurs between the walls and the ambient air. • Ambient airis at a fixed temperature. • Heating element source is at a fixed temperature.


## AltlurD LiHle 8-23

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

3

7 6 10

4 1-
- - - --- - -- - - - --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- ---------- --,"': " , ,"'...... 

## . ,'//// A

.........".-".

-.. ".

- --+-----t--8

r----.r--t--- 5 9 ,/',' 

### ,

..' " 

### , /,,/**~**

### - ' ,,/

.

### --**~.**

## -.,..

# ,.. ,

### - , ,,' .':a"""",. '-' "'-

--------- --- ------------- --------- -- ---------- ----------------------

Figure B-2: TransientThermal 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



# -

AltlurD 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 The basic equations used to calculate the convective heat transfer coefficients included:
hcL M**N~** = C(GrPr) K

Gr = Grashofnumber:

### 2~(Tw- 1)L 3 y2

where: Pr= Prandtl number L = characteristic length, ft g = 32.2 ft/s2**~** = IITf, IIR Tw = wall temperature, F T = oven temperature, F y = kinematic viscosity, ft2/sec Tf

## =film temperature, F (average ofwall and oven airtemperatures) 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 ofthe wall to the oven air. Table B-2 details the values ofc and m used in the oven model.
Table B-2: Definitions of Variables Used in Convection Calculations



# ArUurDlittle 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 

### 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 ofporcelain was assumed to be .92. The parameters for conduction, convection and radiation were determined to describe the interrelationships ofnodes 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 of80°F and an oven set point temperature of350°F. For steady state runs the heating element surface temperature was varied until the oven set pointtemperature was reached. The relative change in heat loss is an indication ofthe energy savings once the oven has reached steady state conditions. The model was run in atransient mode to determine the effects ofdesign options on heat up time. The percentage change in heat up time is an indication ofthe reduction in heat required to reach the setpoint 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 ofthese savings to total energy consumed in a cooking cycle mustbe understood. The cooking cycle energy consumption is made ofthree 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 peryear (adjusted DOE values) are used for oven cooking in a home. Considering the DOEtest 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 ofcooking cycles peryear 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 heatup 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 energybreakdown 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.


# ArtJurD

# liHIe 8-5Table 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 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 ofHeat Transfer, 3rd Edition 3. Holman, J. P., Heat Tranfer, 5th Edition.



# -

ArtlurD 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

Engineering Sciences .FaxTransmittal Form To: BrookeStauffer 

### AHAM Fax No: 1-202-434-7400 RegulatoryAffairs

.From: David Mallory Date: ARTHUR D. UTTLE, INC. 20Acorn Park, Room 201533 Cambridge, MA02140-2390 July 18.1994

Pages (includingthisone): 1 Tel: Return FAX:
Message: 617/498-5856 617/49&-7206

Dear Mr. Stauffer: Iamsending the information yOU requested from Arlene Margeon annual useful cooking energyoutputforelectric ovensandcooktops, seeTable 1. Table 1Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output ForElectric OvensAnd Cooktops DOE Values Modified Values Ovens 35.15 kWhlyr 26.6 kWh/yr Cooktops 209.4 kWhlyr 157.0kWh/yr The modifiedannualenergyusagevaluesdetailed in AOL's report where based on recent metered studiesthat indicatedthe adjusted DOEvalues where approXimately 25%too high. This ratiO wasalsoappliedtothe annual useful cooking energyoutputfor electricovens and cooktopstodeterminethe values in Table 1. Ifyou any questionsonthe information, pleasedono hesitatetocal!.

Helpingcreatethe right productatthe righttime 

## 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 The EffectsofConvection Oven Cooking on Food Quality



# llrtlurDLittle Presentationto GRI's NAECA RangeTechnical AdvisoryGroup May25,1994 Arthur D. Little, Inc. Acorn Park Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140-2390 (617) 49a:-5000 Reference42943-25

## Agenda



# Objective • Approach • Summary of Results • Individual Studies

Artlur D Little Agenda



## • Objective

• Approach

• Summary of Results

• Individual Studies



# IlrtlurDLiHle 1

## Objective



# To assess, through a literature review, the effects of convection ovens on cooking quality.

Artlur D Little Objective



## To assess, through a literature review, the effects ofconvection ovens on cooking quality.



# IlrtlurDLittle 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 

### Approach



## • A literature search was initiated using the key words "convection oven".

• Six papers were retrieved from two peer reviewed scientificjournals:

- Journal of Food Science

- Journal of Food Engineering

• Two papers were submittedfrom the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & 

## State University.

• Each paperwas reviewed for convection oven/cooking quality dataand summarized.



# ArtlurD

# 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 

### Summary of Results



## • Peer Reviewed Journals:

- Cookies should be baked in a convection oven dueto significantly highervalues for flavor and texture characteristics.

- More energywas used in the convection baking process.

- For heating food in ready prepared or commissarytype foodservice systems, microwave ovens yielded food of highersensory qualitywith lowerenergy inputthan food prepared in a convection oven.

- The effectof infrared and convective heating upon nutrient retention was similar in portioned menu items.

- Temperaturevariability is asignificantfactor in heating food in convection ovens, and equipment model has significant inflUence.

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute

- Food prepared by convection were identifiable (lumped layercake with crack in center; cookies with variation in browning acrossthetop; meatswith crunchier exterior).

- Thetype of heating system does not significantly affect results in

I 

## baking and roasting. 

# ArtlurDLittle 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 ofcookies 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 

# SensoryQualityand Energy Usefor Baking ofMolasses Cookies Preparedwith Bleached and Unbleached Flourand Baked in Infrared, Forced AirConvection, and Conventional DeckOvens.

# I~=:~:,woj To prepare cookies with bleached and unbleached flour (2 formulas) baked in institutional deck, infrared and convection ovensto determinethe effects on sensory qualities and energy for baking.

# I~ • Sensoryqualityof cookies was evaluated bytrained panelists using such attributes as: 

## uniformityin roundshape crackingoftopsurface (number, width, depth ofcracks) surfacebrowning(uniformity, intensity) basictastes texture (softness, crispness, chewiness) • Energy measurementwas monitored, i.e. electricity in watt-hours, gas in cubicfeet, and converted to BTU's. • Datawas coded and analyzed by several statistical methods



# IlrtlurDLittle 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.

Artlur

# DLittle 6 

# SensoryQualityand Energy Usefor Baking of Molasses Cookies Preparedwith Bleached and Unbleached Flourand Baked in Infrared, Forced AirConvection, and Conventional DeckOvens (continued). 

# IResults: 

# I**iM§%*kM~:n#t** ..·¥.;····t&&"¥"i·?.f5 

## • Cookies baked in the convection oven were significantly differentthan those baked in the deck oven and infrared oven. They had highervalues forall flavorcharacteristics, softness, uniformity in round shape and intensity ofsurface browning. The deckoven gave crispier, chewier, and brownercookies. • Energy usefor baking was significantly higherin the convection than the othertwo ovens. • Bleached flour gave significantly highervalues than unbleached flour.

Reference: 

## J. Heist &

## M.L. Cresser, J. 

## FoodScience, Volume 55, No.4, 1990. 1095-1100.



# ArtlurDLittle 6

# Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Scrambled Eggs and Beef Patties

Heated in Institutional Microwave and Convection Ovens. 

# I Objective: Todetermine energy use and sensory quality of food heated in microwave and convection ovenstotemperatures 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 

# SensoryQualityand Energy Use forScrambled Eggs and Beef Patties Heated in Institutional Microwaveand Convection Ovens.

To determine energy use and sensory qualityoffood heated in microwave and convection ovensto temperatures considered effectivefor microbiological safety. 

# 1==-1

• Portions ofscrambled eggs and beef pattieswere heated in a Blodgett Model FA-100 gas convection oven (85,000 BTU per hr.) and Hobart Model M312 microwave oven (2860 W). Sensory evaluationswere performed by atrained panel using such attributes as: 

### Beef Patties
appearance tenderness juiciness flavor general acceptability


# ArtlurDLittle 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 

# SensoryQualityand Energy UseforScrambled Eggs and Beef Patties Heated in Institutional Microwaveand Convection Ovens (continued).



# l==-l

• Eggs heated in the microwave oven were scored significantly higherforall characteristics evaluatedthan eggs heated in the convection oven. • Beefpatties heated in the convection oven werescored significantly higherforall characteristicsthan patties heated in the microwave.

Reference: Cremer, M.L., J. FoodScience, Volume 47, 1982. 871-874.



# IlrtJurDLittle 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 aconstant 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 PLittle 9 

# Comparison of Drying Kinetics of Foods Using A Fan-Assisted Convection Oven, A MicrowaveOven and A Combined Microwave/ Convection Oven. 

# I**~.~~.:~.~~.~**

# .•

To determinethe drying rate curves (moisture contentvs. time) forfive types offoods (skim milk powder, whole milkpowder, casein powder, butter, fresh pasta) using amixed-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 weightwas measured at regularintervals. Drying was stoppedwhen the material reached 

# aconstantweight.

• In aconvection oven, the rate of moisture loss increaseswith temperature increase due to the increased drivingforces for heatand masstransfer. However, for productswith a low moisture content, the convection oven is notadvantageous because the diffusion process is slow. • Drying rate increaseswith poweroutput of amicrowave oven as the dielectricproperties of the food change. The uniformlydry productobtained makes microwaving suitable for low moisture or heatsensitive materials. • Hotairwith microwave power increases drying rate, yet operation at highertemperatures is not recommended dueto burning and non-uniformity.
Reference:AI-Ouri, B., and Mcintyre, S., 

### J. 

### FoodEngineering, Volume 15, 1992. 139-155.



# IlrtlurDLiHle 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 FoodScience,Volume 48, 1983. 864-904 

# Arthr D Little 10 

# Nutrient retention in pork,turkey breast and corned beef roasts after infraredand convection heat processing. 

# IObjective:

# &1

To determinethe effect of both infrared and forced-airconvection heat processing upon the food productyield and nutrient retention of roasts of pork loin, turkey breastand corned beef. 

# I**:!!;!:~~r~,J**

Procedures were developedto produce quality roasts in an electronic, conveyorized infrared oven (CTX-70 Cooking System) and aforced-airconvection oven (Lang Model CO-20). Food productyields were determined from the cooked roasts, and anutrientanalysis (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 FattyAcid 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 effectof infrared and convection heating upon nutrient retention was similar. Eitherheatprocessing method could be adopted with comparable results.

I 

### Reference:Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., Krause, G. JournalFoodScience,

### Volume 48, 1983. 864-904 

# IlrtlurDlittle 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 

# Temperatures ofspaghetti·after heating in convection ovensat service locationsin acommissary foodservice system.**12bjecti\~e:** 

# I To determinetemperature variability and factors influencing temperature ofspaghetti heated in convection ovens in a commissaryfoodservice system.

Four models ofconvection ovens were utilized. Mean temperatures offood as heated in 12 positions in each oven were recorded.

Data indicated thattemperaturevariability was a significantfactor in heating food in convection ovens andthat equipment model had significant influence. Factorswhich appearedto have an effect on temperature included:

- thermostatic setting

- oven power rating

- placementof heating elements

- numberof meals heated atonetime

- numberoffans

- position offood in oven

Reference: Cremer, M.L., 

### JournalofFoodScience, Volume 43,1978.1062-1070. 

### , 

# IlrtJurDLittle 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

# 222J ion: 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. 

# ArtlurDLittle 12 

# Nutrient retention ofportioned menu itemsafter infraredand convection heat processing. 

# I**i2.~~i;~!!~::**am::1

To determine effect ofboth infraredand forced-airconvection heat processing upon food productyield and nutrientcontent ofthree protein and two vegetable portioned menu items.

# I:~~.J Procedures were developedto produce quality rib eye steaks, hamburgerpatties, codfillets, baked potatoes, and baked tomato halves in an electronic conveyorized infrared oven (CTX70 Cooking system) and aforced-airconvection oven (Lang Model CO-20). Food product yields were determined forthe menu items, and a nutrientanalysis (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 losswith 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 losswith NSD in Vitamin G convection Tomato More losswith More beta carotene convection with infrared

# 1£0n.C~~1 For most nutrients analyzed, the effectof infrared and convection heating upon nutrient retention was similar. Foryield, 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., JournalofFoodScience, Volume

### 48, 1983.869-873. 

## ArtlurI)

## 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 

# A studyofdesignapproachesto convection cooking. 

# I**§82.!;e!i~:;&m11**

Tocomparethe 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 ofconvection wall ovens. Performance evaluationswere based on sensory (color, appearance, exterior dryness of meats, taste, texture) and laboratory techniques (reflectance, caliper, moisture
-volatiletester, sheartester). Results: Although variability was 

### obseNedbetween oven brands, all productswere "acceptable." Angel food cakes
- even color, levelwith pan, easyto cut. Yellow cakes
- even color, acceptablevolume and moistness, crumbly and difficulttofrost. Chocolate chip cookies
- some gradations in color; crisperthan conventional oven baking. Beef roasts - evenly cooked andjuicywith a crunchy exterior. Chicken
- mostlyjuicy and tenderwith crunchy exteriors.

Reference: Lovingood, R.P., DeMerchant, 

### E.A., Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & 

### State University Walsh, C.M., and Kirkley, S.L., ThermodorCorporation.



# ArtJurDLittle 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 

# Oven performance in convectionvs. radiant mode. 

# IObjective: 

# I

'WApi 

# * '**t'%1 § 

### To comparethe effects of forced-air movementon the baking and roasting performance of convection wall ovens. 

# I**:::~~;~~t!r: ~$** 

# ,I

Angel food cakes, yellow layer cake, drop sugarcookies, beef roast, and chicken were prepared in five brands of wall ovens. Performance evaluations were based on sensory evaluations ofappearance and flavor characteristics, (moist, dry, crumbly, burned, tough) and instrumental evaluations (reflectance, cake height, moisture-volatiletester, sheartester). 

# IResults: 

## b

Etiilt:mmil_;m;1



### •Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beefwhen comparing convection and

radiant modes. •All foods were "acceptable." •Convection produces "typical" products
- humped, cracked layercake, cookies with more

variation in browning across the top, meatswith crunchierexterior.

Reference: Lovingood, R.P., DeMerchant, E.A., and Himes, L.J., Virginia Polytechnic Institute & 

### State University, Blacksburg, VA..



# IlrtlurDLiHle 14NBSIR 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 NBSIR 7B-1556 

### KITCHEN RANGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

J. V. Fechter L. G. Porter

Consumer Ergonomics and Information Consumer Sciences Division Center for Consumer ProductTechnology 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

JordanJ. Baruch.AssistantSecTetaryfOTScience and Technology NATIONALBUREAU OF STANDARDS. Erne.tAmbter. 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 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 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

"TI
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

### 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 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

### 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. Themethod 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 otherinteresting 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 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 (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. 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 servedseveral 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 inthe 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 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~~en** ded 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 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'ClIt ive 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 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. TABLE I The AIIA.I.!**~Ienu,** ss Used b}' NBS for Range Tests·

;;.L;IF.-\ST lIalf Grapefruit OatJ1'Cal with

raisins, brtJ'oon sugar rerked coffee**~ill..** 'I Grilled cheese

S3fk!·

...'ichcs Relish tray

(carrot**stic~s.** tomato, radishes, pickles) Frc'sh fruit llot ":1rer (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 fruit llot lodter (coffee,

tea) ·t· Hilk
'8 til'Nil OA;Y , 4 Tomato Juice £try Cereal with milk ToaIted [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, caITors, onions• anJ ;:;1"'''\')' :'o>,ed grLans \Oith**~** ..Iisi 0:, 11':C'; Fr(,lo:h dr('>sing lot roiI,; i:..:tt.:r or r..argarir.e ,\PI Ie crisp Coffee or tea mlk '3 !'-:"':::-.:-'': pct..:itoes J: ;:>: -.**~(':":-..s** r**~**;::".:.-**~**z,c1atin**'.e:~. -c:~:~** **~'AK~tS ;._~~~.;-**  cr ::&:'!'"t:.Jrine C:::C''! cr tea r:ii: It Ik-ef ste
.... (

...·itil**c~rrots. pc~s,**  and**pot~tocs**) Tossed greers ....ith

french dressing BrCJlo-TI**~** Serve rolls Butter or r..ar.;arine Vanilla puddi:1l: with stra
...bcrry halves in syrup Coffee or tea t.lilk 19 Spar;hetti with rreat S:1UCC Grntecl panncsan**chce~e** Lettuce wedge with

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 Euttered spinach Red hot applesauce Ilrc3J Ilutt-:r or r.l3rgarinc Lemon meringue pie Coffee or tea Hilk
115**~IF"lr** on '6 Gra[1efruit 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 fish Rice pi13f Pc'3S with pearl

onlons Broiled t0m3tO**li.:Jr~** rolls ""

.....ttcr or r.urgarine T3[1ioca pudding with

fruit topping (oflee (\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**~** jelly 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** rotatoes**$.:;,.:~.-,j** ,cu,hr':x:a:; Bm':':':'1i**To~s':J 3:'.~J....!**  fkn rrc.-":r. br(;.]j Butter or hlr6-lTl;)e Choco13t<! c.;;;"" Cuffee or tea IoUI k 121used--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 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 

### TELEVISION CONTROL ROOM 

# • 

# • RECEPTION**'.i--~--r---!** 

## C ROOM GAS KITCHEN COMPUTER ROOM 

# " 

# •

DINING ROOM 

## LIVING ROOM 

# • • FAMILY ROOM OFFICE/ TEST ROOM 

## C 

# o . 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/MICROPHONE SPEAKER

FLOOR PLAN OF 

# rms CONSUMER RESEARCH LABORATORY 7before 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 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).
8Table 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 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') ') countertop l' II icienc}, **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.

9Table 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 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:::.=::: ;:.;::.-:;e5 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.'"1u 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**~** 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 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 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<1ter 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. 13that 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 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 l18.3** L5.a "'.-. '-" 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. Otherexamples 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 mayquestion 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 variabilitybetween 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 preparingone 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 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 kv!h differences, one may question whether small, statistically significant**diff~r** ences 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 15cooks 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 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 '.,oitil 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 ANOVA 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. 16TABLE 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 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.ivo diffcrcnce 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 w 

# " z <X: 0: 0: UJCO 

### 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:, (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) on Cas and Electric Ranc'es

18TABLE 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 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, hiqh ('

### rfit'i ('ncy ran<]('s" will**con~mme** less energy overall thcJ.i11ow--(";-n-jc il!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 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 differentamounts 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 behaviorand 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 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 (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 

# -

..**~-.**

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

II Ilk,' ,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 (illThe 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- idnHfid 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**~pr£.** 

## _f\lDI 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..lrticipapts 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 Is personal privacy as well as maintain confidcntiality 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 INVIllVEMfNT 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 uscOMM·NHS·DC

### Appendix B Recipes of AllAN Meals Involving Cooking on Kitchen Ranges



### 25 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. """;j\U DAY 1 

### Jreakfast**~IENU** DAY 1 

### Lunch

\II'NII !lAY Il i IIIIt'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 salt 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** 1f 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 desired)

. 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 "'3ter 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 teaspoonpepper. ' Rub flour mixture into n:e:Jt, shake off excess.**~Ie**1t shorte:1ing in a [)1.Itc.h oven on r:Jnge top. Then add meat and brOlI1l sn botn sldes. AJj water, coverand 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 '111In. 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 instructions 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 margarine (soft Chiffon) 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 \Vitit 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 \'1 ["l:\Y 2

..LIl1Ch

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 milk 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 heat, stir in potatoes l.,rith 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. 28INII 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 tc 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

## ~ "EN!) 1l:\Y 3 

# L- Ilreakfast

-".-'.

m:NU DAY 3

# ~ Lunch 

# 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 \\ith 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. WIttl 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.



### 29MENU DAY 4

Lunch

MENU DAY 4 Dinner M1:AL all C,i lCKl: 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 

### 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""" ,Jl: 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 tomto Slll.:e 1 c<ln tonuto rJ>te I lI.ly leaf (cn:,!'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•.hettl .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 HIr. 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]. 

### 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 heJt, 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 "ith salt Olnd pepper to taste. 

### 4. hid a Sm.1ll anuunt of ""ater, con'r tightlY .1n,1 cook lL'ltil Jonc. (No pink shol,s In meat.) SCALLOrt:U I'OT..\TllES

1. Follow pack.:lge instructions or 2. Remove**pot.'lto~~** in th'l containeljplace in 4000[, pre,heJteJ oven. 3. Bake for 45-55 minutes or lUltil top is golden brol>ll. BUTTERED Sr[:\.\CII ((;R[[:\ GL\:\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 with 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 ifJesirt'd. LHION**~ll:Itl:\GUL** I'lL g" pic shell (ret Rit:) 1 • 4-3/4 0:. pack.:lce jello lemon pic filling**(R.:~lar)** 3 egg "'hites
. 6 TbIs. sugar (confectionery ). lIZ cup plain sugar 3 cups water 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 filling. Let cool for 5 minutes and the'll potlr into pic shell. 3. Pic Heringuc:

31Place 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 3Z50F 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).**~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 with 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 taste.**~lake** 2 sandwiches. BROILED FISH & BROILED Tm!,xTO 2packages (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 with melted 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 WIltor RICE PILAF

1. Molt butter; sauto onion until yellow. 2. Add consOJ1U11C, rice and water. 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. 

### MENU DAY 7

Breakfast

MENU DAY 7 Dinner "'"'.1111

MrAL**'I~**

MEAL '21

MEAL IZI ,

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 onTtl 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.** Iinu 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" clC:Ir,:"e IS left**b~tl**..een**I,,·~**ting UlIIt**~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 Ina 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). 8ROCCOLISPI:.\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 Appendix C Summary of Range Characteristics

34e 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. 

### Summary of Range Characteristics
Ran12e 

### Oven Features· Type of Surface Units Electric Range 1 

### l-self cleaningovenl 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 (71SS 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. RlJll:e Electric Range 3

0.76 rn (30 in) 

### wide Oven Feature:::: Crtt:11Y tic c1ec..: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 watts @ 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 

### R:mQe Llectric Range 5

0.76 

### m (30 

### in) wide

(',as Range 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 R:m QC Gas Range 2

0.;0 

### m (30 in) wiele Oven**Fea:-~:'~3** Se1f c1eT'.::-.;- 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) (continued) 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 consLlTlptlOr:

.

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,)

Bl1JRanie 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 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 mwide (24.00 in) 0.49 mdeep (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 mwide (20.00 in) 0.46 mdeep (18.25 in)

___ -- 0.36 mbigh (14.25 in) 3 0.085 ",.I vol=e (5201 in J

I 18000 BW _ !J'JOO B1lJ

_1L'ooa I!1UApperidic D

Graphic Illustration of iergy Consumption and Variation for Each Range, Cook, and Day

40**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.**~** 

### ..... 

## 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 K 

### lJ H 

### M 

### E A N D 

### I A 

## F N 

## 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 

### N E

- 

## / R 

## G

- 

# 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. 

## "'" 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 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.**~** Ul 

## E N 

## E R G Y 

## K LJ H 

### 6



## 5

4



## 3

2 

# • \
,. • 

# ,,. ,..,...-;,

# '.~ / "
'\ ,/

.. --4 /' '\ ,P--

_______ ._; /

## /~'.:'



# . , 

## / /;'"

# ~ .

# '~ - '

---- -r 

# ,\", "

# 7'''"_---_~ __-, /

' ,......-.... --*, / 

### \ \... " /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 K IJ 

### H M 

## E A N 

### D I**~** 

### F 0"1 

### F 

## E R 

## E N C 

## E 

## 1.5

1.0 -1 I 

## 1

::. 1 

# I -1 

# i 0.5**:~**


## 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

E N E R 3.5
K U H

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**~** -...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 

## 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. "'"'**~** 

## 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. 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** 

# rIi) I 

## MEAN DIFFERENCE PER COOK FROM THE DAIL'l

MEAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ALL COOKS USING ELECTRIC

RANGE 5 AND THE STD. DEVIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE.

## 10

E N E R G V I-fl

-• 

## K LI H 6 * 

### ,'\ 

# /



# /1

# \. \\\

i/,I'I



## /1/; 1/ / 

# / A j1/,,;1/ 

## 8

4 

## 1 2 3 4 5 PAY FIGURE Dli. TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTIOII

PER DAY FOR GAS RANGE 1. 6 7 PER COOK U1 I-' 

## E N 

## E R G 

### Y 

## K W H 

### 10



## 8

6

4 

# • • 

# , '

# ,



# ,\ ,\:'\, I
, 

# . ' 

# ' 

# \ ';'. ff . " 

# \1 • A \ ' '

# \I .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 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. 

### 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 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

- 

# j \ 

## N

- 

# \

# \ , --G 

## E

- - I, 

# /

,,, 

# /



# \\\

# \ / -x 

## V

- 

# \ /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. 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 K 

## w H t; 

## M 

## E 

## '. A N 

### D I U1 

### F 0') 

### 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. 

## 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. 

## -1.5 K W H 

## 1.0 M 

## E A N 

# e.s D 

### I VI 

## F 

# e.e co 

### 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. 

## 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. 1.5 K lJ 

### H 

### 1.0 

## M 

## E A N 

## 0.5 D I 0'1 

### r= 

### 0.0 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.