Food Service Technology Center

Transcription

1 Food Service Technology Center Gas Fryer Expanded Test Report Application of ASTM Standard Test Method F October 2013 Prepared by: Denis Livchak Fisher-Nickel, Inc. Prepared for: Pacific Gas & Electric Company Customer Energy Efficiency Programs PO Box San Francisco, California Fisher-Nickel, Inc. All rights reserved. 2013

2 Food Service Technology Center Background The information in this report is based on data generated at the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Food Service Technology Center (FSTC). Dedicated to the advancement of the foodservice industry, The FSTC has focused on the development of standard test methods for commercial foodservice equipment since The primary component of the FSTC is a 10,000 square-foot laboratory equipped with energy monitoring and data acquisition hardware, 60 linear feet of canopy exhaust hoods integrated with utility distribution systems, equipment setup and storage areas, and a state-of-the-art demonstration and training facility. The FSTC Energy Efficiency for Foodservice Program is funded by California utility customers and administered by PG&E under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California customers are not obligated to purchase any additional services offered by the contractor. Policy on the Use of Food Service Technology Center Test Results and Other Related Information Fisher-Nickel, Inc. and the FSTC do not endorse particular products or services from any specific manufacturer or service provider. The FSTC is strongly committed to testing foodservice equipment using the best available scientific techniques and instrumentation. The FSTC is neutral as to fuel and energy source. It does not, in any way, encourage or promote the use of any fuel or energy source nor does it endorse any of the equipment tested at the FSTC. FSTC test results are made available to the general public through technical research reports and publications and are protected under U.S. and international copyright laws. Disclaimer Copyright 2013 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Food Service Technology Center. All rights reserved. Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of this document without written permission of FSTC is prohibited. Results relate only to the item(s) tested. Neither, Fisher- Nickel, Inc., PG&E nor any of their employees, or the FSTC, make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability of responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any data, information, method, product or process disclosed in this document, or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights, including but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights. Reference to specific products or manufacturers is not an endorsement of that product or manufacturer by Fisher-Nickel, Inc., the FSTC, or PG&E. In no event will Fisher-Nickel, Inc. or PG&E be liable for any special, incidental, consequential, indirect, or similar damages, including but not limited to lost profits, lost market share, lost savings, lost data, increased cost of production, or any other damages arising out of the use of the data or the interpretation of the data presented in this report. Retention of this consulting firm by PG&E to develop this report does not constitute endorsement by PG&E for any work performed other than that specified in the scope of this project. Legal Notice This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It does not necessarily represent the views of the CPUC, its employees, or the State of California. The CPUC, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the CPUC nor has the CPUC passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. Revision History Revision num. Date Description Author(s) 0 September 2013 Initial release Denis Livchak Page 2 of 25

3 Contents Page Executive Summary... 5 Introduction... 7 Background... 7 Objectives... 7 Appliance Description... 8 Methods and Results... 9 Setup and Instrumentation Measured Energy Input Rate Test Bone-in Chicken Tests Energy Cost Model Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Appendix B: Additions, Deviations and Exclusions Appendix C: Appliance Specifications Appendix D: Appliance Test Summary Report Additional References Addendum Report Certification Page 3 of 25

4 Figures Page Figure 1: Large Vat Fryer... 5 Figure 2: in idle mode... 8 Figure 3: Vulcan VK series 5 pass heat exchanger... 8 Figure 4: Preheat Characteristics at 325 F Target Oil Temperature Figure 5: Idle Characteristics at 325 F Target Oil Temperature Figure 6: Bone-in Chicken Cooked to 27 ± 2% weight loss specification Figure 7: Bone-in Chicken Cooking Profile Tables Page Table 1: Summary of Performance... 6 Table 2: Appliance Specifications... 9 Table 3: Testing Equipment Inventory Table 4: Input Rate Test Results Table 5: Preheat and Idle Test Results at 325 F Target Oil Temperature Table 6: Bone-in Chicken Cooking-Energy Efficiency and Production Capacity Test Results Table 7: Daily Operation Assumptions Table 8: Estimated Energy Consumption and Cost Page 4 of 25

5 Executive Summary Large vat fryers are used for deep-frying a variety of foods, from chicken to fish to vegetables such as potatoes and onion rings. The (Figure 1) is a 21-inch open vat gas fryer with a nominal frying oil capacity of 85 pounds. The fryer has a power burner immersed in a gas heat exchanger, and a 95,000 Btu/h rated input rate. A solid state control panel controls the fryer s temperature, timers, cool and solid shortening melt cycles and boil out program. FSTC engineers tested the fryer under the tightly-controlled conditions of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Fryer performance results were characterized by preheat time and energy consumption, idle energy consumption rate, cooking-energy efficiency, production capacity, and the average recovery time of the frying medium temperature. Preheat energy consumption and idle energy rate were documented in all tests. The test method was based on the Standard Test method for the Performance of Large Open-Vat Fryers (F ), and cooking data was gathered from frying bone-in chicken pieces. Because large vat fryers are used to cook a variety of foods, each of which can impact the fryer s performance differently, FSTC engineers tested the cooking bone-in chicken pieces. When cooking bone-in chicken pieces, the fryer achieved a cooking-energy efficiency of 63.4% while producing 75.6 lb of chicken per hour. In each cooking run, the oil temperature had fully recovered by the end of the cooking period. A summary of the test results is presented in Table 1. Figure 1: Large Vat Fryer Page 5 of 25

6 Table 1: Summary of Performance Bone-in Chicken Pieces Rated Energy Input Rate (Btu/h) 95,000 Measured Energy Input Rate (Btu/h) 96,920 Preheat: Preheat Target Oil Temperature ( F) Final Preheat Temperature ( F) Preheat Time (min) 8.92 Energy Consumption (Btu) 13,536 Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h) 5,114 Cook Time (min) Cooking-Energy Efficiency (%) a 63.4 ± 5.3 Production Capacity (lb/h) a 75.6 ± 4.2 Average Recovery Time (sec) 0.00 b a The ± range in this row indicates the experimental uncertainty in the test results based on four test runs. b The cooking temperature of the fryer had completely recovered by the time the bone-in chicken pieces had cooked. Page 6 of 25

7 Introduction Background Large vat fryers are used for deep-frying a plethora of foods from fresh to frozen. These appliances are common to a wide variety of restaurants from quick-service to institutional cooking, with many kitchens utilizing more than one vat. Integrated controls on the fryers have made them easy to use while the fast cook times can produce dishes quickly cooked to order. The fryer energy contribution to the restaurant could be significant because of the large percentage of time spent in idle mode with fryers being on most of the restaurant operating hours. Power burners have been proven to increase fryer energy efficiency and burner heat exchanger design has been evolving to provide maximum heat transfer into the oil. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard F2144 is the industry recognized test method for evaluating the performance of large vat fryers. The test method quantifies energy consumption under different operating conditions (preheat, idle and cooking). At the manufacturer s request, the 2007 version of the standard was used as the basis for testing the 1VK85D fryer. The ASTM F test method characterizes the performance of large vat fryers when cooking bone-in chicken pieces, and 325 F as the target operating temperature. Fryer performance using French fries as specified in the updated, 2009 version of ASTM F2144 is documented in FSTC report # R0. This method allows for equipment benchmarking in a way that users can make meaningful comparisons between appliances. ASTM appliance performance standards can be used to estimate an appliance s contribution to the energy consumption of an end-user s kitchen. The glossary in Appendix A is provided so that the reader has a quick reference to the terms used in this report. Objectives The objective of this report is to examine the operation and performance of the gas fryer under conditions specified in the ASTM test methods mentioned above. The scope of this testing is as follows: 1. Verify that the fryer is operating at the manufacturer s rated energy input. 2. Determine the time and energy required to preheat the fryer from room temperature to operating conditions. 3. Calculate the fryer s preheat energy rate and idle energy rate. 4. Determine the fryer s cooking energy consumption, product cook time, and recovery time using bone-in chicken pieces as the test product under heavy-load conditions. 5. Calculate the fryer s cooking energy rate, cooking-energy efficiency, and production capacity. 6. Estimate the annual operating cost for the fryer using a standard cost model. Page 7 of 25

8 Appliance Description The (see Figure 1) is a natural gas-fired fryer with a total rated input of 95,000 Btu/h. The fryer is equipped with a gas sealed combustion heat exchanger which is submerged in oil below the basket grate (Figure 2). The power burner has pilotless automatic ignition. The combustion heat goes through the heat exchanger in five passes before the flue products are expelled through the top of the flue channel. The fryer tested was equipped with solid state digital thermostatic controls with countdown timers, compensation time cooking, three melt modes and auto boil modes. Cooking controls, ignition system and the power burner fan operate at 120V single-phase. Appliance specifications are listed in Table 2 and the manufacturer s literature is provided in Appendix C. Figure 2: while idling Figure 3: Vulcan VK series 5 pass heat exchanger Page 8 of 25

9 Table 2: Appliance Specifications Manufacturer Vulcan Model 1VK85D Serial Number Generic Appliance Type 21-inch gas fryer Rated Input 95,000 Btu/h Construction Stainless steel Controls Digitally-controlled temperature and countdown timers Oil Capacity 85 lb Temperature Range 200 F F Fry Vat Dimensions 19 ½ width 18 ¼ " depth x 6" height Fry Basket Dimensions 8 ¾ width 16 ¾ " depth x 6" height External Dimensions (W x D x H) 21" x " x 48.8" Page 9 of 25

10 Methods and Results Setup and Instrumentation FSTC researchers installed the fryer on a tiled floor under a 4-foot-deep canopy hood, which operated at a nominal exhaust rate of 300 cfm per linear foot. The hood was mounted 6 feet, 6 inches above the floor, with at least 6 inches of clearance between the vertical plane of the fryer and the hood s edge. All test apparatus were installed in accordance with Section 9 of the ASTM test method. Table 3 lists the equipment used to measure the fryer s temperature and energy as well as the weight of the raw and cooked product. To measure temperatures in the cold zones, the cook zones, flue, and at the fryer s thermostat, researchers used Type-K thermocouples with a welded junction. Two thermocouples were placed in the cook zone: one attached to the grill under the fry vats, the other within half an inch of the factory thermostat (this temperature was used to determine if the oil recovered). Neither of the thermocouples in the cook zone touched either the heat exchanger or the wall. The last thermocouple was located at the flue exit without touching the wall of the flue. Thermocouples placed in the flue had fiberglass coating; all others had Teflon coating. The gas connection was made with a factory supplied pressure regulator in line. Gas energy was measured with a calibrated gas meter that generated a pulse for each 0.05 cubic foot of gas used. Electrical power and energy were measured with a calibrated watt/watt-hour transducer that generated a pulse for every watt-hours generated. The gas meter, watt-hour transducer, and thermocouples were connected to a data logger which recorded data every five seconds. The fryer was filled with 100% canola oil as the frying medium to the factory designated level. Oil was used for all tests. Table 3: Testing Equipment Inventory Equipment Type Manufacturer Model Measurement Range Gas meter (ALA 106) Sensus R CFH 275 CFH Resolution Calibration Date 0.05 ft 3 11/14/12 Electric meter (ALA 109) Radian Research Metronic RM A 50.0A Wh 12/13/12 Table scale (ALC 304) Sartorius Group Acculab SCI20B 0 lb 44 lb lb 12/11/12 Handheld temperature reader (ALA 102) Fluke 52 II -200 C 1,372 C 0.1 C 11/14/12 Page 10 of 25

11 Measured Energy Input Rate Test Rated energy input rate is the maximum or peak rate at which the fryer consumes energy, as specified on the fryer s nameplate. Measured energy input rate is the maximum or peak rate of energy consumption which is recorded during a period when the burners are fully energized (such as preheat). The measured energy input rate of the 1VK85D fryer was taken from a single four-minute test, with the first minute discarded during the burners ignition period. This procedure ensured that the fryer was operating at a measured energy input rate that was within ±5% of its rated energy input rate. The energy input rate was recorded from the second to the fourth minute of preheat and determined to be 96,920 Btu/h (a difference of 2.0% from the nameplate rating). Table 4 summarizes the results from the input test. Table 4: Input Rate Test Results Rated Energy Input Rate (Btu/h) 95,000 Measured Energy Input Rate (Btu/h) 96,920 Percentage Difference (%) 2.0 Bone-in Chicken Tests Researchers at the Food Service Technology Center conducted tests on the according to ASTM standard F , using a target oil temperature of 325 F to determine preheat time and energy consumption, as well as the idle energy rate. This target oil temperature was used to cook bone-in chicken pieces when determining cooking-energy efficiency, production capacity, and average recovery time of the frying medium temperature. Preheat Test The preheat tests were conducted at the beginning of a test day after the fryer s cook zone had been stabilized to room temperature overnight. Recording began when the fryer was first turned on, so any time delay before the powering of the burners after the fryer was turned on was included in the test. The fryer was preheated from room temperature (75 ± 5 F) to 325 F, and the time and energy recorded. During preheat the fryer overshoots the target oil temperature in order to stabilize at the idle temperature, as seen in Figure 5. The results of preheat tests for the fryer were based on the average of four test replicates. Over the course of the preheat test, the fryer reached a ready-to-cook state in 8.92 minutes while consuming 13,536 Btu and 8 wh. Page 11 of 25

12 Cook Zone Oil Temperature ( F) Test Time (min) Figure 5: Preheat Characteristics at 325 F Target Oil Temperature Idle Test After the fryer was preheated to a target oil temperature of 325 F using a control set point temperature of 320 F, it was allowed to stabilize for at least one hour before beginning the idle tests. Time and energy consumption were monitored to determine the idle energy rate, which represents the energy required to maintain the given target oil temperature for a period of at least three hours. The results of the idle energy rate test were based on an average of five replicates. During this period, the fryer s idle energy rate was 5,114 Btu/h. Figure 6 shows the idle characteristics for the fryer at the 325 F target oil temperature. Page 12 of 25

13 Cook Zone Oil Temperature ( F) Test Time (min) Figure 6: Idle Characteristics at 325 F Target Oil Temperature Table 5 summarizes the results from preheat and idle tests at the 325 F target oil temperature. Table 5: Preheat and Idle Test Results at 325 F Target Oil Temperature Preheat Final Preheat Cook Zone Temperature ( F) Duration (min) 8.92 Energy Consumption (Btu) 13,536 Control and Blower Energy (wh) 9 Idle Average Oil Temperature ( F) Gas Energy Rate (Btu/h) 5,114 Control and Blower Energy Rate (W) 16 Page 13 of 25

14 Cooking Tests To determine the cooking-energy efficiency, production capacity, and recovery rate when cooking bone-in chicken pieces, heavy-load cooking tests were performed using eight piece-cut, 2¾ -lb average refrigerated and never frozen chickens. The chicken pieces were stabilized in the refrigerator, then dipped in a cold water solution and breaded with all-purpose enriched white flour. The chicken was evenly distributed between the two fry baskets. Initial temperatures were recorded for each replicate by measuring the temperature of ten breaded chicken pieces prior to submerging into the hot oil. The average temperature of the pieces prior to submerging the pieces in the vat was 41 F. Several cook time determination runs were conducted to determine the frying time needed to reach the required weight loss of 27 ± 2%. Four test replicates were conducted using 64 bone-in chicken pieces weight equivalent (22 lb average target initial weight). The bone-in chicken cook time was determined to be 18 minutes, for subsequent replicates to ensure that the required weight loss was achieved. The vat was filled to the indicated fill line with oil, and the temperature stabilized at 325 F for one hour. After the fryer s temperature was stabilized, the cold zone was stirred 10 to 15 minutes prior to the cooking test to reduce oil temperature stratification. Each load of chicken was prepared as described above, weighed, and cooked for an average of 17.6 minutes. After removing the chicken from the fry basket they were weighed again, and the final temperatures of ten randomly-selected bone-in chicken breast and thigh pieces were recorded. Between each replicate, the frying medium temperature was stabilized for at least an hour and the medium was stirred allowing the fryer to recover before cooking. Fry baskets were scraped of breading debris between each run, and allowed to cool to 75 ± 5 F. The weight loss across the four test replicates ranged from 25% to 27%. The average final temperatures of the randomly-selected cooked bone-in chicken breasts and thighs ranged between 174 F and 192 F. The cooked chicken is shown in Figure 7. Initial moisture content was determined by breading 4 pieces of chicken adding up to half a chicken and weighing them. The raw chicken pieces then are placed in the oven overnight at 220 F. The meat from the pieces is then removed and shredded but the bones are not discarded and placed in the oven for additional 48 hours to remove all the moisture from the product. The product is then weighed to determine the moisture loss thereby determining the moisture content in the product prior to the oven. The same process is done with the cooked product for each test replicate to determine final moisture content of the chicken pieces. These numbers are used in calculating the latent portion of the energy to the food. Page 14 of 25

15 Figure 7: Bone-in Chicken Cooked to 27 ± 2% weight loss specification Cooking-energy efficiency is a measure of how much of the energy that an appliance consumes is actually delivered to the food product during the cooking process. Cooking-energy efficiency is therefore defined by the following relationship: Cooking Energy Efficiency = Energy to Food Energy to Fryer Average heavy-load cooking-energy efficiency across these four replicates was 63.4%, with an average production capacity of 75.6 lb of bone-in chicken pieces per hour. In each test, the temperature of the frying medium had fully recovered by the end of the cooking period. The fryer s typical heavy load cooking profile is illustrated in Figure 8. Page 15 of 25

16 Cook Zone Oil Temperature ( F) Cook Time (min) Figure 8: Bone-in Chicken Cooking Profile Table 6 summarizes the performance of the when cooking bone-in chicken pieces. Table 6: Bone-in Chicken Cooking-Energy Efficiency and Production Capacity Test Results Cook Time (min) Gas Cooking Energy Rate (Btu/h) 47,225 Electric Power Burner and Control Energy Rate (W) 37 Energy to Food (Btu/lb) 397 Energy to Fryer (Btu/lb) 629 Cooking-Energy Efficiency (%) 63.4 ± 5.3 Production Capacity (lb/h) 75.6 ± 4.2 Recovery Time (min) 0.00 Page 16 of 25

17 Energy Cost Model The ASTM performance test methods and results can be used to estimate annual energy consumption for the fryer in a real-world operation. Based on the ASTM test results using bone-in chicken pieces, FSTC engineers developed a simple model to calculate the relationship between the various cost factors (e.g., preheat, idle, and cooking costs), then used that model to estimate the fryer s annual operating costs. Table 7 shows the assumptions for the fryer s daily operation. Table 7: Daily Operation Assumptions Operating Time per Day (h) 12 Operating Days per Year (day) 365 Number of Preheats per Day 1 Total Amount of Food Cooked per Day (lb) 150 Based on the assumptions above, total daily energy consumption was determined by adding the daily cooking, idle, and preheat energy consumed when cooking bone-in chicken pieces: Where: E daily = Eh + Ei + np E p Edaily = Daily energy consumption Eh = Daily energy imparted to food Ei = Daily energy consumed during idle np = Number of preheats per day Ep = Daily energy consumed during preheat A more detailed explanation of this formula is illustrated below: Where: W PC W n t + n PC 60 p p E daily = qgas, h + qgas, i ton p E p Edaily = Daily energy consumption W = Pounds of food cooked per day PC = Production Capacity qgas,h = Heavy-load cooking gas energy rate Page 17 of 25

18 qgas,i = Idle gas energy rate ton = Total time the appliance is on per day np = Number of preheats per day tp = Duration of preheat (in minutes) Ep = Daily energy consumed during preheat Assuming the fryer cooked 150 lb of bone-in chicken pieces over a 12-hour day, operated 365 days a year, and had one preheat per day, it is estimated that the fryer would consume 576 therms of gas and 88 kwh annually. Using a rate of $1.00 per therm and $0.15 per kwh, the estimated operational cost of the fryer is $589 per year. Table 8 summarizes the annual energy consumption and associated energy cost for the fryer under this scenario. Table 8: Estimated Energy Consumption and Cost Gas Preheat Energy (Btu/day) 13,536 Gas Cooking Energy (Btu/day) 93,700 Gas Idle Energy (Btu/day) 50,475 Total Gas Energy (Btu/day) 157,711 Total Electric Energy (kwh/day) 0.24 Annual Gas Consumption (therms/year) 576 Annual Electric Consumption (kwh/year) 88 Annual Cost ($/year) a 589 a Fryer gas energy costs are based on $1.00/Therm; electric energy costs are based on $0.15/kWh. Page 18 of 25

19 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms Barrel Load Cooking Cooking multiple loads of a food product consecutively, allowing the fryer to recover to cook temperature between loads. Cold Zone The volume of oil in a fryer, below heating elements or heat exchanger surfaces, which remains cooler than the cook zone. Cook Zone The volume of oil in a fryer where food is cooked. Cooking Energy (Btu or kwh) The total energy consumed by an appliance as it is used to cook a food product under specified test conditions. Cooking-Energy Efficiency (%) The percentage of total cooking energy which has been input to a food product during a cooking test; Expressed as the ratio of the quantity of energy imparted into food to amount of energy input to the appliance. Cooking Energy Rate (kw, Btu/h, or kbtu/h) Average rate of energy consumption, during a cooking test. Energy to Food (Btu/lb) Energy consumed by the food during the cooking test per initial weight, in pounds, of food cooked. Energy to Fryer (Btu/lb) Energy consumed by the fryer during the cooking test per initial weight, in pounds, of food cooked. Energy includes sum of all fuel types used (ie. energy for heating fryer, plus electric energy used by fryer controls). Food Product A type of product (eg. chicken, potatoes) designated by a cooking standard and prepared according to a test method which is used to determine an appliance s cooking performance. Frying Medium Heat transfer fluid used by the fryer to cook the food product. Usually shortening or other oil (e.g, corn, canola) used for deep frying. Heating Value (Btu/ft 3 ) The quantity of heat (energy) generated by the combustion of fuel. For natural gas, this quantity varies depending on the constituents of the gas. Idle Energy Rate (kw or Btu/h) The rate of energy consumption by an appliance per hour while it is holding or maintaining a stabilized operating condition or temperature. Idle Temperature ( F) The temperature of the cook zone (either selected by the appliance operator or specified for a controlled test) that is maintained by the fryer under an idle condition. Kettle Fryer An appliance with a deep cooking container of oil/fat at a depth where the food product is supported by displacement of the frying medium, rather than by the bottom of the vessel. Measured Energy Input Rate (kw, Btu/h, or kbtu/h) The peak rate at which an appliance will consume energy, typically measured during preheat (i.e. the period of operation when all burners or elements are on ). Does not include energy used for appliance controls. Preheat Energy (kwh, Wh or Btu) The total amount of energy consumed by an appliance during the preheat period (from ambient temperature to a specific and calibrated preheat temperature or set point). Preheat Energy Rate ( F/min) The rate, in degrees Fahrenheit per minute, at which the appliance increases temperature during preheat. Preheat Time (min) The time required for an appliance to heat from the ambient room temperature (75 ± 5 F) to a specified (and calibrated) operating temperature or thermostat set point. Production Capacity (lb/h) Maximum rate, in pounds per hour, at which an appliance can bring a specified product to a specified cooked condition. Uncertainty Measure of systematic & precision errors in specified instrumentation or measure of repeatability of a reported test result. Rated Energy Input Rate (kw, W, or Btu/h) Maximum or peak rate at which an appliance consumes energy, as rated by manufacturer and specified on the nameplate. Temperature Set Point ( F) Targeted temperature set by appliance controls. Test Method A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics, or properties of a material, product system, or service that produces a test result. Typical Day A sample day of average appliance usage based on observations and/or operator interviews. Used to develop an energy cost model for an appliance. Page 19 of 25

20 Appendix B: Additions, Deviations and Exclusions Setup and Instrumentation: The average of the bone-in pieces prior to submerging the pieces in the fry basket was 41 F, rather than the stabilization temperature of F prior to removing from the fridge specified in section of ASTM standard F Energy Input Rate Tests: For all energy input rate tests, oil was used in lieu of water, as specified in section of ASTM standards F Cooking Tests: Only a heavy-load test was performed for the bone-in chicken cooking tests, rather than the light-load and heavy-load tests specified in section 10.9 of ASTM standard F Heavy load tests were performed with at least an hour in between rather than immediately 10 seconds after each other as specified in section Fresh, never frozen chicken was used for the test in place of thawed, individually quick-frozen (IQF) chicken as specified in section 7.3 ASTM F The French fry tests outlined in section were documented in FSTC report # R0 Page 20 of 25

21 Appendix C: Appliance Specifications Page 21 of 25

22 Appendix C: Appliance Specifications Page 22 of 25

23 Appendix D: Appliance Test Summary Report Bone-in Chicken Test Set: Heavy-Load Cooking Energy Efficiency Food Product Bone-In Chicken Load Size (lb.) Number of Pieces (#) Cook Time (min) Average Recovery Time (min) 0.00 Gas Cooking Energy Rate (Btu/h) 47,225 Control Energy Rate (W) 37 Energy to Food (Btu/lb.) 397 Energy to Appliance (Btu/lb.) 626 Cooking-Energy Efficiency (%) 63.4 ± 5.3 Production Capacity (lb./h) 75.6 ± 4.2 Heavy-Load Test Data: Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4 6/20/13 6/20/13 6/20/13 6/20/13 Measured Values Control Energy Consumption (Wh) Gas Energy Consumption (Btu) 13,291 14,236 13,630 14,168 Total Energy (Btu) 13,326 14,273 13,666 14,205 Cook Time (min) Weight Loss (%) Initial Weight (lb.) Final Weight (lb.) Initial Temperature ( F) Final Temperature ( F) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Content (%) Calculated Values Sensible (Btu) 2,029 2,109 2,263 2,088 Latent Heat of Vaporization (Btu) 6,950 6,529 6,563 6,606 Total Energy to Food (Btu) 8,979 8,629 8,827 8,788 Energy To Food (Btu/lb.) Total Energy to Fryer (Btu) 13,326 14,273 13,666 14,205 Energy to Fryer (Btu/lb.) Cooking-Energy Efficiency (%) Gas Energy Rate (btu/h) 46,771 49,980 45,257 47,017 Production Capacity (lb) Average Recovery Time (min) Page 23 of 25

24 Additional Resources 1. American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Test method for Performance of Large Open-Vat Fryers. ASTM Designation F , in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA. 2. Sham, K., Vulcan 1VK85 Gas Fryer Test Report Food Service Technology Center Report R0. Prepared for Gas & Electric Company Customer Energy Efficiency Programs. Page 24 of 25

25