effect of temperature on starch decomposition to...

Effect of Temperature on Starch Decomposition to Optimize Mash Tun Operation for the Design of a Brewery

Chemical Engineering Senior Design

Spring 2011

Cynthia Brittany BeachamRaymond Joseph Filosa Jr.

Mark Mathiew Williams

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Ahbay Vaze, faculty and researcher of the Chemistry

department for his patience and willingness to allow us almost unconditional use of his

laboratory for running our tests. His contributions to our group played a significant role in the

success of the analysis of our experiment. This project enabled two independent departments on

campus, the Chemistry and the Chemicals, Materials, and Biomolecular Engineering

departments to work together for the first time on a chemical engineering senior design project.

We hope this positive experience will be the first of many in unifying engineering and non-

engineering institutions on campus to enhance the education of all students.

We would like to thank Dr. William E. Mustain whose willingness to support radical

ideas procured the creation and success of this senior design project. The completion of this

project marks the one and a half year anniversary when he was approached by two students who

wanted to turn their beer brewing hobby into a scientific endeavor. His decision that day initiated

a chain of events that led to the formation of a class, a complete laboratory, and a senior design

project.

Finally, we would like to thank the entire faculty of Department of Chemical, Materials

& Biomolecular Engineering for the positive experience the last four years of undergraduate

studies have been.

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Table of Figures...............................................................................................................................4

List of Tables...................................................................................................................................6

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................8

High Performance Liquid Chromatography Testing.....................................................................10

Background and Purpose...........................................................................................................10

Experimental Procedure............................................................................................................12

Results and Data Analysis..........................................................................................................15

Kinetic Model................................................................................................................................26

Flow Sheet.....................................................................................................................................33

Flow Sheet Description..............................................................................................................34

Silo.........................................................................................................................................34

Milling...................................................................................................................................34

Mashing.................................................................................................................................36

Wort Boiling..........................................................................................................................38

Heat Exchanger......................................................................................................................40

Fermentation Tank.................................................................................................................42

Filter.......................................................................................................................................43

Brightening Tank...................................................................................................................44

Bottler/Labeler.......................................................................................................................45

Kegging Machine...................................................................................................................47

Hop / Refrigeration Room.....................................................................................................48

Instant Hot Water Heater.......................................................................................................48

Steam Boiler..........................................................................................................................49

Chiller....................................................................................................................................49

Calculations...................................................................................................................................50

Material Accounting..................................................................................................................50

Energy Requirements.................................................................................................................64

Aspen Model Flow Sheet...............................................................................................................76

2 | P a g e

Aspen Model Description..........................................................................................................78

Hazard and Operability Study.......................................................................................................79

Environmental Impact Analysis....................................................................................................91

Expenses........................................................................................................................................94

Batch Size Reduction.................................................................................................................94

Grain Pricing..............................................................................................................................95

Water Usage...............................................................................................................................96

Cleaning Materials.....................................................................................................................97

Hop Pricing................................................................................................................................99

Yeast Pricing..............................................................................................................................99

CO2.............................................................................................................................................99

O2..............................................................................................................................................100

Diatomaceous Earth.................................................................................................................101

General Waste Disposal...........................................................................................................101

Labor........................................................................................................................................102

Profitability Analysis...................................................................................................................106

Distribution..............................................................................................................................106

Spent Grains.............................................................................................................................107

Economic Analysis..................................................................................................................109

Final Decision..............................................................................................................................114

Works Cited.................................................................................................................................116

Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data......................................................................................................118

Appendix – B: Mathematica Code for Kinetic Model.................................................................137

Appendix – C: Malt Analysis Charts...........................................................................................149

Appendix – D: H.A.Z.O.P. Charts...............................................................................................150

Appendix – E: Environmental Concerns: Dust Regulations and Containment...........................176

Appendix – F: Profitability Excel Charts....................................................................................180

3 | P a g e

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Representative Chromatogram for the 2500 ppm standard solution..............................15Figure 2: Stacked chromatograms of the five standard solutions tested.......................................17Figure 3: Compilation of multiple injections done throughout testing..........................................19Figure 4: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=70C mash temperature.....................20Figure 5: 70C Concentration of each sugar over the 60 minute mash time..................................21Figure 6: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=63C mash temperature.....................22Figure 7: Concentrations of each sugar at every time point over the 60 minute mash time.........23Figure 8: Stacked chromatograms of all samples at the T = 55C mash temperature....................24Figure 9: Concentrations of each sugar at every time point over the 60 minute mash time.........25Figure 10: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 55 C..............................................................................29Figure 11: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 70 C..............................................................................30Figure 12: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 63 C..............................................................................30Figure 13: Mash Temp 55 C - Experimental vs. Modeled............................................................31Figure 14: Mash Temp 63 C - Experimental vs. Modeled............................................................31Figure 15: Mash Temp 70 C - Experimental vs. Modeled............................................................32Figure 16: Flow Sheet of Brewery.................................................................................................33Figure 17: Energy requirement difference for each experimental mash temperature, per batch...75Figure 18: Aspen Flow Sheet........................................................................................................76Figure 19: Silo and Auger Conveyer.............................................................................................79Figure 20: Diagram of Grain Mill.................................................................................................80Figure 21: Diagram of Mash Tun. The outer lines depict the insulation.......................................81Figure 22: Diagram of the Boiling Kettle. The outer vessel is the steam jacket...........................82Figure 23: Diagram of the Heat Exchanger...................................................................................83Figure 24: Diagram of the Fermentation Tank. The outer vessel is the jacketed for cooling.......84Figure 25: Diagram of the Filter....................................................................................................85Figure 26: Diagram of the Brightening Tank................................................................................86Figure 27: Block Diagram for the Bottle/Labeler, Keg Filler, and In House Kegs.......................87Figure 28: Block Diagram of the Steam Generator.......................................................................88Figure 29: Diagram of the Instant Hot Water Heater....................................................................89Figure 30: Diagram of the Cooling Unit........................................................................................89Figure 31: Diatomaceous Earth.....................................................................................................91Figure 32: Labor Distribution Tree..............................................................................................102Figure 33: Bottle Label Design....................................................................................................115Figure 34: Fructose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections...................................118Figure 35: Dextrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections..................................118Figure 36: Sucrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections....................................119Figure 37: Maltose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections....................................119

4 | P a g e

Figure 38. Maltotriose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections..............................120Figure 39. Maltotetraose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections...........................120Figure 40. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C..............125Figure 41. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C................125Figure 42. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C................126Figure 43. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C..........126Figure 44. Maltotatraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C.......127Figure 45. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C..............130Figure 46. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C................130Figure 47. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C..........131Figure 48. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C.......131Figure 49. Fructose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C...............134Figure 50. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C..............134Figure 51. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C................135Figure 52. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C................135Figure 53. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C..........136Figure 54. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C.......136

5 | P a g e

List of Tables

Table 1: Method Developed for HPLC Analysis of Sugars in Wort.............................................14Table 2: Integration Events Table for Analyzing Analog Peaks..................................................16Table 3: Calibration Curve Expressions from Known Standard Concentrations..........................18Table 4: Model Stoichiometry.......................................................................................................27Table 5: Grain and Hop Bill..........................................................................................................51Table 6: Points Per Grain...............................................................................................................52Table 7: Grain Required and Extraction Percentages....................................................................53Table 8: Mass Balance - Mash Tun...............................................................................................55Table 9: Mass Balance - Boiling Kettle.........................................................................................57Table 10: Mass Balance - Aeration...............................................................................................59Table 11: Mass Balance - Fermentation........................................................................................61Table 12: Mass Balance - Filtration...............................................................................................61Table 13: Energy Calculations for the Mill and Auger Conveyers...............................................65Table 14: Energy Calculations for the Hot Water Heater and Pump............................................67Table 15: Energy Calculations for Mash Tun and Mash Pump.....................................................68Table 16: Energy Calculations for the Boiling Kettle, Whirlpool Pump, and Outlet Pump.........71Table 17: Energy Calculations for the Heat Exchanger and Pump...............................................72Table 18: Energy Calculations for the Fermentation Tank and Pump..........................................74Table 19. Comparative Energy Consumption in kW for the Three Tested Mash Temperatures.. 75Table 20: Price of Water Used in the Brewery for Each Batch and for Each Month....................96Table 21: Break Down of Cleaning Water per Batch....................................................................98Table 22: Product Distribution....................................................................................................107Table 23: Essential Equipment, Capital Costs, and Manufacturers.............................................110Table 24: Raw Materials and Respective Manufacturer and Prices............................................111Table 25: Utilities used, Respective Providers, and Pricing........................................................112Table 26: Energy Costs for Each Piece of Equipment................................................................113Table 27. Sequence Run for All Trials at All Temperatures.......................................................121Table 28. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=70C mashing temperature.......122Table 29. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=63C mashing temperature.......127Table 30. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=55C mashing temperature.......132Table 31: HAZOP - Process Component: Silo and Mechanical Screw Auger............................150Table 32: HAZOP - Process Component: Grain Mill.................................................................151Table 33: HAZOP - Process Component: Mash Tun..................................................................152Table 34: HAZOP - Process Component: Boiling Kettle............................................................154Table 35: HAZOP - Process Component: Heat Exchanger.........................................................157Table 36: HAZOP - Process Component: Primary Fermenter....................................................158Table 37: HAZOP - Process Component: Filter..........................................................................160

6 | P a g e

Table 38: HAZOP - Process Component: Brightening Tank......................................................162Table 39: HAZOP - Process Component: Keg Filler..................................................................165Table 40: HAZOP - Process Component: Bottler/Labeler..........................................................167Table 41: HAZOP - Process Component: In House Kegs...........................................................169Table 42: HAZOP - Process Component: Steam Generator.......................................................171Table 43: HAZOP - Process Component: Instant Water Heater.................................................172Table 44: HAZOP - Process Component: Cooling Unit.............................................................174

7 | P a g e

Executive Summary

The optimization of the brewing process has been sought after since beer was first

created. In this particular case, beer brewing optimization was investigated in terms of several

different factors. The main goal of this analysis was to investigate the effects of varying mash

temperatures on finished beer quality.

The brewery that was developed in this analysis was decided to be built in Storrs, CT.

This highly populated college town is a premier location to start a brewery for many reasons.

The main reason for this choice of location was that there are an endless amount of consumers

present creating and endless market. The beer that was chosen to be created for the purpose of

this analysis was a variation of pale ale. Using a recipe, three different batches were created at

three different mash temperatures of 55°C, 62.5°C, and 70°C. Samples were taken over time for

each temperature and the sugar profiles were examined using high-performance liquid

chromatography (HPLC). The HPLC results were then used in order to make create a kinetic

model to investigate the effects mash temperature had on sugar profiles as well as finished

product quality. The highest quality beer was produced at a mash temperature of 70°C and as

confirmed with experimental tasting. A theoretical flow sheet was created for this brewery and

mass and energy balances were calculated to ensure the flow sheet design was realistic. In order

to insure that the safety and engineering in this process was thorough, a HAZOP analysis was

performed on all components in the flow sheet. Also, in order to make sure that all solid and

liquid waste leaving this brewery was safe an environmental impact analysis was performed.

8 | P a g e

The amount of batches that would be brewed per week was also investigated and

optimized. A brewing schedule of two days a week with two batches a day was compared with a

schedule of four days a week with one batch a day. It was seen that brewing four days a week

used 50% of the energy required to brew two days a week and was the method that would be

used for this brewery.

All expenses of the brewery were calculated for the sake of a profitability analysis. Using

a profitability model, it was calculated that the payback period for this particular brewery is 1.8

years. This payback period is very low for a new company and therefore suggests that this

brewery overall would be a sound business investment.

9 | P a g e

High Performance Liquid Chromatography Testing

Background and Purpose

Developing a kinetic model to predict the fermentable sugar profiles required

experimental data for determination of the kinetic constants. High Performance Liquid

Chromatography (HPLC) was chosen as the method to measure the sugar concentrations as a

function of time and temperature in order to calculate the k values for each sugar profile change

throughout the mashing process. Liquid chromatography involves a column that has a specific

packing material, called the stationary phase, to bind the solutes in a solution. The mobile phase

is a buffer solution prepared to flow through the column and force the solutes to elute from the

column at different times based on their size and molecular interaction with the stationary phase.

The eluted solutes flow to a detection unit, such as refractive index, UV-Vis, or fluorescence

detector, which determines the amount of each component in solution based on light absorption

or distortion. The representative chromatogram from the detector displays peaks corresponding

to the level of absorption (in mVolts) of the sample at an elution time (termed the retention time)

that is specific to that component under the running conditions.

Two mechanisms of liquid chromatography are commonly used and they differ by the

polarity of the stationary and mobile phases. Normal Phase HPLC uses a stationary phase that is

more polar than the solvent and the driving force behind adsorption to the column is hydrogen

bonding. High salt buffers are typically used to compete with the solutes for binding on the

column and cause elution based on molecular size and decreasing hydrophobicity. Reverse phase

HPLC is performed with a nonpolar stationary phase and more polar mobile phase. Solute

retention on the column is due to hydrophobic interactions with the stationary phase.

10 | P a g e

Components elute based on polarity and size; the polar molecules eluting first from smallest size

(and therefore the smallest interaction area) to the largest followed by the nonpolar solutes in

increasing size (Swadesh, 2001).Reverse phase HPLC was used in this experiment with a 75%

acetonitrile solution as the mobile phase and an amine packing for a stationary phase. The

organic acetonitrile allowed the sugars to bind to the column, while the water entering the

column over the course of the run (as 25% of the buffer solution) competed with the solutes to

elute the component sugars based on molecular size.

The methods of solute detection mentioned previously all involve the absorption or

distortion of light. Refractive index detectors measure the bending of a ray of light passing

through two mediums. The mobile phase is injected into the reference cell of the detector to

eliminate any noise from the dilution buffer. The light passing through the buffer (or the normal)

is bent by a measurable angle, called the angle of refraction, when passed from the normal to the

sample medium (Britannica, 2011). As the concentration of the solute increases in solution, the

angle of refraction proportionally increases as indicated by the peaks of the chromatogram. UV-

Vis spectroscopy detection measures the attenuation of a light beam by the sample (Ultraviolet

and Visible Absorption Spectroscopy (UV-Vis), 2000). Wavelengths are specified for absorption

measurements within the 400-750nm UV-Vis range. These wavelengths induce excitation of the

outer electrons which causes energy absorption. This absorption (of light) corresponds to the

peaks on the chromatogram and is proportional to the concentration of solute in the sample (UV-

Vis Absorption Spectroscopy). Fluorescence detection sends ultraviolet light through the sample

which excites the electrons of lower energy molecules which results in the emission of light, an

event termed photoluminescence (UV-Vis Absorption Spectroscopy). The level of fluorescence

is measured by the detector and peaks corresponding to the sample concentration are recorded on

11 | P a g e

the chromatogram. The method of detection used in this experiment was refractive index. Sugars

do not easily fluoresce and would require chemical labeling with fluorescent tags to produce

conclusive data. Sugars are also not detected as well with UV-Vis spectroscopy, therefore

refractive index was used to measure the sugar profiles in the wort.

Experimental Procedure

The six sugars in the wort that were monitored during mashing, in order of increasing

molecular size, were fructose, dextrose, sucrose, maltose, maltotriose, and maltotetraose. Three

temperatures (70oC, 63oC, and 55oC) were chosen as the variables for the mashing process. The

grains for the recipe were milled and added to 7 liters of water that was brought to the respective

temperature and maintained using a heating coil and temperature controlled water bath.

Starting at t=0 minutes, 15 mL samples of the mash were taken every 5 minutes and

added to 1 mL of 0.1M ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) to quench the enzymatic reactions

breaking down the starches into simple sugars. The quenched samples (taken up to t=60 min)

were immediately placed in an ice bath to deactivate any enzymes that may have still been active

after the caustic addition. The samples from the three temperature trials were centrifuged for 30

minutes at approximately 1500-2000 RPM and the supernatant transferred to clean vials. The pH

of every sample was recorded and 1M sodium hydroxide was added to bring the samples to pH

6.8. Each sample was diluted 100x to prevent any possibility of clogging the column. The

solutions were then filtered through 0.45µm syringe filters into HPLC vials to be injected onto

the column.

Before the experiment samples could be run, a calibration curve had to be developed for

each sugar. Standard solutions of known composition and concentration were prepared for the

12 | P a g e

six sugars and run on the Shimadzu liquid chromatograph in order to determine the retention

times of each component and the corresponding absorption reading. The standard solutions of

each sugar were then mixed together at different concentrations from 500 ppm to 2500 ppm and

run to ensure separation of the sugars was achieved as indicated by distinct peaks on the

chromatogram. The standard calibration curve is shown in Figure 1.

It can be seen that each sugar was separated by the sharp peaks and the baseline returning

to zero in between each peak. The standard solutions were injected in triplicate to ensure the

precision of the linear fits. Once the calibration was complete, each sample was run using a

method developed for the standard solutions to achieve the best resolution and separation of the

sugars. The method is outlined in Table 1. The sequence of the injections is shown in Table 28

in Appendix 1. A 2500 ppm standard solution was injected before each temperature block of

samples to observe any retention time shifts that could have been caused by residue on the

column, shown in Figure 1.

All of the standard solutions were injected at a runtime of 90 minutes to ensure adequate

time for the maltotetraose, the largest molecule tested, to elute. Maltotetraose eluted around 43

minutes allowing the runtime to be shortened to 55 minutes. The oven temperature was set at

35°C to increase the solubility of the sugars and shorten the retention time of each solute. The

sample was diluted 100x so that it was more easily filtered through the 0.45μm syringe filter.

The sugar analysis column was donated by Kromasil for this analysis.

13 | P a g e

Table 1: Method Developed for HPLC Analysis of Sugars in Wort.

Item Description/Operating Conditions

ColumnAkzo Nobel Kromasil 100 Å, 5 μm, NH2, 4.6 ×

250 mm

Mobile Phase 75% Acetonitrile

Time Program Isocratic Method

Flow Rate

Time (minutes)

0.01 Operation

55.01 Controller Start

1.00 mL/min Controller Stop

Detection Refractive Index

Sample Dilution 100x

Sample pH ~ 6.8

Autosampler Temperature 25 °C

Column Oven Temperature 35 °C

Run Time 55 minutes

14 | P a g e

Results and Data Analysis

A representative chromatogram for the 2500 ppm standard solution is shown in Figure 1.

It can be seen that fructose elutes first at 8 minutes followed by the order of increasing molecular

size sugars with maltotriose eluting around 25 minutes. This method is not extremely selective

for maltotetraose, the signal from RI detection is weak, but the peaks were significant enough to

be integrated and a trend determined for each of the three temperature batches. The peak for each

sugar is sharp and distinct indicating adequate separation of the sugars on the column with the

chosen flow rate, buffer composition, and column temperature.

Minutes

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0

mV

olts

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

mV

olts

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2284

2649

69

2237

68

3303

48

3276

2790

09

8050

3929

483

390

1085

778

2531

27

797

3029

3654

1635

2

2816

2

242

4546

929

9230

2856

1009

2

3248

1726

132

4696

5420

86

Analog - Analog Board 2Sugar Standard Solution 2500 ppm

Area

Fruc

tose

Dext

rose

Sucr

ose

Mal

tose

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

Figure 1: Representative Chromatogram for the 2500 ppm standard solution.

The stacked chromatograms for the standard solutions of varying concentrations are

shown in the Figure 2. The peaks were integrated using the Shimadzu software to calculate the

15 | P a g e

area of each peak. The areas were graphed versus concentration to obtain equations for each

sugar. These equations were used to determine the unknown concentrations of the sugars in the

samples based on the calculated area. The integration events developed for the method are shown

in Table 2. The calibration equations for the sugars are shown in Table 3 and the calibration

curves for each sugar are shown in Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data.

Table 2: Integration Events Table for Analyzing Analog Peaks.

Integration Events

Channe

l Analog

Enabled Event Type Start (Min) Stop (Min) Value

Yes Integration Off 0 6 0

Yes Threshold 6 30 100

Yes Width 6 30 0.2


Yes Width 42 45 0.3

Yes Threshold 42 45 50


No Manual Baseline 22.2 24.2 0

The manual baseline was added to some samples that showed low concentration and

signal for maltotriose. The chromatograms were analyzed and if a peak too small to overcome

the integration threshold was visible, the manual baseline was used.

16 | P a g e

Minutes

2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5

mV

olts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

mV

olts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55



Analog - Analog Board 2Suger Standard 1500 ppm



500 ppm

1000 ppm

1500 ppm

2000 ppm

2500 ppm

Figure 2: Stacked chromatograms of the five standard solutions tested.

The peaks for each sugar grow with each increasing concentration of the standard

solution. This verifies that the column and detector are sensitive to concentration differences and

low concentrations of 500 ppm are detectable. The peak areas were graphed versus the known

concentrations of the solutions to obtain the calibration curves for each sugar. The equations

listed in Table 3 show a linear fit for each sample.

17 | P a g e

Table 3: Calibration Curve Expressions from Known Standard Concentrations

Calibration Expressions for Sugars

Sugar y variable x variable Calibration Line Equation

Fructose Peak Area ppm y = 105.68x + 19327

Dextrose Peak Area ppm y = 83.379x + 477.5

Sucrose Peak Area ppm y = 121.37x + 15671

Maltose Peak Area ppm y = 108.34x - 8671.2

Maltotriose Peak Area ppm y = 103.84x - 12110

Maltotetraose Peak Area ppm y = 26.747x - 5833.2

The sequence of runs for this experiment was organized in order of sample time for each

temperature. Before starting the sample injections, the 2500 ppm standard solution was injected

to verify there was nothing skewing the data such as clogs in the column, buildup on the column,

or instability of the RI detector. The standard was also injected in between each temperature

block of samples. The chromatograms are overlaid in Figure 3 in order to observe the baseline,

peak area, and retention time changes. Multiple injections of the standard solutions over the

course of the testing were done to test for reproducibility and system stability.

18 | P a g e

Minutes2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0

mVo

lts

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

mV

olts

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Analog - Analog Board 2Standard 2500 ppm



1st injection - Before 70C Samples

2nd injection - Before 63C Samples

3rd injection - Before 55C Samples

Figure 3: Compilation of multiple injections done throughout testing.

It can be seen from Figure 3 that there was a slight shift in retention time over the course

of the sequence, having the most significant impact on maltotriose. The retention time for

maltotriose shifted from around 23 minutes to 21 minutes. This is not detrimental to the

experiment because it does not interfere with any other retention times of the sugars. The peak

heights of the three injections are consistent except for maltotetraose. As mentioned previously,

this method was not very selective for maltotetraose, explaining why the data for this sugar is

inconsistent.

The stacked chromatograms of all the samples at a mash temperature of T= 70 °C is

shown in Figure 4. The 25 minute sample was considered an outlier because the peaks were

undetectable and inconsistent with the trend noticed between all other trials. It can be seen that

19 | P a g e

the peak for dextrose grows over the 60 minute mashing time, as well as maltotriose. The growth

in peak height of maltose is less significant in the chromatogram; however the peak areas show

significant increases between trials. The peak areas for each trial are shown in the Area %

Reports in Appendix 1. The areas were plugged into the calibration equations for their respective

sugar and the corresponding concentrations were calculated. The concentration changes of each

sugar over the 60 minute mash time are plotted altogether in Figure 5 and individually in Figure

40 through Figure 44 in Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data. The plot for fructose is not included

because the concentrations were undetectable.

Minutes2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5

mVo

lts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

mVol

ts

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Analog - Analog Board 270C t=5











t = 5 min

t = 10 min

t = 15 min

t = 20 min

t = 30 mint = 35 min

t = 40 mint = 45 mint = 50 min

t = 55 min

t = 60 min

mVo

lts

Minutes

Fruc

tose

Dext

rose

Sucr

ose M

alto

se

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

Figure 4: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=70C mash temperature.

20 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 600.00E+00

5.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.50E+05

2.00E+05

2.50E+05

3.00E+05T = 70 C Sugar Profile

Maltose Maltotetraose Dextrose Maltotriose Sucrose

Time (Min)

ppm

Figure 5: 70C Concentration of each sugar over the 60 minute mash time.

It can be seen that the trend for each sugar is increasing from the initial sample at t=0

minutes to the final sample at the completion of the mash at t=60 minutes. There is a strong

correlation between the maltose, maltotriose, and maltotetraose profiles, as the maltotetraose

decreased between t= 30 minutes to t = 40 minutes, there is a sharp increase in the maltose and

maltotriose concentrations. Maltotetraose breaks down into maltose and maltotriose which

explains the strong dependence on each other for overall concentration and sugar profile.

The stacked chromatograms of all the samples at a mash temperature of T= 63 °C are

shown in Figure 6. The 55 minute sample was not included in the plot because the peaks were


the peaks for dextrose, fructose, and maltose grow significantly over the 60 minute mashing

time. The chromatograms do not show significant peaks for maltotriose in any of the samples,

but the area percents were calculated during integration and a trend observed over the mashing

time. The peak areas for each trial are shown in the Area % Reports in Appendix – A: H.P.L.C.

21 | P a g e

Data. The areas were plugged into the calibration equations for their respective sugar and the

corresponding concentrations were calculated. The concentration changes of each sugar over the

60 minute mash time are plotted altogether in Figure 7 and individually in Figure 45 through

Figure 48 in Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data. The plots for fructose and sucrose were not included

because their concentrations were undetectable.

Minutes0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0

mVo

lts

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

mVolts

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120













t = 5 mint = 10 min

t = 15 min

t = 20 min

t = 30 min

t = 35 mint = 40 mint = 45 mint = 50 min

t = 60 minFruc

tose

Dext

rose

Sucr

ose M

alto

se

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

set = 25 min

t = 0 min

Figure 6: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=63C mash temperature.

22 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 600.0E+00

5.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.5E+05

2.0E+05

2.5E+05

3.0E+05

3.5E+05

4.0E+05

4.5E+05T = 63 C Sugar Profile

Dextrose Maltose Maltotriose Maltotetraose

Time (Minutes)

ppm

Figure 7: Concentrations of each sugar at every time point over the 60 minute mash time.

The trend for each sugar shows steady increase over the mashing time. There is less of a

drastic correlation for the maltose, maltotriose, and maltotetraose profiles at this temperature. It

appears that there is more of a steady production of each sugar. There is a decrease in

maltotetraose between t = 35 minutes to t = 55 minutes with a corresponding increase in

maltotriose and maltose, however the changes over time are much less extreme than in the 70°C

samples.

The stacked chromatograms of all the samples at a mash temperature of T= 55 °C are

shown in Figure 8. The 45 minute sample was not included in the plot because the peaks were


the peaks for dextrose, fructose, and maltose grow significantly over the 60 minute mashing

23 | P a g e

time. The chromatograms do not show significant peaks for maltotriose in any of the samples,

but the area percents were calculated during integration and a trend observed the mashing time.

The peak areas for each trial are shown in the Area % Reports in Appendix 1. The areas were

plugged into the calibration equations for their respective sugar and the corresponding

concentrations were calculated. The concentration changes of each sugar over the 60 minute

mash time are plotted altogether in Figure 9 and individually in Figure 49 through Figure 54 in

Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data. The plot for maltotriose was not include because the data was

inconclusive.

Minutes0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0

mVo

lts

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

mVolts

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120Analog - Analog Board 255C t=0












t = 0 min

t = 5 mint = 10 min

Fruc

tose

Dext

rose

Sucr

ose

Mal

tose

Mal

totr

iose

Mal

tote

trao

se

t = 15 mint = 20 mint = 25 mint = 30 mint = 35 min

t = 40 min

t = 50 min

t = 60 mint = 55 min

Figure 8: Stacked chromatograms of all samples at the T = 55C mash temperature.

24 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 600.0E+00

5.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.5E+05

2.0E+05

2.5E+05

3.0E+05

3.5E+05

T = 55C Sugar Profile

Dextrose Fructose Maltose Sucrose MaltotetraoseTime (Minutes)

ppm

Figure 9: Concentrations of each sugar at every time point over the 60 minute mash time

The sugar concentrations in this sample are significantly lower than the other two

temperature trials. The peak maltose concentration occurred at t = 60 with a value of about

3.0E+05 ppm, but all time points before that show a peak concentration that is seen in the other

samples at the 10 minute sample. Therefore, there are far less fermentable sugars present in this

sample than the other two wort samples. The other two samples show that maltose is present in

much greater concentration than any other sugars in solution, but the T = 55C data shows

comparable concentrations of maltose and dextrose. The T = 63C data shows the greatest

concentration of maltose at the final mashing time, but much lower concentration of the other

fermentable sugars. The concentration of maltotetraose (un-fermentable sugar) in the T = 63C

and the T = 70C samples is approximately the same and the concentrations of fermentable sugars

are comparable as well.

25 | P a g e

Kinetic Model

The degradation of starch is a complex bio-molecular reaction involving hundreds if not

thousands of interactions between molecules. In order to model the different sugar profiles

formed for different mash temperatures it was necessary to make some simplifications and define

reaction stoichiometry.

The starch in malted barley comes in two forms, amylose and amylopectin. Both of these

molecules consist of thousands of glucose monosaccharides tied together end to end via

alpha(1,4) and alpha(1,6)bonds glycosidic bonds. During the mash several enzymes bind to

different parts of the polymer starches to break bonds into smaller oligosaccharides. In general

mono, di, and some tri-saccharides are the sugars that yeast can ferment and sugars longer in

chain length contribute body and sweet flavors to the beer.

Two enzymes that are most prevent in forming the final sugar profile are beta and alpha

amylase. Mashing temperatures reflect conditions that allow these enzymes the optimal

conditions to break down starch. Beta amylase works by cleaving two glucose units from

amylose and amylopectin ends, leaving behind maltose sugars. Alpha amylase is less selective in

where it can bind to starch and cleaves it chains wherever it may land.

At temperatures of between 55 and 65 °C beta amylase activity is favored and the

resulting sugar profile tends to lead to a beer that is more fermentable, yielding a dryer more

alcoholic beer with a pronounced malt taste. Temperatures between 60 and 70 °C are optimal for

alpha amylase activity and the resulting sugar profile provides a beer that has a thicker mouth

feel, less alcohol, but deeper flavor. The interplay between these two enzymes has the potential

26 | P a g e

to allow one recipe the ability to create a lighter more alcoholic beer or one with more depth and

flavor. From the perspective of a brewery it is important to try and optimize conditions to create

a beer that yields the flavor and style desired and expected of that brewery. An interplay may

exist between the energy cost of mashing at a higher temperature and the return from providing a

beer that people consider premium, and are willing to pay premium price for.

To develop a model, 1st order reaction kinetics were assumed, meaning that the formation

of sugars would be assumed to be influenced by the concentration of other sugars. This was done

due to the limited testing equipment and time. The availability of the HPLC machine allowed for

the measurements of the formations of sugars over the course of the mashing. Table 4 describes

the stoichiometry assumed:

Table 4: Model Stoichiometry

1 1 [S] → 1800/B [HOS]k8

2 1 [HOS] → H/12 [1]k1

3 1 [HOS] → H/6 [2]k2

4 1 [HOS] → H/4 [3]k3

5 1 [HOS] → H/3 [4]k4

Where; 1800

B=H

Amylose was assumed to be 1800 glucose units long and B and H represent unknown

coefficients for the higher order sugars and the resulting decomposition of these sugars into

glucose, maltose, maltotriose, maltotetraose constituents. From these stoichiometric expressions

rates and rate laws were defined:

27 | P a g e

Rates:

r8=k8 ¿]

r 4=k 4[HOS]

r3=k3[ HOS]

r2=k2[ HOS]

r1=k1[HOS ]

Rate Laws:

r starch=−r8

d [ S ]dt

=−k8 [ S ]

r H .O. Sugars=1800

Br8−

H4

r4−H3

r 3−H2

r2−H1

r1

r H .O. Sugars=d [ HOS ]

dt=1800

Bk8 [ S ]−H

4k4 [ HOS ]− H

3k3 [ HOS ]−H

2k2 [HOS ]−H k1[HOS]=¿

rmaltotetraose=H3

r4=d [ 4 ]

dt= H

4k4 [ HOS ]

rmaltotriose=H4

r3=d [3 ]

dt= H

3k3 [ HOS ]

rmaltotetraose=H6

r2=

d [2 ]dt

=H2

k2 [ HOS ]

28 | P a g e

rmaltotetraose=H12

r1=d [ 1 ]

dt=H k1 [ HOS ]

The rate laws were typed into mathematic, Appendix – B: Mathematica Code for Kinetic

Model, and set up to be solved as a system of differential equations. Empirical rate constants

from the HPLC results were plugged in for each of the temperatures and a module was written to

minimize the sum of squares of the final concentrations of all of the measured sugars. The

stoichiometric coefficient, B, for higher order sugars was cycled through by Mathematica

algorithms to bring the final concentrations of the model as close as possible to the empirical

results. The results for each system were plotted and are shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, and

Figure 12.

Black lines depict the starch being decomposed; orange lines depict the formation of

higher order sugars; red the formation of maltotetraose, cyan the maltotriose, green the maltose

and blue the glucose.

29 | P a g e0 500 100 0 1 500 2000 2500 3000 350 0

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 .2

1 .4

Time Second s

Con

cent

ratio

nmolL

W ort Carbohy drate P rofi le 55 Cels iu s

Figure 10: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 55 C

30 | P a g e

31 | P a g e

0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 250 0 3000 35000 .0

0 .5

1 .0

1 .5

Time Second s

Con

cent

ratio

nmolLW ort Carboh ydrate P rofi le 63 Cels iu s


0 500 1000 1500 200 0 2 500 3000 35000 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 .2

1 .4

Time Seco nds

Con

cent

ratio

nmolL

W ort Carb ohydrate P rofi le 7 0 Cels iu s


A comparison of the end concentrations of each of the sugars experimentally and for the model

are presented in Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12

1 2 3 40.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

0.9000

1.0000

Sugar Units

mol

/lit

Figure 13: Mash Temp 55 C - Experimental vs. Modeled

1 2 3 40.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

1.2000

1.4000

Sugar Units

mol

/lit


32 | P a g e

1 2 3 40.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

Sugar Units

mol

/lit


From these results it is clear that the developed model has inaccuracies in predicting

some of the sugar profiles. Interestingly the predictability of glucose and maltose concentrations

were fairly accurate except for the 55 °C mash temperature. All tri and tetra saccharides were

unpredictable between all three mash temperatures.

The plot of the 55 °C mash depicted maltose to be present in the greatest amount relative

to the other sugars. This accurately depicts the greater percentage of beta amylase. This could

have been purely coincidental and further tests could prove or disprove the reliability of this

model in predicting accurate sugar ratios.

One of the biggest reasons for this was discussed when attempting to make

simplifications to model the process. The formation of sugars from the decomposition of starches

is dependent on the concentration of enzymes and not on the concentrations of sugars.

33 | P a g e

Flow Sheet

Figure 16: Flow Sheet of Brewery

FilterBrightening Tank

CO2 Tank

Keg Filler

Bottler/labeler

In House Kegs

Cooling Unit

Heat Exchanger

Fermentation Tank

City Water

Instant Water Heater

Mash TunBoiling Kettle

Steam Generator

Grain Mill

SiloGrain Truck

Mechanical Solid Screw Auger

Flow Sheet Description

SiloThe brewing process begins with the bulk storage of the most commonly used malts in

this brewery. In this particular brewery, the most used malt would be 2-row barley and would

need to be kept on site in bulk in order to reduce shipping costs from the grain distributor. A

large truck travels to the site and feeds the malt into a large silo via a mechanically operated

screw auger. The silo is kept on site directly outside of the building for quicker transportation

time from the truck into the silo. The minimum size for a silo is typically 800 ft3 and in the case

of this brewery it is 9 ft in diameter and 28 ft high which is equal to about 1100 ft3 (Grain).This

silo will be purchased from Brock Grain Systems for $10,000. When grain is needed for the start

of a new batch the grain is fed in this brewery by a mechanical solid screw auger to the hopper of

the mill. The reason this type of auger was chosen was that it has the advantage a greater

capacity and handles malt more gently than a flex auger. This auger is priced out to be $7,000

and is 25” in diameter with an efficiency of 22.38%. It is able to pump 18,000 lb/hr consuming

and in the case of this brewery it will take about 7.96 min to transport 2,387 lb of 2-row grain to

the mill (Max S. Peters, 2003).

Milling

Before the grain is milled it is sent into a feed hopper which is supported on a mechanical

platform located at the grist case. The grist case is a temporary storage hopper that feeds to the

mash tun. Typically the grist case is located above the mash tun allowing the milled grain to be

fed by gravity into the mash tun. Traditionally roll mills are used for preparing malt for mashing

35 | P a g e

in a mash or lauter tun. They are used in order to produce the particle size distribution desirable

for optimal extract recovery, but preserve the husk material that is required for filter bed

formation and subsequent liquid-solid separation. Roll mills work by crushing the malt as it is

drawn through the gap between the rollers exerting pressure and shear forces on the kernels

(Priest & Stewart, 2006). The rollers are commonly fluted in order to increase friction. Overall

multi-row mills provide greater control of the rate of feed of the unground malt, the spacing

between rolls, and the rate of speed, either uniform or differential, at which the rolls are driven

(Goldhammer, 2008). There are four different types of rollers; two, four, five and six rollers.

Two-row mills usually contain a distance between rollers of 1.3-1.5 mm. They are not very

flexible since reducing the gap between the rollers too much will cause damage to the husk and

will not give a proper grist size distribution. These types of mills are only suitable for well-

modified malt or for use in small breweries where running costs are low. In the case of this

brewery a four-row mill was chosen to be used for the milling process. The five- and six-row

mills are too large for the amount of batches being made per week. Since this brewery only

brews four times a week the four-row mill would be most sufficient. This is because the two-row

mill is not very flexible and the five- and six-row mills are for much larger scale breweries and

would be highly inefficient. The mill would be purchased from Pleasant Hill Grain Company for

$7,100. It has a 4,000 lb/hr capacity so milling the grain for this brewery would take less than an

hour (Grain). Once the grain is milled it is sent to the mash tun with the same type of auger

system that is used to send the grain from the silo at a price of $7,000.

There is an important concern to take note of when milling the grain in this brewery.

Since there is large amounts of dust produced during the brewing process it is very important to

keep it contained. To view the concerns associated with grain dust see Appendix – E:

36 | P a g e

Environmental Concerns: Dust Regulations and Containment. To contain the grain dust a box

would need to be built around the mill. This box needs to be able to keep the many dust particles

from being blown out into the rest of the brewery. In addition to the box, a dust vacuum would

need to be installed. This vacuum would be able to take the grain dust contained in the box and

transfer it into containers to be disposed of. The model of vacuum chosen was the JET DC-

650CK which is a 1 HP dust collector with canister and costs $499.99.

Another issue that is a concern with milling grain is making sure there are not any metal

pieces in the grain that may have broken off of the mill rollers as they wear down. This can be

avoided by adding a large magnet right after the point where the grain is milled. This magnet

would be able to attract any type of metal pieces and flakes as the milled grain freely pass by it.

MashingMashing is the process in which malt grist from the milling process and water are mixed

together at a suitable temperature so that the malt enzymes convert the various cereal

components into fermentable sugars and other nutrients (Priest & Stewart, 2006). The liquid

containing the nutrients is known as wort or extract and is the product after the mashing process.

In the case of this brewery a mash tun was chosen to be used for the mashing process. The type

of mashing that takes place in a mash tun is what is known as infusion mashing since it occurs in

a single vessel which is used for both conversion and separation. The form of a mash tun is a

round insulated enclosed vessel of 110” in diameter and 159” high for this particular brewery

and has the capacity of 80 bbl. There is a 1.5” layer of fiberglass insulation that surrounds the

outer surface of the mash tun in order to prevent heat loss. This particular mash tun would be

purchased from AAA Metal Fabrication for $42,336.60 (Fabrication, 2011). The floor is fitted

37 | P a g e

with a series of pipes which are used to run off the wort during separation. It contains a system in

order to recirculate the wort and it is fitted with a sparge arm to introduce sparge liquor toward

the end of the separation process. The sparge arm consists of concentric pipes suspended just

below the ceiling of the tun. These pipes are equipped with spray nozzles directed downward to

deliver the sparge water in a uniform pattern over the entire surface of the mash bed. Milled malt

is fed by gravity into the mash tun from the grist case and combined with water. The added water

first goes through an instant water heater in order to maintain constant temperature of the wort,

allowing the enzymatic action to take place. A temperature of 70°C is chosen for the mash

temperature for this particular brewery. As the grain is added a 3 hp mixer runs in order to keep

the grain circulating within the mash tun. Once the total volume of the milled grain would be

transferred into the vessel, it would be about 1-1.5 m deep and float towards the top of the layer

of water. The wort would be created by keeping the contents of the mash tun at the temperature

of 70°C for an hour. The wort collection system is fitted into the bottom of the vessel. The

gravity drained wort travels through the slots of the false bottom to the true bottom and then

leaves the mash tun through the runoff pipes which connect to a grant. Runoff is controlled by

taps on the pipes within the bottom of the mash tun. The runoff would be carried out slowly at

first and done over a control system fitted with a series of weirs, which are designed to reduce

the differential pressure and to avoid pulling down the mash bed. The wort is then re-circulated

though the mash tun until it runs clear. Filtration of the wort takes place within the grain bed, not

at the false bottom which is acting simply as a support for the grain bed (Priest & Stewart, 2006).

The wort would then be transferred to a brew kettle via use of a centrifugal pump. This pump is

to be purchased from AAA Metal Fabrication for this brewery at a price of $4,276 (Equipment

B. P.). At the start of the runoff the gravity of the wort is high but decreases during the process

38 | P a g e

due to sparging. Sparging liquor is about 75-78°C when it is sprayed on top of the mash. The

weight of this liquor and gravity push the wort through the bed of grain. Very little mixing takes

place during this process so the gravity of the newly collected wort would remain high until the

later stages of sparging. As the observed gravity falls, the runoff rate can thus be increased

without damage to the grain bed. The gravity falls slowly due to the sugars slowly leaching from

the grains. Sparging is generally stopped after the gravity of the wort is too low to be of use, or

enough wort has been collected. After all of the wort has been collected and transferred to the

brew kettle, the spent grains are removed by hand with a large scooper and put into containers to

be later picked up by the farmers (Priest & Stewart, 2006).

Wort Boiling After the wort is created in the mash tun it is pumped into a brew kettle using the wort

pump. This wort pump is to be bought from AAA Metal Fabrication and is capable of pumping

793gal/min and in this brewery. These kettles are fitted with a heating system that heats the wort

from the mash temperature which is 21.1°C in the case of this brewery to boiling temperature

which is just above 100°C. In the case of this brewery a kettle with an external steam heating

jacket is used. The size of the boil kettle would be 118” in diameter and 105” in height with an

80 bbl capacity. It would include 1.5” of fiberglass insulation in order to prevent heat loss while

boiling. The steam jacket associated with this system contains 6 total cylinders which would be

42” in diameter and 58” in height. This boil kettle would be purchased from the AAA Metal

Fabrication company for $33,048. One of the first reasons for boiling is to sterilize the wort.

Wort entering the kettle contains yeast, molds, and bacteria which can result in off-flavors and

numerous other problems. Boiling takes place for an hour and in any wort boiling process there

39 | P a g e

are multiple stages. These stages include the in-fill, preheating, rise to boil, boil, and transfer out.

Wort should be fed into the bottom of the kettle to reduce splashing and oxidation. Preheating is

done as soon as possible during the filling process and is applied slowly to reduce risk of fouling.

Hops are to be added to the wort at various points during the boiling process to provide flavor,

aroma, and antimicrobial attributes to beer. Addition is made to the boil because hops require to

be heated in order to convert their alpha-acids to iso-alpha-acids in a process known as

isomerization. This is a rapid process and 90% of the final wort bitterness will be produced

during the first 30 minutes of boiling. Hop oils will be largely lost during the boiling process,

which is an advantage, since these will cause a bitter, vegetable flavor in the beer if present in

too high levels. In this particular brewery SAAZ hops would be added when the water first

begins to boil. This is in order to maximize isomerization of its alpha-acid content and to drive

off undesirable flavor compounds. Cascade hops would then added 10 minutes before boiling is

stopped and again 5 minutes before boiling is stopped. The reason this type of hop is added

toward the end of the boil in order to add more hop oils before the termination of boiling. One of

the most noticeable events that takes place during boiling is the formation of color. This is

brought about by the formation of melanoidins, the oxidation of polyphenols and the

caramelization of sugars. The production of melanoidins occurs when reducing sugars from

carbohydrates react with amino acids that are derived from proteins during the mashing process.

About one-third or less of the melanoidins is formed during the boiling process. A toffee, nutty,

malty, and biscuit flavor are all associated with melanoidins. Once the entire hour and a half

boiling process is completed a pump would be used to create a whirlpool action within the kettle.

This would be achieved by drawing off the wort from the bottom of the kettle and injecting it

back into a tangentially inlet port on the side of the kettle. The purpose of this whirlpool is to

40 | P a g e

remove hot trub from the wort. Trub is the term used to describe the slurry of wort, hop particles,

and unstable colloidal proteins coagulated during the wort boiling process. The velocity of the

whirl pool should be less than 5m/sec and a transfer time fewer than 10 minutes to prevent

shearing of the trub. As the wort enters the tank tangentially, the trub moves out to the periphery

of the tank, sinks down the sides, and is propelled to the center of the tank where it forms into a

hard conical cake. The consistency of the solids changes over time and it eventually sets like

concrete due to oxidative copolymerization of proteins and polyphenols. After settling for about

25 to 30 minutes the clear wort would be drawn off and transferred to the heat exchanger using

the centrifugal pump. The trub is then removed using high-pressure water jetting in which high

pressured water breaks up the trub and sends it toward the outlet. This process must be carried

out within five minutes of the removal of the wort to prevent sticking of the trub to the kettle.

Since boiling is one of the most energy-consuming part of the brewing process, cost and energy

recovery must be considered for this stage of brewing. After boiling the hot wort is sent to a plate

and frame heat exchanger in order to be cooled using a brew pump supplied from AAA Metal

Fabrication for $2,471.

Heat ExchangerFrom the boil kettle the wort is sent to a heat exchanger in order to be rapidly cooled. The

most common form of heat exchanger in any particular brewery is the plate and frame heat

exchanger. The plates are made of stainless steel and around 0.5 mm thick in order to allow

optimum amounts of heat exchange. There are a total of 98 plates within the heat exchanger

chosen to be used in this brewery. The plate surfaces are embossed to create turbulent flow in

order to increase the amount of heat transferred (Priest & Stewart, 2006). The heat exchanger in

41 | P a g e

this brewery would be bought from AAA Metal Fabrication for $15,000. Wort enters the heat

exchanger at about 96˚C to 99˚C and exits at the cooled pitching temperature. There are two

different types of cooling known as single-stage and two-stage cooling. In single stage cooling, a

single stage heat exchanger is used and the wort is cooled with water in counter flow. The wort

enters the exchanger and cools to about 8˚C while the cold water being pumped through the

exchanger enters at about 2˚C and leaves at about 80˚C. If a brewery does not have a cold water

tank available and simply uses city water it is difficult to cool the wort down in a sufficient

amount of time since the temperature of the inlet water to the heat exchanger changes depending

on the time of year. If the inlet water supply temperature is too high a two-stage cooling method

would be of better use. The first stage of the process is to use the same exchanger as in the

single-stage process. Since the inlet water to the exchanger does not have a cold enough

temperature to cool the wort a secondary exchanger must be used. A majority of the heat is

removed by the first process and is fed to the second exchanger which most commonly uses a

glycol-water mixture as a refrigerant. The glycol-water mixture is continuously sent through the

exchanger from a chiller on a loop.

After the cooled wort leaves the heat exchanger a canister of pure oxygen would be

connected to the outlet tube. This is what is known as the aeration process and is to provide the

yeast which would be added to the wort, the necessary oxygen to grow and multiply. The amount

of oxygen that is required by the wort depends on the yeast to be used for fermentation. The

target addition is between 70-90% saturation and any oversaturation will cause overgrowth of

yeast affecting the flavors of the final beer produced. Under-saturation will cause respiring yeast

to produce significantly more esters and irreversibly flavors the beer with fruity and solvency

aromatics. It will also cause pyruvic acids, fatty acids, and amino acids to decarboxylate to

42 | P a g e

aldehydes which causes the beer to have the odor of green apples. Longer fermentation times as

well as high final gravities are also associated with inadequate aeration. Over-oxygenation is not

as much of a concern as under-aeration however, since oxygen is rapidly consumed by yeast in

the initial stages of fermentation (Goldhammer, 2008).

Fermentation TankThe modern and most common type of fermenter is a cylindrical closed tower with a

conical bottom. This type of tank is what would be used in this brewery. There would be eight

total fermentation tanks in this brewery, with each one having a 4,234 gallon capacity. Each tank

would be 96” in diameter and 18’ in height. The tanks all would contain 26.7% head space as

well as two cooling jackets which would be 36” wide on the sidewall and 18” wide on the cone.

1.5” fiberglass insulation would also be around the entire fermentation tank and the cost for a

single fermentation tank is $33,512 and would be purchased from AAA Metal Fabrication

(Fabrication, 2011).

Yeast is the driving force behind the entire fermentation process. The amount of yeast

required is typically based on weight in most micro-breweries. Since most breweries are

following a previously developed recipe, it is more practical to directly use the same amount of

yeast in each batch. Yeast must also be colder than the pitching wort in order to simulate growth

on pitching. The particular process chosen in this brewery would be to directly add the yeast to

the fermentation tank before the wort is pumped in. The yeast is normally pitched at around 18-

25°C. This method ensures good mixing of yeast and wort as it is pumped in from the bottom of

the tank. The fermentation temperature of the wort in the tank must remain constant at 21.1°C

during the entire process. To achieve this, the tanks would be jacketed with a glycol-water

43 | P a g e

mixture which is chilled first using a chiller and then sent to the fermentation tank on a loop.

This process is controlled by temperature solenoids within the fermentation tank. If the

temperature within the tank deviates by a single degree the chiller will circulate until the tank is

at the set temperature again. At the start of the fermentation process the yeast begins to produce

fine bubbles on the surface of the wort. Within 24 to 48 hours after the yeast is pitched, rocky

cauliflower heads called “kraeusen” begin to appear on the surface of the wort. After 72 hours

the kraeusen begins to break down into a cream-colored and less rocky cauliflower. As the

process continues yeast activity begins to slow as well as the evolution of carbon dioxide within

the fermenter. The beer begins to become bright in color and most of the yeast begins to fall to

the bottom of the fermenter. After the beer has sat for the allotted time period it can be drained

from the tank. In the case of this brewery it would be for two weeks. The beer would be pumped

out of the side of the tank right above where the conical section of the tank starts. This prevents

most of the live cultures of yeast from traveling with the beer when leaving the fermenter. Once

the beer has been drained the live yeast at the bottom of the tank is drained and sent to another

fermentation tank for the use in the next batch. It will remain healthy while held at refrigerated

temperatures and can be used for up to 179 more batches (Harris, 2011).

FilterOnce the beer has completed the fermentation process the tanks would be drained and the

beer filtered in order to remove any solids still be remaining within the beer and is achieved by

using the brew pump. The most popular form of filtration in breweries is powder filtration. They

are most commonly used for their cost effectiveness, their success in clarifying beer. These

filters can be emptied and cleaned in little time as well as have the capacity to operate at high

44 | P a g e

flow rates for long filtration cycles. In the case of this particular brewery a diatomaceous earth

filter was chosen to be used. This was due to the fact that it is the most popular powder filter

used among breweries today. The diatomaceous earth used in this brewery would be the NF15

model manufactured by Della Toffola for $73,633.86 (Toffola). Diatomaceous earth is the

skeletal remains of single-celled plants called “diatoms” that contain silicon dioxide. The

“grade” of diatomaceous earth used usually directly refers to the particle size which affects the

flow rates through the filter, filter bed permeability, as well as the degree of filtration. Using

smaller particles provides optimum separation but must be operated at a lower flow rate. The

opposite can be said for using larger particle sizes in that a higher flow rate may be used but a

lower quality of filtration will be produced. More generally a medium to fine grade DE is what is

used in most breweries and is what is chosen to be used in this brewery. After Filtration the beer

is sent to the brightening tanks where it would sit until the bottling and kegging process.

Brightening Tank

The brightening tank is identical to the fermentation tanks in structure. There would be

eight brightening tanks used in this brewery and each one has a 3,639 gallon capacity. Each tank

would be 96” in diameter and 13.5’ in height with 1.5” inches of fiberglass insulation on the

sidewalls and bottom of each vessel. There would be two 24” wide cooling jackets on the

sidewall of each tank which would be hooked up to the chiller. All of the brightening tanks

would be purchased from AAA Metal Fabricators for a price of $30,279 each (Fabrication,

2011). The brightening tank’s main use is to take the filtered beer produced from the

fermentation tanks and store it so for carbonation. CO2 would be drawn from an outdoor holding

tank and injected into the brightening tank in order to further carbonate the fermented beer. The

45 | P a g e

main difference between the brightening tanks and the fermentation tanks is that fermentation is

not continued in the brightening tanks. Since the beer has passed through a DE filter, there are

negligible amounts of yeast cells left in the beer in order to keep it fermenting.

Bottler/Labeler

The bottling process is another essential part of the brewing process. New and empty

glass bottles would be brought into the brewery in pallet form with cardboard dividers between

each sheet which are then wrapped in plastic wrap. A de-palletizer would remove the bottles

from the pallet a layer at a time and place them onto what is known as the unscrambling table

which funnels the bottles via conveyer into single lines. These single lines of bottles are then sent

to the cleaning area. The twist rinser is the most common form of bottle rinser and is what is

chosen to be used in this brewery. A set of belt drives feed the bottles into a set of rains which

twist and invert the bottles. During the time that the bottles are turned upside down, they are

sprayed inside and outside several times with steam. They are then purged with sterile air to

ensure that all microorganisms are eliminated. Sterilized bottles are essential to the brewing

process since harmful organisms can damage and spoil the beer. The bottles are finally turned

back to the right side up position and sent to the bottle filler (Goldhammer, 2008, pp. 306-308).

Beer from the brightening tank would be sent to the bottle filler using the brew pump. A

Meheen Merlin 6 Head Filler/Capper was chosen to be used in this brewery and would be

purchased from Ager Tank & Equipment Co. for $51,635 (Tank). This type of filler/capper has

the ability to output 2,300 bottles an hour and since there are 3,332 bottles per batch it will take a

total of about 1.5 hours per batch. This machine runs on compressed air and contains no motors,

46 | P a g e

gears or bearing to maintain. It is an inline filling system in which the bottles are fed in six rows

at a time via conveyer belt and are filled under counter pressure. Counter pressure implies that

the bottles being filled are counter-pressurized to the same pressure as the filling equipment

containing the carbonated beer. Once the pressure in the bottle and filler are equalized the bottle

is filled to the desired height with beer. The displaced CO2 is fed back into the filling machine via

an air pipe. The pressure within the bottle is bled off slowly in order to make sure the bottle

doesn’t gush out beer when the filling spout is removed. Once the bottles are filled they are

cleared of oxygen within the head space of the bottle by creating foam in the bottle neck. Once

the bottles have been cleared of oxygen they are sent to be capped. The caps are dumped into the

crowning hopper to the halfway full mark. This is to lessen the possibility of caps becoming

packed and not feeding into the chute fast enough. The closing element is lowered onto the bottle

until the cap rests on the bottle mouth where the teeth of the cap are bent against the upper edge

of the mouth of the bottle. Once the bottles are capped they would be sent to a post rinse and dry

before being sent to the labeling machine. It is essential that the bottles are dry and free of

condensation when they are labeled in order to ensure that the glue used to adhere the labels to

the bottles creates a secure bond. An In-Line Labeling Pressure Sensitive Labeler is what was

chosen to be used in this brewery and is to be bought from Ager Tank & Equipment Co. for

$19,800 [17]. This type of system applies front, back, and neck labels to all of the bottles that

pass through it which are then sent on to the case packer. The case packer uses pneumatic

grippers that lift the bottles off the collection table and place them into the spaces within the

case. The cases are then manually taped and stacked to be sent out to the distributor

(Goldhammer, 2008, pp. 306-318).

47 | P a g e

Kegging Machine

Kegging is another process that would be performed in this particular brewery.

Aluminum, sankey-style valve kegs are what were chosen to be used in this brewery since they

are the most common form of keg today. They consists of a stainless steel rod housing called a

combination fitting that is permanently installed into the top center of the keg and sealed with a

spring-loaded check ball. When the keg is tapped CO2 enters the keg and forces the beer up the

rod into the beer line and out the faucet.

An in-line keg machine was chosen for use in this brewery and is to be purchased from

Ager Tank & Equipment Co. for $18,900 (Tank). An in-line system positions empty kegs at one

end of the racker and passes them sequentially through a series of stations where different

operations are performed. The kegs first are inspected with a pressure test to ensure they are able

to keep a good seal. They are next sent to be externally and internally cleaned with a pre-rinse

which uses water, a detergent wash for removing biological and inorganic contamination, and

then a final rinse. Kegs are always washed in an upside down position and the washing medium

is forced up the inside of the spear tube under regulated pressures and flows to ensure that the

medium cascades over the outer surface of the valve spear tube and down the internal walls of

the keg. The kegs would then be sent to be filled in the inverted position. They are first sanitized

before they are filled in order to prevent contamination within the keg. Filling the kegs in an

inverted position makes it more difficult to hydraulically over-fill. Once the kegs are filled they

would be palletized and sent to a holding area before being picked up by the distributer.

48 | P a g e

Hop / Refrigeration Room

Some ingredients such as hops must be stored in a refrigerated area in order to preserve

their freshness. To achieve this, this brewery would purchase a refrigeration room from Foster

Coolers. There would be around 975 lbs of hops ordered each month and in order to store this

amount of hops it is essential that this refrigeration room is large enough. This brewery would

need an estimated 8’ wide by 10’ long and 7’ high room. A unit like this is priced out at $5,199

and would be purchased through Foster Coolers at the startup of the brewery (Coolers).

Instant Hot Water Heater

Since the mash tun needs water to be 70°C after the grain is added there needs to be some

means of getting the city water from the ground (ranges between 10°C to 21°C depending on the

time of year) heated up. There are many options for achieving this but this brewery would install

an instant hot water heater in order to always have hot water on demand. The company that was

chosen was Hubble due to their efficient and reliable water heaters. Upon investigation it was

decided that brewing four days a week instead of two would be the most cost effective method.

This was due to the fact that in order to brew two times a day, two 88 kW - V1699T4 models

would have to be purchased as an initial capital investment of $15,000. The reason two units

would be required would be because the 4,552 gallons of water would need to be heated within

the eight hour work day. In the case of brewing four different days a week there would only need

to be one unit purchased and used since the amount water that would need to be heated would

only be 2,276 gallons. This unit would be the 88kW - V658T4 model and would only be $5,000

as an initial investment. The main reason that this was the option that was chosen was due to the

fact that Hubble recommended the use of one unit and to heat the water overnight which would

49 | P a g e

take about 12 hours. A temperature thermocouple would be installed in the tank and shut the unit

down once the desired set point would be reached. The next morning the mash water would be in

the tank and ready to be used. This unit strictly runs on electricity and is around 91% efficient

(Heater).

Steam Boiler

The creation of steam to be used for boiling in the boil kettle in this brewery would be

achieved by using a steam boiler. The steam boiler chosen to be used in this brewery is a natural

gas fired, 105 Parker Industrial Boiler, and would be purchased from AAA Metal Fabricators for

$113,890 (Fabrication, 2011). These types of boilers input natural gas into the system where it is

burned in order to produce heat. Water is input into staggered tubes in order maximize the

amount of heated surface the water comes in contact with. This water is converted to steam and

held in the steam drum which is capable of withstanding 60,000 psi. The boiler is capable of

operating at 115 HP and would need to run at 65.55 HP for the 1.5 hour boil. The kettle will need

167 gallons of water to feed to the boiler in order to heat the batch (Boilers).

Chiller

This brewery has chosen to use a glycol-water chiller in order to maintain a constant

temperature of 21.1°C in all of the fermentation and brightening tanks. This glycol-water chiller

sends a glycol and water mixture to a cooling unit where it is chilled and then sent to the jackets

on the fermentation and brightening tanks. This stream is eventually re-circulated back to the

chilling unit where it can be sent out again. This chiller is to be purchased from Whaley

Products, Inc. for the amount of $24,000.

50 | P a g e

Calculations

Material Accounting

In order to begin the analysis of material movement through a brewery it is necessary to

decide upon an expected production of beer. An analysis of the beer industry reveals that three

producers Anheuser-Busch InBev, SABMiller, and Heineken produce over half of the world’s

beer by volume. Between these “big three” approximately 700 million hectoliters of beer are

produced annually. It is clear that any venture aiming to directly compete with any of these

producers would be economically unviable in terms of equipment costs, swaying brand loyalty to

establish adequate sales, and the sheer magnitude of the logistics involved in securing the raw

materials required to sustain outputs of this magnitude.

A more viable venture exists in the craft brewing niche. The market being targeted is the

one in which people value a brew based on taste, recipe uniqueness, and local roots. Such a need

has been identified to exist in Storrs, Connecticut. A copious drinking population exists at this

location that would provide the demand for a small brewery to prosper. The location of the

University of Connecticut in the town would provide a continuous demand, supplying new

customers annually as they reached drinking age. Supplying the beer to the three local watering

holes available to students would establish brand loyalty and would increase approximately

proportional to the number of alumni.

The American Brewer’s Association classifies a microbrewery as one which has an

annual output of less than 15,000 barrels of beer annually and sells 75% or more of the beer

produced at the brewery offsite. The following back of the envelope calculation estimates the

amount of beer consumed in Storrs:

51 | P a g e

1 (30−pack )(week ) (drinker )

∗(5,000 drinkers )∗( 28 weeksAcademic Year )∗360 oz

30−pack∗Barrel

3968 oz

¿12,700 BarrelsYear

This estimate and the desire to be classified as a microbrewery influenced the decision to set

production output to 13,000 barrels annually. Brewing operations will occur four times a week

and each brewing day will yield sweet and bitter wort which will ferment over the course of 14

days into 1950 gallons of beer.

It is important to understand the following industry metrics, which will be referred to

extensively, as the material movement through the brewery is estimated.

Equation 1 Specific Gravity: Ratio of Densities

SG=ρsample

ρreference=

ρsample

ρwater ,(70° F )

Equation 2 Degrees Plato: Weight Percentage Soluble Material

° P=wt solublematerialwt sample

∗100

The materials being considered for the production of beer at this facility are based on the

grain and hop bill of the recipe, Table 5, used for the kinetic modeling.

Table 5: Grain and Hop Bill

2 Row 88.2% SAAZ @ 90 min 0.2Caramel 60 L 5.9% Cascade @ 10 min 0.2

Carapils 5.9% Cascade @ 5 min 0.1

Recipe: Grain Fraction Recipe: Hops (Oz/Gallon)

52 | P a g e

In order to estimate the amount of grain required for production a target specific gravity, dictated

by the recipe, of 1.046 or 46 points used. The target volume is multiplied by the SG to get the

total amount number of points required. The total points are then multiplied by each respective

grain % to determine the amount of points contributed by each grain (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes,

& Stevens, 2004, p. 660). Equation 3, Equation 4, and Equation 5 walk through the grain

required and Table 6 provides the summary of points per grain.

Equation 3

( (Target SG )−1 )∗1000=Target Gravity Points

(1.046−1 )∗1000=46 Points

Equation 4

(Gallons Desired )∗(Target Gravity Points )=Total Point

(1950 Gallons )∗( 46 )=89,700 Points

Equation 5

(Grain%)∗(Total Points)=Points per Grain

( 1517 )∗(89,700 )=79147 2 Row Points

The total points per grain depict the points if complete solubility of each grain could be

achieved, however this is not possible. All malts are tested for their maximum solubility and the

results from these laboratory results are present in malt analysis sheets that accompany grain

53 | P a g e

Table 6: Points Per Grain

79147 Points (2 Row)5276 Points (Caramel 60 L)5276 Points (Carapils)

shipments. The results are depicted as Course Grind Dry Basis (CGDB) and Fine Grind Dry

Basis (FGDB), the former metric being used for base, or primary malts, and the latter for

specialty malts. A compilation of malt analysis sheet properties for different grains that were

considered is available in the appendix. The CG/FG value is multiplied by 46, Equation 6, in

order to get the value points per pound per gallon (PPG). The number 46 is derived from the di-

saccharide, sucrose, which yields the greatest specific gravity increase when adding 1 pure

pound of the sugar in 1 gallon of water. If malted barley was composed of 100% sucrose then it

would have 100% extract efficiency. The PPG value is then multiplied by the brew house yield

(BHY). The brew house yield is the percentage of soluble extract (from the CGDB/FGDB) that

is actually extracted from the grain. In industry brew house yields (BHY) of 80-95% are

common (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes, & Stevens, 2004, p. 660), and it was assumed this brewery

would operate at a BHY = 90%. The CGDB and FGDB and pounds for each grain are presented

in Table 7.

Equation 6

Points PerGrainCGDB /FGDB∗46∗BHY

=lbs grain needed

7914780 %∗46∗90 %

=2390 lbs of 2 Row

Table 7: Grain Required and Extraction Percentages

lbs CG/FG2 -Row 2390 80.00%

Caramel 60 L 166 77.00%Carapils 150 85.00%

54 | P a g e

When brewing a batch of beer grains are milled and directed to the mash tun and the

initial water, hot liquor, is mixed with the grain to form grist. The mashing process involves

using two volumes of water of equal volume; the first infusion is with hot liquor (Fix, 1989, p.

99). The mash is allowed to rest for sixty minutes to allow the starch to enzymatically

decompose. The water and dissolved material, wort, is then separated, lautered, from the spent

grain and directed to the boiling kettle. The second infusion of water, sparge water, is then added

to the mash tun to rinse the spent grains of any remaining extract and directed to the boiling

kettle. The spent grains removed from the mash tun are up to 80 percent weight by water

(Briggs, Boulton, Brookes, & Stevens, 2004, p. 199).

The weight ratio of hot liquor to grain is known as the grist ratio and was found to be

3.44 pounds hot liquor/pound of grain. This value was the result of an optimization at the end of

the material balance to account for properties in the mash tun and boiling kettle. With this grist

ratio and estimated extraction wort leaves the mash tun at 10.60 °P. Table 8 summarizes the

material balance around the mash tun.

3.44 lbs waterlb grain

∗Total lbs Grain∗(2Volumes)=Water Required

3.441lbs waterlb grain

∗2705.2∗2=18,617 lbs water

The temperature of the hot liquor, the strike temperature, was calculated so that the

resulting temperature of the mash was 158 °F, according to the results from experimentation.

55 | P a g e

Equation 7 calculates the strike water temperature needed for water being supplied at 70°F,

grain at 77°F, for the aforementioned mash temperature.

Equation 7

T mash (Lite r H 2O+ (0.4∗k ggrain) )−0.4∗k ggrain∗T grain

Lite rH 2 O=T Strike

70 °C (4323 LH2 O@70 ° C+(0.4∗1227 kg ) )−0.4∗1227 kg∗25 ° C4323 LH 2 O@70 °C

=75 ° C=167° F

Wort enters the steam jacketed kettle and is brought to a boil. Boiling induces a “hot

break” which is a coagulation of soluble proteins which if left in beer provide undesirable

cloudiness and off flavors. The proteins which become insoluble in the wort represent a small

percentile relative to the weight of the water, sugars, and hops and it was assumed not to

represent a significant fraction to require calculating for the material balance.

56 | P a g e

9308 Water (lbs) 16453 Water (lbs)2705 Milled Grain (lbs) 1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)

9308 Water (lbs) 2164 Water (lbs)755 Un-Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)

Check 0

Sparging

Wort (Sweet)

Spent Grain

Infusion

OutIn

Creating The Wort

Table 8: Mass Balance - Mash Tun

After the hot break event, the wort is maintained at a rolling boil and hops are added

according to the hop bill from our recipe, see Table 5. The hops are added according to the

amount of time required to be boiled. Hops contribute the bitterness which evens out the

sweetness of malt extracted from barley and relatively little is required to achieve this balance.

Approximately 15% of hop material is soluble in water, the remaining forms part of the insoluble

trub at the end of the boil (Priest & Stewart, 2006, p. 664). Spent hops are also 80 percent weight

by water (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes, & Stevens, 2004, p. 349). The amount of hops required was

summing the multiplication of each hop fraction by the gallons of beer required.

∑ (1950 gallons∗0.2 lbs SAAZgallon )+(1950 gallons∗0.2 lbsCascade

gallon )+(1950 gallons∗0.2 lbsCascadegallon )

¿60.9 lbs hops

During the 90 minute boil the water evaporates from the boiling kettle at a rate of 4

percent per hour (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes, & Stevens, 2004, p. 327). The boiling process has

the effect of sterilizing the wort and provides the energy to isomerize the hop oils, fixing them to

the wort. The boiling point of sugars and the organic hop material are significantly higher than

water and it was assumed only water would evaporate from the kettle. After boiling, the wort is

whirl pooled to concentrate the trub in the center of the kettle, the wort is piped out, and the trub

left behind is collected for disposal. The wort at the end of the boiling process is estimated to be

11.28 °P and Table 9 summarizes the material balance for the boiling kettle.

The hot wort piped from the boiling kettle passes through a heat exchanger where it is

cooled to 70°F and injected with oxygen that will provide yeast the reductive power necessary

for aerobic respiration. An industry rule of thumb suggests that wort exposed to oxygen above

57 | P a g e

80°F promotes oxidation of wort components leading to off flavors and low shelf life (Harris,

2011). Cooling wort to 70°F serves to prevent oxidation and happens to be the fermentation

temperature.

Table 9: Mass Balance - Boiling Kettle

In industry 8.35E-06 lbs of oxygen per pound of wort per degree plato desired to have

fermented is used (Priest & Stewart, 2006, p. 484). To estimate the amount of gallons of wort a

correlation between °P and specific gravity was used and this value was multiplied by gallons of

water leaving the boiling kettle (Palmer, 2006, p. 266). The gallons of water were calculated by

dividing the weight of the water by the density of water at 70°F.

11.28° P=1.045

58 | P a g e

16453 Water (lbs) 15417 Water (lbs)1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs) 1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)

9.1 Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)

60.9 Hops (lbs) 51.8 Un-Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)48.8 Water

987 Water (lbs)

Check 0

TrubHopping

Evaporated

In Out

Creating The WortWort (Sweet) Wort (Bittered)

15417 lbs water∗1gallons8.34 lb

∗1.045=1933 gallons wort

The gallons of wort were then multiplied by the degrees of attenuation dictated by the recipe,

7.85 °P. The oxygen required and the percentage of oxygen per gallon of wort was calculated to

be:

1933 gallons∗7.85 ° P∗0.00000835lbsO2

gallons∗° P=0.127 lbsO2

0.127 lbsO2

1933 gallons=0.0000655

lbsO2

gallon wort

This figure was checked to determine if any oxygen was being wasted by applying Henry’s law

to determine how much oxygen could theoretically be dissolved into the wort. For this

calculation it was assumed that that 1 gallon of wort behaved similar to 1 gallon of water, that

wort would be at atmospheric pressure, and that oxygen would have a partial pressure of 0.21

atmospheres.

Equation 8

p=kH C

0.21 atm

((822.13 L∗atmmol

∗453.59 gramslb )

3.785 litgal

∗32 grammol

)=C=0.0000628

lbsO2

gallon wort

59 | P a g e

0.00006550.0000628

lbsO2

gallon wortgallon wort

lbsO2=96 % Saturation

The result shows that the oxygen would not be provided in excess and that enough would be

present for the yeast to utilize. The results of the mass balance for aeration are presented in

Table 10 below.

After aeration and cooling the wort enters the fermentation tank and yeast is pitched at a rate of

0.00835 lbs per gallon of wort (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes, & Stevens, 2004, p. 402). A quick

calculation yields:

0.00835 lbs yeastgallon wort

∗1933 gallons wort=16.1 pounds yeast

The aerated wort provides the chemical energy in the form of oxygen necessary for aerobic

metabolic pathways in yeast to grow and multiply. Once the oxygen is consumed yeast switch to

lower energy producing fermentation pathways. This switch is what allows 0.00456 lbs of

extract to yield 0.00220 lbs of ethanol, 0.00211 lbs CO2, and 0.000243 lbs of yeast (Priest &

Stewart, 2006, p. 442).

60 | P a g e

15417 Water (lbs) 15417 Water (lbs)1959 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs) 1959 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)

0.127 Oxygen (lbs)

0.127 Oxygen (lbs)

Check 0

Oxygen

Wort (Cool/Aerated)Wort (Warm/Un-aired)

In Out

Aerating The Wort

Table 10: Mass Balance - Aeration

Fermentation is the process that turns wort into beer. The alcohol levels are set in this

process and fermenting wort is drawn off the fermentation tanks daily to keep a check on quality.

The percentage of fermentable sugars that the yeast consume, the attenuation, allows for the

calculation of the yield of ethanol, CO2, and yeast per batch.

1959 lbs extract0.00456 yield unit

=430,027 yield units

75 %∗430,027 yieldunits∗0.00211lbsC O2

yield unit=680 lbsC O2

75 %∗430,027 yield units∗0.00220lbs EtOHyieldunit

=711 lbs EtOH

75 %∗430,027 yield units∗0.000243lbs yeastyield unit

=711 lbs yeast

This resulting 25% unfermented sugars contribute sweetness and body to beer to balance out the

bitterness of hops, sting of ethanol, and bite of carbon dioxide. The yeast removed at the end of

fermentation contains 80% weight by water (Briggs, Boulton, Brookes, & Stevens, 2004, p. 371).

Beer leaving the fermentation tank is predicted to be 3.43 °P. The weight % alcohol of the beer is

calculated by Equation 9. Table 11 summarizes the mass balance of the fermentation tank.

Equation 9

lbs ethanollbs water+lbs dissolved solids+ lbsethanol

∗100=ABW

61 | P a g e

71115370lbs water+490 lbsdissolved solids+711 lbs ethanol

∗100=4.29 %

Table 11: Mass Balance - Fermentation

15417 Water (lbs) 15370 Water (lbs)1959 Total Dissolved Material (lbs) 711 Ethanol (lbs)

490 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)680 CO2 (lbs)

16.1 Yeast (lbs) 78.21 Yeast (lbs)63 Water Absorbed (lbs)

Check 0

In Out

Creating BeerUnfermented Wort Green Beer

Post-FermentationPre-Fermentation

From the fermentation tank beer is passed through a filter to remove any insoluble debris and

yeast still in solution. For this process a diatomaceous earth filter was used and it was assumed

no beer was lost and that filtration was 99.9% effective. The choice to include this process in the

mass balance was based on the importance of this process. The amount of mass being removed

from the beer relative to the mass of the beer is small, but they are in concentrations high enough

to cause undesirable aesthetic properties, i.e. cloudiness. Table 12 highlights the mass balance

around this unit.

“Green beer” leaving the fermentation tank contains carbonation from the fermentation process

62 | P a g e

16571 Beer (lbs) 16571 Beer (lbs)78.21 Yeast (lbs) 0.08 Residual Yeast (lbs)

78.14 Yeast (lbs)Check 0

In Out

Creating Clear BeerFiltered BeerUnfiltered Beer

Filtrate

Table 12: Mass Balance - Filtration

which can be estimated using Henry’s law. It was assumed that the partial pressure of CO 2 in the

fermentation tank was 1 ATM, that beer was not exposed to the air after fermentation, beer

behaved similar to water, and that the filter did not remove any CO2 (Harris, 2011). This

estimation will help to determine the mass of CO2 needed to carbonate the beer to the appropriate

levels and help reduced material costs associated with carbonation.

Equation 8

p=kH C

1 ATM

((31.77 L∗atmmol

∗453.59 gramslb )

3.785 litgal

∗44 grammol

)=

0.012lbs C O2

gallon beer

An industry standard when carbonating beer is to refer to the amount of carbonation as

volumes of CO2 per volume of beer. Ales generally have a carbonation of 1.7-2.2 volumes.

Carbonation levels affect how beer aromas lift from beer, the head of the foam after pouring beer

into a glass, and the bite as carbon dioxide bubbles sweep across your tongue. For our process a

ratio of 2.0 volumes of carbon dioxide was chosen and accounting for the CO2 still in solution

yields a requirement of 1.30 volumes.

63 | P a g e

0.012 lbsCO2

0.0164 lbsC O2

gallonsC O2

gallons beer=0.70

gallonsC O2

gallons Beer

2−0.7=1.3 volumesrequired

1.3 gallonsC O2

gallons Beer∗0.0164 lbs C O2

gallonsC O2∗1950 gallons=

41lbs C O2

batch

From this calculation it is easy to see that by careful handling beer after fermentation can

help to keep production costs down. It is common for breweries to supply CO2 blankets when

transferring beer to bottles and kegs to minimize the loss of CO2 in solution. From the

brightening tanks beer in the brewery would be bottled and kegged accordingly and sold to

distributors. Table 13 shows the results of the carbonation process.

After carbonation beer would head to brightening tanks where it would be bottled and

kegged according to distribution logistics.

64 | P a g e

16571 Beer (lbs) 16619 Beer(lbs)47.57 CO2 (lbs)

Check 0

Fully Carbonated BeerSemi Carbonated Beer

In Out

Carbonating The Beer

Table 13: Mass Balance - Carbonation

Energy Requirements

The energy required to operate the different pieces of equipment to create beer is a major

cost that must be analyzed when considering the construction of a brewery. Large volumes of

water must be heated and environments must be thermally controlled to account for

environmental temperature fluctuations. The power requirement for each pump, cooling and

heating unit, and general operation is essential to an economic analysis in order to optimize the

brewing process. To give an accurate estimate an energy balance is performed on each

component in the brewery and an analysis is performed to ensure an efficient operation.

The mill requires power input to crush the grain in order to allow maximum extraction of

sugars in the mash tun. Two auger conveyers leading to and away from the mill carry the whole

grain and milled grain and require a power input to move the material at an efficient speed. The

mill used for this process is 60 horsepower (hp), according to the manufacturer which converts to

an energy requirement of 44.74 kW/hour (Grain). Running at 4000 lb per hour will require 0.68

hours to mill the 2705 lbs of grain required per batch.

2705 lb∗( 1hour4000lb )=0.68 hours

60 hp∗( 0.745 kWhr

hp )=44.74 kWhr

∗0.68 hours=34.86 kW

The auger conveyers have the capacity to move grain at 18,000 lb/hr. However, the mill

can only operate at 4000 lb/hr so the conveyer rate must be operated accordingly to prevent

overflow. The energy requirement given by the manufacturer states that the energy requirement

for running the conveyer at 18,000 lbs/hr is 1.13 kW/hr (Hemad Zareiforoush). Scaling this to

65 | P a g e

the capacity of this brewery changes the energy requirement to 0.251 kW/hr. The operating time

for the augers would be the same as the mill in order to maintain consistent material flow. The

calculations for the augers and mill are summarized in Table 14.

0.251 kWhr

∗(0.68 hr )=0.196 kW required for auger

Table 14: Energy Calculations for the Mill and Auger Conveyers.

Auger Conveyer 1 Mill Auger Conveyer 2Req for Auger Req for Mill: Req for Auger

for 18,000 lb/hr kW for 4000 lb/hr for 18,000 lb/hr

kW/h 1.13 kW/hr 44.74 kW/h 1.13kW/h for 4000 lb/h kW/h for 4000 lb/h

0.251 0.251

kW = 0.196 kW = 34.86 kW = 0.196

A Hubble BW model hot water heater brings the water that will combine with the grains,

to form grist, to strike water temperature. This temperature is slightly higher than the desired

mashing temperature to account for the energy absorbed by the grains and was calculated in

Equation 7. It was assumed that the insulation around the mash tun would prevent any

appreciable drops in temperature in the mash.

After the hour long mash an amount of water equal to the first infusion is used for the

sparge process to increase sugar extraction efficicency. The temperature of the sparge water

should be between 100 and 170 °F to prevent the extraction of tannins from the grain and

maintain a low viscosity to prevent “sticking” when lautering. A temperature of 150°F was

chosen for the sparge process. The energy requirements for the hot water heater as shown below:

66 | P a g e

Calculating for strike water addition:

Q=(9308 lb∗1 kg2.2lb )H2O∗4.179 kJ

kg∗K∗( (75 ° C+273 )−(21° C+273 ) )=950,845 kJ

Calculating for sparge water addition:

Q=(9308 lb∗1kg2.2lb )H 2O∗4.179 kJ

kg∗K∗( (66 ° C+273 )−(21 °C+273 ) )=784,202kJ

The sum of the two energy requirements and the application of the efficiency of the hot waeter,

given by manual specifications of 91% yields a total energy requirement to heat water as:

950,845 kJ+784,202 kJ91%efficieny

=1,906,645 kJ

The Hubbell BW model paperwork provides Equation 10 and Equation 11 to calculate

the power and flow rates required to heat incoming water to a specific temperature.

Equation 10

Required kW=T rise∗GPH∗.00244

Equation 11

kW∗410T rise

=flow rate(GPH )

The flow rate in gallons per hour (GPH) was selected to be 185 GPH. Using this value in

Equation 11 yields a required power of 40.63 kW per batch.

Required kW=(77−25 )∗185∗.00244=40.63

67 | P a g e

The pump used in this process is a product of Ampco. The manufacturer’s paperwork

indicated that the pump runs on 5 hp for a total capacity of 215 GPM (Equipment B. P.).This

process uses a flow rate of 200 GPM, which brings the power requirement for this operation to

3.518 kW. A summary of the calculations for the heater and pump can be seen in Table 15.

Table 15: Energy Calculations for the Hot Water Heater and Pump.

Hot Water Heater Hot Water Heater PumpStrike Power Req'd

kJ 950,845.0 hp 5

Sparge pump capacitykJ 784,202.0 GPM 215Total kg/s 13.54kJ (η= 91%) 1,906,645.0

running at 200 GPM

Flow Rate GPM 200(GPH) 185 kg/s 12.59

Gal Total 2235.24kW req'd at capacity

3.782

Hours 0.024kW req'd at 200 GPM 3.518

gal/hr 250kW 40.63per week 162.50

per month 650.02

In the mash tun, there is a mixer which rotates the mash constantly, stirring the grist to

ensure equal heating and mixing. The mixer operates at 3 hp which corresponds to 2.24kW of

power needed to run the mixer for an hour. The pump which draws the liquid from the mash tun

and transfers it into the boiling kettle is an Inoxpa RV 80 model which has the capacity to run at

793 gallons per minute (GPM) using 2.2 kW of power (Equipment I. ). Running the pump at 500

GPM over 2.64 minutes would take 0.097 kW of power to move the total volume of wort to the

68 | P a g e

boiling kettle. A summary of the calculations for mash tun mixer and pump can be seen in

Table 16: Energy Calculations for Mash Pump.Table 16.

Table 16: Energy Calculations for Mash Pump.

Mash PumpGPM 793

rpm 1800

m3/min 85kW/h 2.2run at 500 gpm 500

gal wort 1318.27

minutes 2.64kW 0.097

3 hp Mixer:

kW 2.24

The boiling kettle receives the hot mash from the mash tun and brings the solution to boil

using a steam jacket. Assuming the solution holds at a consistent 100°C during the boil, the

energy required to boil the solution can be calculated using Equation 12. The change in

temperature for this case is from the mash temperature of 70°C to the boiling temperature. It was

assumed that there was no heat loss in the pipes.

Q=16453 lbs water2.204 lb water

kg

∗4.2055 kJkg∗K

∗( (100 ° C+273 )−(70 °C+273 ) )=941,829 kJ

The amount of steam needed to heat the kettle contents to boiling temperature is given by

Equation 12. Q is the amount of energy transferred in kJ and hv is the evaporation energy of

steam in kJ/kg. The energy required to evaporate water was found to be 2257 kJ/kg.

69 | P a g e

Equation 12

Q Required¿Boil H 2 O=mH 2 O∗hv

Q required=447.8 kg H 2 O∗2257 kJkg

=1,010,684.6 kJ

The total energy required to bring the wort to boiling temperature and boil for an hour and a half

was found to be:

Total Energy Required=1,010,685 kJ+941,829 kJ=1,952 ,513.74 kJ

¿1,952 ,513.74 kJ∗0.948 BTUkJ

=1,859,591 BTU

For the boiler operating at 100 PSI and 600°F the enthalpy of steam was given by steam tables as

and the amount of pounds of steam required to deliver the required amount of energy was found

to be:

H=1329.3 BTUlb .

Required Amount of Steam per Batch=1,859,591 BTU∗lb1329.3 BTU

=1392.15lb

Steam Flow Rate=1392.15 lb1.5 hr

=928.10 lbhr

=.2578 lbs

Total BTU required to be generated by the steam boiler assuming a closed system with no leaks

or energy losses to the environment and a boiler operating efficiency of 84% was calculated:

1,859,591 BTU0.84

=2,203,084 BTU

70 | P a g e

The amount of time required to produce 2,203,084 BTU of energy is used with the boiler’s

capacity of 3,864,000 BTUhr to find the required time it takes to run the boiler per batch:

2,203,084 BTU∗hr3,864,000 BTU

=0.57 hr

This amount of time would require a fractional amount of horsepower to operate for the 1.5

hours. This is calculated by the following equation:

115 HP∗0.57 hr=65.55 HPbatch

Since this brewery is only utilizing about half of the boiler’s operating capacity, it would be able

to operate at full capacity and supply steam to an optional second boil kettle. This unutilized HP

leaves room for future expansion within the brewery. This 115 HP boiler will require natural gas

to run which has an energy capacity of 1000 BTUft3 (Williams, 2011). The total amount of natural

gas required to operate the steam boiler is calculated by:

2,203,084 BTU∗ft3

1000 BTU=2,203.08 ft3 Natural Gas

batch

The whirlpool pump recirculates the wort after boiling to force all remaining solids to the

center while the supernatant is pumped to the heat exchanger. The pump used is the same as that

used for the hot water heater. The power requirement is 5 hp and the flow rate is 200 GPM and

the calculations are the same as shown above. Table 17 summarizes the calculations for the

kettle and pumps.

71 | P a g e

Table 17: Energy Calculations for the Boiling Kettle, Whirlpool Pump, and Outlet Pump.

Boiling Kettle Whirlpool Pump PumpQ=mCpdT Power Req'd Power Req'd

Temperature in Kettle: hp 5 hp 5

C 100 pump capacity pump capacityms = q / he GPM 215 GPM 215he kg/s 13.54 kg/s 13.54

kJ/kg 2257 running at 200 GPM running at 200 GPM

GPM 200 GPM 200kJ 1149.36 kg/s 12.59 kg/s 12.59

q Flow (kW) kW req'd at capacity

3.782 kW req'd at capacity

3.782

kW 0.1715 kW req'd at 200 GPM 3.518 kW req'd at

200 GPM 3.518

Steam Needed (kg/s)kg/s 0.0001

kg/hr 0.2736

kg steam Total

0.410

The hot wort flows from the kettle to the heat exchanger where cooling water also flows to bring

the wort to fermentation temperature. The heat transfer rate (q) can be calculated using Equation

13.

Equation 13

q=mt

Cp

ΔT

Running the pump at a flow of 200 GPM gives a run time of about 10 minutes. The change in

temperature in this process is from the boiling temperature of 100 C to fermentation temperature

of 21C.

72 | P a g e

q=

0.0041 kJkg∗K

∗(21−100 )∗7898 kg

606 sec=−7.64 kW

The pump calculations are the same as previously shown. Table 18 summarizes the energy

calculations for the heat exchanger below.

Table 18: Energy Calculations for the Heat Exchanger and Pump

Heat Exchanger Pumpq = cp dT m / t Power Req'd

q (heat transfer rate) hp 5

kW (kJ/s) -7.64 pump capacity

GPM 215Runtime kg/s 13.54

sec 606.27 running at 200 GPM

min 10.10 GPM 200kg/s 12.59

Q Total through Heat Exchanger

kW req'd at capacity

3.782

kJ -4630.78 kW req'd at 200 GPM 3.518

The fermentation tank keeps the beer at a constant 21°C while the reaction of glucose converting

to ethanol and carbon dioxide occurs. The heat of formation of ethanol and carbon dioxide from

glucose was used to estimate the heat generated in the fermentation tanks. From this an estimate

could be made regarding the cooling water required to provide adequate heat removal. The

stoichiometry of the chemical reaction is shown below and Equation 14 is used to calculate the

heat evolved.

73 | P a g e

C6 H 12O6 → 2C2 H5 OH+2 C O2

Equation 14

H °f =∑ H ° f products−∑ H °f reactants

H °f =((2∗−277.7 kjmol

C2 H5OH )+(2∗−394.5 kjmol

C O2))−(−1271.0 kjmol

C6 H 12O6)

H °f =−(1344.4 )−(−1271.0 )=−73.4 kjmol

In order to calculate the amount of heat given off per batch it was assumed that the wort being

fermented into beer had the same heat capacity as water, that all of the extract from the grain was

glucose, and that yeast had an attenuation of 75%. The heat of formation was recognized as

being exothermic and set positive to avoid confusion.

73.4 kjmol

∗1950

lbs∗453.59 glbs

∗mol

180.16 g∗75 %=−270,269.5 kj

Assuming the heat capacity of water at 21°C the temperature rise of the beer without cooling was

determined.

270,269.5 kj

4.185 kjkg∗K

∗1950 lbs∗kg2.204 lbs

=Δ73 K=Δ73 °C

The temperature tolerance of fermenting beer is between 15.5 and 26.6 °C. The non-ideal mixing

of ethanol and water results in a heat release of 777 j/mol; a small figure in comparison to the

74 | P a g e

enthalpy of formation released during glucose consumption and shall be assumed to be

negligible. The total heat to account for by the cooling water is summarized in Table 19. The

pump calculations are the same as mentioned previously.

Table 19: Energy Calculations for the Fermentation Tank and Pump.

Fermentation Tank PumpHeat of formation (kj/mol): -73.4 Power Req'd

Attenuation: 75%hp 5

lbs glucose: 1950 pump capacityM.W. (mol/lb) Glucose: 2.517 GPM 215

kg/s 13.54

running at 200 GPM

GPM 200kg/s 12.59kW req'd at capacity

3.782

Heat Evolved 270,269.5

kW req'd at

200 GPM3.518

Fermentation does not occur in the brightening tank because all of the yeast is filtered out

of the beer, preventing further reactions from occurring. Therefore, the cooling water only has to

maintain the tank temperature for conditioning purposes and was considered negligible.

The total amount of energy required for this process was plotted against the different

mashing temperatures tested. The differences in total energy (in kW) are outlined in Table 20 for

batch, monthly, and yearly differences and the batch scale differences graphed in Figure 17.

It can be seen from the graph that the energy required for each batch at different mashing

temperatures increases with temperature and is important for economic analysis. The mashing

75 | P a g e

temperature selected for this brewery is 70°C in order to sell our product for the most amount of

money as a result of the superior product quality. The cost resulting from the increased energy

requirement must not exceed the profit expected from sales otherwise the business will not be

successful in making a profit.

Table 20. Comparative Energy Consumption in kW for the Three Tested Mash Temperatures.

Total Energy (kW)

55C 63C 70C

kW per batch 113.44 122.44 130.615

kW per

month 1815.09 1958.98 2089.84

kW per year

21781.0

4

23507.7

5

25078.0

8

76 | P a g e

55C 63C 70C100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

Energy Requirement per Batch

Temperature of Mash

kW R

equi

red

Figure 17: Energy requirement difference for each experimental mash temperature, per batch.

77 | P a g e

Aspen Model Flow Sheet

Figure 18: Aspen Flow Sheet

78 | P a g e

79 | P a g e

Beer Pr o d u ctio n Mo d elin g

Str eam I D COLD -H 2 O EXTRA CT1 EXTRA CT2 EXTRA CT3 GRI ST H2 O VAPO RHO PS HTR1 - H2 O HTR2 - H2 O MA SH- H2 OMI LLGRN SPENTG RN SPRG- H2 O W ORT- BIT W ORT- SWTTemp eratu r e F 7 0 .0 1 4 5 .4 8 0 8 4 .2 1 4 0 .0 1 5 1 .3 2 1 2 .0 7 7 .0 7 0 .0 7 0 .0 1 5 2 .6 7 7 .0 1 4 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 1 2 .0 1 4 0 .0Pr essu re p sia 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 4 .5 0 2 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 4 .5 0 2 1 .0 0 0

Vap o r Fr ac 0 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .9 6 2 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Mo le Flo w lb m o l/h r 4 3 .0 5 8 2 2 .1 5 5 4 3 .6 8 4 4 3 .6 8 4 2 2 .1 5 5 2 .3 0 3 0 .1 4 1 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 0 .6 2 6 5 .4 0 4 2 1 .5 2 9 3 5 .9 7 6 3 8 .2 8 0Mass Flo w lb /h r 7 7 5 .7 0 8 5 0 0 .5 6 3 8 8 8 .4 1 7 8 8 8 .4 1 7 5 0 0 .5 6 3 4 1 .4 9 4 2 .5 3 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 1 1 2 .7 0 8 1 2 5 .6 6 3 3 8 7 .8 5 4 7 2 1 .2 5 9 7 6 2 .7 5 4Vo lu me Flo wcu ft/h r 1 2 .4 5 4 1 3 9 7 1 3 .6 7 3 4 .0 0 5 2 9 E+6 4 .0 0 5 2 9 E+6 1 3 9 7 1 3 .6 7 3 1 1 4 4 .7 7 9 0 .0 4 1 6 .2 2 7 6 .2 2 7 1 4 1 4 5 7 .8 4 8 1 .5 3 8 1 4 0 8 5 7 .1 4 8 1 2 .0 6 5

En th alp y Gcal/h r - 1 .3 3 4 - 0 .6 4 6 - 0 .0 6 0 - 0 .0 0 4 - 0 .6 6 7 - 0 .6 6 7 - 0 .5 6 1 - 0 .0 8 5 - 0 .5 6 1 - 1 .1 3 8 Mass Flo w lb /h r WA TER 7 7 5 .7 0 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 7 7 5 .7 0 8 7 7 5 .7 0 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 4 1 .4 9 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 3 8 7 .8 5 4 9 4 .2 1 8 3 8 7 .8 5 4 6 3 9 .9 9 7 6 8 1 .4 9 1

STARCH 1 1 2 .7 0 8 1 1 2 .7 0 8 STARCH- S 8 1 .2 6 3 8 1 .2 6 3 8 1 .2 6 3 tr ace 8 1 .2 6 3 8 1 .2 6 3 STARCH- I 3 1 .4 4 6 3 1 .4 4 6 DRYG RAI N 3 1 .4 4 6 3 1 .4 4 6

HOPS 2 .5 3 8 Mass Frac WA TER 1 .0 0 0 0 .7 7 5 0 .8 7 3 0 .8 7 3 0 .7 7 5 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .7 5 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .8 8 7 0 .8 9 3

STARCH 0 .2 2 5 1 .0 0 0 STARCH- S 0 .1 6 2 0 .0 9 1 0 .0 9 1 2 PPB 0 .1 1 3 0 .1 0 7 STARCH- I 0 .0 6 3 0 .0 3 5 DRYG RAI N 0 .0 3 5 0 .2 5 0

HOPS 1 .0 0 0 Mo le Flo w lb m o l/h r WA TER 4 3 .0 5 8 2 1 .5 2 9 4 3 .0 5 8 4 3 .0 5 8 2 1 .5 2 9 2 .3 0 3 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 2 1 .5 2 9 5 .2 3 0 2 1 .5 2 9 3 5 .5 2 5 3 7 .8 2 8

STARCH 0 .6 2 6 0 .6 2 6 STARCH- S 0 .4 5 1 0 .4 5 1 0 .4 5 1 tr ace 0 .4 5 1 0 .4 5 1 STARCH- I 0 .1 7 5 0 .1 7 5 DRYG RAI N 0 .1 7 5 0 .1 7 5

HOPS 0 .1 4 1

Aspen Model Description

A very modest attempt to model our brewery as one complete operation is depicted in Figure 18.

Ideal properties were used because the majority of the operation in a brewery takes place at

atmospheric pressure. The cold water flow into the plant was split into two streams, one for

mashing temperature and one for sparging. The heat duties calculated at each heater were in

BTU/hr and multiplied by the 388 lbs/hr resulted in an estimated 163,555,580 BTU/hr of heat is

being sent to heat a cold water stream from 70°F to 153°F. To see if this value was accurate we

calculated as if our batch process was operating continuously.

If we heated 9308 lbs/hr it would require:

9308 lbs2.204 lbs

kghr

∗4.134 kjK∗kg

∗(342 K−294 K )=Q=838024 kjhr

Modeling a batch process in aspen proved to be difficult because many of the components

required in our process were not available in the ASPEN. The most crucial component in our

system, fermentation, was not able to be modeled. For these reasons our project was based on

experimental results.

80 | P a g e

Hazard and Operability Study

The design of this brewery involves numerous reaction vessels and pipelines which have the

potential to present a risk to personnel or prevent an efficient operation. A hazards and

operability analysis (HAZOP) was performed on each component of the brewing process to

ensure all potential hazards and process limitations were acknowledged and preventative

measures were instilled in the design. The components from the overall flow diagram (see

Figure 16) were analyzed separately and are shown in Figure 19 through Figure 30.

Silo and Mechanical Solid Screw Auger

Figure 19: Silo and Auger Conveyer

A major concern for the silo component shown in Figure 19 is for metal impurities that

could either be a part of the shipment of grain, or enter the silo if it is not properly sealed. The

metal contaminants pose a hazard to the quality of the product. They also can cause a spark when

in contact with the other metal equipment resulting in a spark and potential explosion risk to the

fine dust created from the grain. Installing a magnet to remove any metal fragments

81 | P a g e

Inlet: Grain from grain truck

Silo

Mechanical Solid Screw Auger

contaminating the grain will reduce the risk of explosion and help ensure the purity and quality

of the product. Incorporating a safe distance between the building and the silo in the design is

also essential to reduce the risk of explosion.

Grain Mill

Milling the grain serves to the purpose of breaking down the husks to allow for more

absorption of the sugars to the water during the mashing process. During this grinding process, a

fine dust can accumulate on the other vessels in the brewery. This hazardous dust can lead to

possible explosion, but also forms a sticky, glue-like substance when in contact with water. It is

imperative to control the accumulation of this dust by covering the mill to collect any residue and

to install a vacuum system for debris removal. Another major concern regarding the quality and

purity of the product is the possibility of any contaminants in the grain. Ensuring that the silo,

conveyer and mill are enclosed and sealed reduces the risk of any environmental contaminants as

well as any insect or rodent contamination (Handbook of Brewing citation).

82 | P a g e

Grain Mill

Inlet: Intact Grain from

Silo

Outlet: Milled grain to Mash Tun

Figure 20: Diagram of Grain Mill.

Mash Tun

During mashing, starches are extracted from the grains and broken down through

enzymatic activity into simple sugars. At temperatures above 70oC and below 55oC, the enzymes

are denatured or inactive, preventing the cleaving of starches. Maintaining the temperature of the

vessel during the hour long mashing time is essential to extracting the maximum amount of

fermentable sugars and establishing the unique sugar profile of the wort. The major element

controlling the mash temperature is the insulation around the vessel. If there is a crack or defect

in the insulation, the tank temperature will fall below the brewer’s window (Priest & Stewart,

2006) and the product will need to be disposed of. If inlet water temperature from the hot water

heater is too high, the tank temperature would be too high and the batch would need to be

disposed of. A temperature indicator alarm must be installed to monitor the tank temperature and

prevent exceeding the optimum range. During mashing, the water/wort is heated and some

vaporization occurs. If boiling is induced from the hot water heater, the product is void, and a

buildup of pressure without a relief valve could cause the tank to rupture and leak. Overfilling of

83 | P a g e

Mash Tun Mash fed to Boiling Kettle

Milled Grain from Mill

Recirculated water

Water from Instant Hot Water Heater

Figure 21: Diagram of Mash Tun. The outer lines depict the insulation.

the tank can also cause tank rupture and leaking. This can be the result of over filling the tank if

the valve from the water supply fails to close. An LAH and shutoff valve should be installed to

prevent this occurrence.

Boiling Kettle

The boiling kettle employs a steam jacket to keep the liquid at a rolling boil for over an

hour. Boiling over due to excessive heat causes a loss of product, and the expelling liquid creates

a sticky film that is difficult to clean. If the pump speed is too high and the flow rate of the steam

is too fast, the tank could over heat and cause a boil over. If the pump fails, the inlet steam valve

is closed or not enough steam is produced, the tank temperature could be too low and a boil

would not be induced. The vessel could also be overfilled if the mash was diluted while being

transferred. This could cause a rupture or leak in the vessel and in turn, a loss of product. If the

84 | P a g e

Boiling Kettle

Steam from Generator

Hot Mash from Mash Tun

Recirculated Wort

Wort fed to Heat Exchanger

Figure 22: Diagram of the Boiling Kettle. The outer vessel is the steam jacket.

valves for the exit streams from the kettle are open during the transfer of the mash, the product

will immediately exit the tank. A FICA should be installed to acknowledge any open valves that

should be closed. In both the mash tun and boiling kettle steam jacketed vessels, a leak in the

dividing wall between the jacket and main tank would contaminate the product. An emergency

shut off should be installed for this case and routine inspection or maintenance should be

followed to ensure the structural integrity of the equipment. The recirculation line with the pump

induces the whirlpool to center the solids for wort removal.

Heat Exchanger

The heat exchanger quickly cools the wort draining from the kettle to be fed into the

fermentation tank. The glycol/water solution from the cooling unit reservoir is fed through the

heat exchanger and into the main water supply entering the heating unit. The essential aspect of

the heat exchanger is the flow rate of the hot and cold fluids. If the pump from the cooling unit

fails or has too fast of a flow rate, the product would be too hot or cold (respectively) entering

the fermentation tank causing yeast to die. If the pump from the boiling kettle fails or has too fast

of a flow rate, the same consequences would occur. If the city water valve leading to the cooling

unit is not opened, there would be no flow of the cooling solution to the heat exchanger and the

85 | P a g e

Heat Exchanger

Hot wort from Boiling Kettle

Warm water from Heat Exchanger

Cooled Wort fed to Fermentation Tank

Cold Water from Cooling Unit

Figure 23: Diagram of the Heat Exchanger.

liquid would be too hot entering the fermentation tank. Flow indicator alarms should be installed

on all streams around the heat exchanger to control the fermentation temperature is ideal for

yeast activity. Routine cleaning and maintenance of the equipment is also required. If a plate

should rupture, all of the product would be contaminated with glycol and water.

Primary Fermenter

Adding yeast to the wort to induce fermentation and the production of alcohol occurs in

the fermentation vessel. The tank is jacketed with the cooling glycol/water solution maintaining a

constant temperature. Temperature is a crucial element in the fermentation process in order to

maximize the functionality of the yeast. If the cooling unit keeps the solution at a temperature

that is too low or too high, the tank temperature will negatively affect the quality of the beer. A

temperature indicator alarm should be installed to monitor the coolant temperature and the beer

temperature. The flow of the coolant which is determined by a pump also affects the

temperature; therefore, an FICA should also be installed. Changes in pressure during the

86 | P a g e

Fermentation Tank

Cooled Wort from Heat Exchanger

Cooling Water Recirculated through Cooling Unit

Spent Yeast

Cooling Water from Cooling Unit

Beer fed to Filter Unit

Figure 24: Diagram of the Fermentation Tank. The outer vessel is the jacketed for cooling.

fermentation process are the result of carbon dioxide formation. If there is no relief valve on the

tank, pressure could build up and cause the tank to rupture or explode, or the jacket to leak into

the beer resulting in batch contamination. A pressure relief valve should be installed as well as a

bypass valve in case the relief valve became blocked. A PIA should also be utilized. Another

major concern for brewers is the potential of implosion (Yates, 2011). If a vent is not opened

when the solution is being pumped out, the negative pressure would cause the tank to fold in on

itself. It can be attempted to pressurize the tank in order to push the walls back out, but the

structural integrity of the material is compromised (Yates, 2011). A PIA and emergency pump

shutoff should be installed

Filter

The filter prevents any residual yeast or solid residue from entering the

brightening/conditioning tank which is directly linked to the bottling and keg filing steps of the

process. Ensuring that the quality of the product is consistent depends on the flow and pressure

within the filter unit. If filter clogs or is damaged, the major effect would be a delay in the

process or more damage due to pressure done to the filter. If the valve for the solid residue fails

to close, the product would be lost. If the valve from the tank does not open to remove the solid

accumulation, excessive amounts of solids would be sent to the filter contributing to clogging or

87 | P a g e

Figure 25: Diagram of the Filter.

Filter

Beer from Fermentation Tank

Filtered Beer fed to Brightening

Tank

filter unit damage. A FIA should be installed on the exit stream valve to monitor the flow of the

solid products. If there is damage to the filter or it becomes clogged resulting in a pressure

buildup, the unit or the piping could rupture and leak causing loss of product. Routine cleaning

and maintenance as well as a PIA should be used.

Brightening Tank

The brightening tank has the same jacketed structure as the fermentation tank, but all of

the yeast and solids are removed by the filter so there is no outlet for solid residue. In the

brightening tank, no additional fermentation occurs; the beer is conditioned by sitting and

allowing the flavors to develop. Carbon dioxide is also pumped into the vessel to carbonate the

beer before proceeding to the bottling and kegging lines. The temperature and pressure

concerns for the fermentation tank apply to the brightening tank, the only deviation being that

CO2 is pumped into the brightening tank as opposed to CO2 being produced during fermentation.

Excessive amounts of CO2 pumped into the tank without a relief valve could cause tank rupture

and leaking or explosion. If the CO2 tank had a leak in the line to the vessel, the product would

not be carbonated. A PIA should be installed to prevent wasting gas and delaying the process. If

88 | P a g e

CO2 Tank

Brightening Tank

Cooling Water from Cooling Unit

Filtered Beer from Filter Unit

Cooling Water Recirculated to Cooling Unit

Beer fed to Distribution Vessels

Figure 26: Diagram of the Brightening Tank.

the flow reversed back into the gas storage container, the unit could explode. A check valve

should be employed in the line from the cylinder to the tank.

Bottler/Labeler, Keg Filler, and In House Kegs

The bottling and kegging process is the major component for the distribution of product.

The in house kegs hold the lowest percentage of each batch, but all the storage containers share

similar hazards involving contamination, overfilling and pressurizing, and losing product to

spills. If the bottles are not washed and sterilized properly, or allowed to dry in a sterile

environment, bacterial growth and contamination can occur which would result in loss of

product. If the pump from the brightening tank has too high of a flow rate and the only one valve

is open (to either the in house, kegs, or bottler), pressure can build in the pipes and possibly

result in overflow and loss of product. If the valves are not open at all either to the filling units or

from the brightening tank, the process would be delayed, negative pressure could occur in the

pipes, and the pump could become damaged. Installation of FIAs could prevent this occurrence.

89 | P a g e

In House Kegs

Bottler/labeler

Keg Filler

Beer from Brightening Tank

Figure 27: Block Diagram for the Bottle/Labeler, Keg Filler, and In House Kegs.

Steam Generator

The steam generator plays a crucial role in product quality. Maintaining constant

temperature in the mash tun and boiling kettle is essential to reproduce the extraction and

fermentable sugar profiles which determines the taste of the beer and alcohol percentage. If the

steam flow is not controlled properly, the product could be lost. The steam also feeds to the

instant hot water heater to bring the mash water to temperature. If there is not enough water

flowing into the generator to maintain pressure in the pipes, or the natural gas burner

malfunctions, the inaccurate temperatures will cause loss of product. A PIA should be installed

to control the pressure in the piping. If condensation occurs within the pipes due to loss of

pressure and temperature, the wet steam will not provide adequate heat transfer to the vessel to

keep the product at temperature. Producing too much steam due to threshold sensor malfunction

can build pressure in the pipes and possibly cause pipe leaks and ruptures. Routine maintenance

and testing must be performed on the pressure sensor installed in the pipes to ensure that the

threshold is accurately measured. If the water line to the generator is blocked or the valve not

opened, no steam will be generated and therefore no product will be produced. Flow indicator

alarms should be installed to monitor water flow to the generator and detect any leaks that could

prevent enough steam from being produced.

90 | P a g e

Steam GeneratorCity Water Feed

Steam fed Boiling Kettle

Figure 28: Block Diagram of the Steam Generator.

Instant Hot Water Heater

The instant hot water heater is temperature controlled by electrical controls. The outlet

feeds directly to the mash tun which requires exact and constant water temperature. If the water

flows too low, the temperature of the water will be too high going into the mash. If the water

flow is too high, the mash temperature would be too low going into the mash causing loss of

product. Failure of valves to open leading into the mash tun can result in delay of the brewing

process and pressure buildup in pipes. A FIA and PIA should be installed to prevent the

deviations in water temperature.

Cooling Unit

91 | P a g e


City Water

Hot Water fed to Mash Tun

Cooling Unit

Cooling Water fed to Heat Exchanger

Cooling Water fed to Fermentation and Brightening Tanks

Recirculated Cooling Water

City Water

Figure 29: Diagram of the Instant Hot Water Heater.

Figure 30: Diagram of the Cooling Unit.

The cooling unit is another essential quality control component in the brewing process.

The glycol/water mix is kept in a temperature regulated reservoir and circulated to the jackets of

the fermentation tank, brightening tank and heat exchanger. Like the steam generator,

temperature control and flow is crucial to quality control of the process. If the unit malfunctions

and the temperature is either too hot or too cold, the water used to cold the wort and the tank

temperatures will be wrong causing a loss of product. If the pump malfunctions and the flow

rates to each component are too high or low, it will have the same loss of product consequence.

A TIA and FIA should be installed to monitor the temperature and flow in order to ensure

consistent product quality.

92 | P a g e

Environmental Impact Analysis

The brewing process accumulates solid wastes which must be disposed of according to

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection (DEP). According to CFR Title 40 section 243.203-1, solid waste containing food

products must be removed of at a minimum of once a week. Section 243.200-1 states that any

reusable waste containers that are manually emptied cannot exceed 75 pounds when filled or

have a capacity greater than 35 gallons in volume [243.200-1]. Therefore, when storing the spent

grain after mashing to be donated to a local farm must be removed from the premises every week

in 75 pound patches. Until removal, all waste containers must be stored on a drained surface

large enough to accommodate all barrels [243.200-2]. This brewery produces 2919 lbs of spent

grain (755 lbs of unabsorbed material which absorbed 2164 lbs of water); 39 barrels of grain will

be produced per batch meaning 156 barrels must be removed per week.

Yeast is another solid waste product that can be

reused for approximately 180 batches (Harris, 2011) before

it is necessary to re-pitch. Once the reused yeast is

exhausted, it can be sterilized and sent to farmers as a

protein additive for cows (Lehloenya KV, 2008). During

the filtration process, the wort is clarified using a

diatomaceous earth filter. Diatomaceous earth is an

aggregate of fossilized unicellular water plants called diatoms which have skeletal shell

comprised almost entirely of silica. The powder material is deposited on a mesh as a pre-coat and

added to the filter constantly to ensure there is always an active surface (Golden Harvest

93 | P a g e

Figure 31: Diatomaceous Earth

Organics LLC). The filter cake can become clogged and must be removed and replaced. In

powder form, diatomaceous earth can be toxic and carcinogenic when inhaled at a great

frequency and concentration, but is non-hazardous when wet (Baker, 2008).Under the Resource

Recovery Act (40CFR sect. 261) from the federal government, diatomaceous earth is not

recognized as a hazardous material unless it is used to filter hazardous material. The Connecticut

DEP has no requirements for disposal into sanitary sewers, therefore, the spent D.E. can be

discharged into the waste stream or removed to a landfill.

The waste water produced during the brewing process contains biological matter such as

enzymes and fermented beer contains alcohol. The cleaning supplies used in this process (Star

San and PBW, see Cleaning Materials) must also be considered when planning the waste

treatment system prior to releasing hazardous agents in to the public sewage water supply. The

cleaning materials used in this process are biodegradable, environmentally friendly, and the

chemicals are not included in any hazardous waste classification according to the Code of

Federal Regulations and the Connecticut DEP. Disposing of a contaminated or poor quality batch

of beer must adhere to the sewer compatible waste water regulations. Through the Connecticut

DEP, the “General Permit for Miscellaneous Discharges of Sewer Compatible (MISC)

Wastewater” must be filed. This permit states that a holding tank for waste water to be treated

must have a 110% secondary containment storage capacity and be equipped with a high level

alarm system to indicate that the vessel is at 80% capacity.

The effluent limitations are another major concern regarding waste water treatment. The

Connecticut DEP permit specifies acceptable biochemical oxidation demand (BOD) levels, pH

range, and turbidity of any filtered material in order to be discharged into the sewer mains. The

BOD the amount of oxygen required by aerobic biological organisms in a body of water to break

94 | P a g e

down the organic material present over a certain time period (usually 5 days) (ALAR

Engineering Corporation, 2010). The acceptable BOD as determined by the DEP is 600 mg/L;

however the average BOD of beer is greater than 25,000 mg/L (Russell, 2003)

A contaminated batch of beer that needs to be disposed of would therefore need to be treated in

order to be disposed of down the drain. Filters that separate solids from liquids must be installed

to bring the BOD level to acceptable standards before disposal. The DEP also requires the pH

range of 5.0 to 11.0 to be considered sewer compatible. Unfermented beer typically has a pH of

5.3-5.5, while fermented beer has a lower pH range of 3.8-4.5 due to yeast activity. The pH of

fermented beer is too high for sewers and must be treated with caustic solution to be neutralized

before disposal. The regulations for filtered materials dictate that the turbidity of a filtered

sample cannot be more that 1 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit). If the sample has a higher

turbidity, it must be re-filtered before being disposed of into the public water supply.

Other References:

(Steed, Steed, & Steed, 1992)

(Regulation, 1989)

95 | P a g e

Expenses

Batch Size Reduction

Having set the production of the brewery to 13,000 barrels a year the next task required

was to determine the volume per batch and number of batches per week. The decision to brew

four-1950 gallons batches a week was influenced by equipment and energy costs associated with

energy losses as well as the concerns with cost risk per batch.

The production throughput decided upon involves having eight 80-bbl fermentation tanks

and eight 80-bbl brightening tanks. An operation with double the volume and half the number of

brew days resulted in the requirement of four 145-bbl fermenters and brightening tanks. Larger

tanks required more energy to maintain the liquid inside of them at proper temperatures and the

larger surface area would incur larger energy losses than smaller tanks. This same logic was

applied across the process to the mash tun, boiling kettle, and instant water heater.

One critical factor that influenced the reduction in batch size was the fact that the instant

hot water heater required to heat the mash water directly depended on the amount of times a day

this brewery would be brewing. If this brewery was to brew two times a day for two days during

the week it would require two instant hot water heaters. This would be due to the fact that the hot

water would need to be heated for the first batch within a four hour time period and the same

would need to be done for the second batch. This would require a total energy consumption of

813 kW for the week. If one batch was done for four days a week there would only need to be a

single hot water heater. This hot water heater would be turned on at the end of a work day and

slowly heat the water into the mash tun over a 12 hour period. This hot water would be ready for

use when the employees arrived in the morning. The total energy required for the week to heat

96 | P a g e

the mash water in this case would only be 136.7 kW. This value is an 83% reduction in required

energy than using the two day a week method.

An additional concern that influenced the decision to choose smaller batch sizes was the

risk associated with potential contamination of product. A batch double in size represents double

the cost should it become unfit for consumption and have to be discarded. Thus, the most energy

efficient method and least cost-risk batch size for this process chosen and brewery output was

decided upon 1950 gallon batches to be brewed four times a week.

Grain Pricing

The distributor chosen for the grain used in this brewery would be The Country Malt

group out of New York. The most consumed type of gain in this brewery would be 2-Row Malt.

Each batch would require 2387 lb of 2-Row malt which in turn requires a silo for the bulk

storage of this grain. The type of 2-Row that would be chosen is manufactured by Canada

Malting Company. In order to maximize the amount of grain in the silo, The Country Malt

group is able to ship a truck load of about 48,500 lbs of this grain to the brewery for about

$17,295.10. This amount of grain would last this brewery about 4.25 weeks and would mean that

there would need to be about 12 truck-loads a year for a price of about $207,541. There are also

two types of specialty grain that would be used in this brewery; Caramel Malt and Carapils Malt.

The required amount of Caramel Malt per batch is 159 lbs which is equal to 2544 lbs a month.

The manufacturer for this grain is Thomas Faucet and Sons Malting which would be delivered

by The Country Malt Group. Once again, this company had the best extraction at 77% and the

lowest price of $0.13 per pound. This type of grain is sent in 55 lb bags on a pallet. Each pallet

contains 42 of these 55 pound bags and this brewery would require one pallet to be bought each

month. The total pallet cost for this grain with shipping would be $126.66 per month totaling

97 | P a g e

$1,519.92 each year. For the Carapils Malt the same amount of grain would be used as the

Caramel Malt. The manufacturer chosen for this type of malt would be the Malteries Franco-

Belges company which would be delivered by The Country Malt Group. The reason this

company was chosen was because the extraction was the highest at 85% and it had the lowest

price at $0.012 per pound. This brewery would require one pallet each month at a price of

$124.56 which totals $1,494.72 per year.

Water Usage

One of the main components of beer is water, and it is extremely important to estimate

how much money would be invested in water consumption each month. A brewery based in

Storrs, Connecticut would receive water from Windham Water Works. The going water rates

from Windam are $2.12 for each 100 ft3 of water. Each batch of beer produced in this brewery

would require 2238 gallons of water for brewing, with an additional 682.5 gallons being used for

cleaning and sanitizing. There is a total of 2958.5 gallons of water consumed for each batch and

the water usage per time summary is available in Table 21. After converting from gallons to ft3,

it was calculated that this brewery would pay $8.27 for each batch made, $132.29 each month

and $1,587.46 each year.

Total Water Per Batch (gallons)

Total Water Per Batch (ft3)

Total Water Per Month (ft3)

Price Water Per Batch

Price Water Per Month

Price Water Per Year

2920.5 390 6240 $8.27 $132.29 $1,587.46

Table 21: Price of Water Used in the Brewery for Each Batch and for Each Month.

98 | P a g e

Cleaning Materials

Aside from raw materials in this brewery it is necessary to purchase cleaning supplies. In

any brewery the largest concern is keeping the equipment and work areas clean and sanitized.

Failure to do so could possibly result in contamination of a batch which would result in an

economic loss to the company. Several choices of chemicals exist for cleaning the insides of the

fermentation tanks, mash tun, and boil kettle. This brewery has chosen to use Powdered

Brewer’s Wash (PBW) manufactured by Five Star. PBW is an alkali cleaner originally

developed for Coors and is now offered for use in any brewery across North America. The ratio

commonly used to clean the inside of any tank is one ounce of PBW added for every gallon of

water added. The equipment is soaked overnight and rinsed the following morning and does not

require any scrubbing. It is safe for use on soft metals, rubber gaskets, and has the added benefit

of not being harmful to exposed skin. It is an environmentally friendly, biodegradable product.

This brewery would require the use of 682.5 gallons of cleaning water per every batch (Priest &

Stewart, 2006, p. 95).

This number is based on the assumption that for each batch of beer made there will be an

additional 35% of water used for cleaning. Fifty percent of this fraction is estimated to be used

for general tank rinsing. Thirty percent of this water (102.38 gallons) would be used towards

cleaning the tanks with PBW as can be seen in Table 22. This amount of water would require

102.38 oz. of PBW per batch and equates to 102.38 pounds per month. The supplier Country

Malt sells PBW in 450 pound drums for $1000. Approximately one drum would be required

every 4 months. Another 15% of the total cleaning water was estimated to be used for general

warehouse house. Examples of this include rinsing the floors, cleaning instruments, and other

general rinsing.

99 | P a g e

Cleaning Water Usage Purpose Amount Chemical Needed

Chemical Price

50 % (341.25 gallons/batch)

Tank Rinsing N/A N/A

30% (102.38 gallons/batch)

PBW Washing 102.38 oz. / batch $1000 every 4 Months


General Rinsing N/A N/A


Star San Washing

4.41 oz. / batch $118 every 8 Months

Table 22: Break Down of Cleaning Water per Batch.

The final 5% (17.06 gallons) of the cleaning water would be used to make Star San

sanitizer solution. Star San sanitizer is a food-grade acid rinse for destroying microbes from

brewing and wine making equipment. It is self-foaming that allows for penetration of hard to

reach cracks and crevices. This chemical is flavorless as well as odorless. It is used as a soaking

solution and can be applied by hand or with a spray bottle. Typically one ounce of Star San is

used for every 5 gallons of water added. It is safe for use on all surfaces, but since it is a

phosphoric acid based cleaner it is recommended that contact with rubber, plastic and metal be

kept to a minimum. Star San is also environmentally friendly, biodegradable. In this brewery

Star San would be used to clean connections of piping as well as other small pieces equipment in

the in the brewing process. Each batch is estimated to require 3.41 oz. of Star San which equates

to 54.56 oz. a month. It is available in four gallons (case of 4 one gallon jugs) from Country malt

for $118. This would need to be purchased every four months (Northern Brewer, 2011).

100 | P a g e

Hop Pricing

Saaz and Cascade Hops would be used in the brewery according to the experimental

recipe, Table 5. Both of these hops would be bought from The Country Malt Group and be

delivered directly to the brewery. This brew recipe would require 36.6 lbs of Cascade hops for

each batch for a total of 585.6 lbs per month. The price per pound of these hops is $6.17 which

totals $3613.15 per month and $43,357.80 a year. This recipe would also require 24.4 lbs of Saaz

Hops per batch for a total of 390.4 lbs a month. The Country Malt Group sells Saaz at $7.26 per

pound which would total $2834.3 per month and $34,011.60 a year for this brewery.

Yeast Pricing

British Ale yeast (WLP005) produced by White Labs and distributed by The Country

Malt Group would be used for fermentation. This particular strain of yeast is excellent in

producing malty beers, has up to 90% attenuation, and comes in 1.6 liter packaging for $208. It

was estimated that 34.5 liters of yeast would be pitched for each batch. If new yeast were to be

pitched for every batch the price would equate to $4,576.00. Since yeast is a living organism that

grows and multiplies with each batch of beer, it can be cultured and reused many times. The

number of batches that yeast can be reused is dependent the time when yeast is removed from the

fermentation vessel and on the quality of the culture environment. A yeast culture has been

successfully used for over 180 generations and it has been assumed that culture conditions will

allow for an equivalent return on yeast purchases (Harris, 2011). Yeast would be purchased

approximately once per year.

CO2

After the beer has finished fermenting in the fermentation tanks it is pipes into

brightening tanks. There is a very small amount natural formation of CO2 during the fermentation

101 | P a g e

process. This small amount is calculated to be 8.4 x 10-3 lbs of CO2/gallon of beer for each batch.

This value does not hit this brewery’s target concentration of 0.024 lbs of CO2/gallon of beer. In

order to achieve this, CO2 must be pumped into the sealed brightening tank in order to further

carbonate the beer. Each batch would require an additional 47.57 lbs of CO2 to be added during

this process. An outdoor CO2 holding tank must be constructed in order to store large amounts of

CO2 for multiple batches. The choice of distributor for this tank and supplier of CO2 would be

Esquire Gas Company. They would be able to supply this brewery with a 4 ton capacity CO 2

tank to be constructed directly outside of the warehouse for an installation cost of $10,000. An

additional rental fee would apply, costing $400 dollars a month. The unit cost of CO2 from

Esquire is $0.15/pound and tank recharges would be on a request basis. The proposed tank has a

4 ton capacity it would only need to be filled once each year. The annual cost for CO 2 would be

$6,170.00 a year to rent and fill, plus a start-up cost of $10,000. The first two years would cost

$16,170.00.

O2

Aeration of the wort requires oxygen to be fed into the cool stream coming out of the heat

exchanger. The calculated amount of oxygen required for each batch is 0.127 lbs. This oxygen

must be on hand for each batch within the brewery. To achieve this, this brewery would use Aero

All Gas as their oxygen supplier. A requirement of 2.032 lbs of O2 each month would require a

244 ft3 oxygen tank containing 21.8 lb. The cost for filling the tank is $29.95 and an annual

rental fee costs $50.00. The capacity of the cylinder is estimated to be 10 batches and would

require a monthly refill. There would be a $20 delivery charge per making the total first year cost

$649.40.

102 | P a g e

Diatomaceous Earth

Since this brewery would be using a diatomaceous earth filter, it is necessary to acquire

the D.E. powder for the filter. It is calculated that this brewery would need one and a half 50 lb

bags of diatomaceous earth for every batch produced (Yates, 2011). This leads to a total amount

of (24) fifty pounds bags of DE per month. This DE would be acquired from Country Malt for a

price of $36 per bag and equate to $864 each month.

General Waste Disposal

In order to dispose of bulk trash items and bulk cardboard, this brewery would need to

rent two dumpsters from Willimantic Waste Company based in Willimantic, CT. Both dumpsters

would be 8 cubic yards in size. One would be specifically used for trash and the other for

cardboard. A bi-weekly pickup schedule would be chosen due to the fact that the dumpster’s size

will allow for longer fill periods than if a smaller dumpster size was chosen. It would cost the

brewery $129 a month to rent the trash dumpster and an additional $30 a month to rent the

cardboard dumpster. The total amount for general waste disposal would be $159 dollars a month,

which would need to be paid to the Willimantic Waste Company for their services.

103 | P a g e

Labor

Proprietor

The owner of the brewery has the greatest amount of responsibility in this company.

They are responsible for overseeing all of the operations performed within the brewery. They are

in charge of making all decisions related to expenses such as ordering equipment, hiring new

employees, setting their salaries and benefits, and how to make the company grow. The owner

must balance the company’s budget and by limiting spending that does not contribute towards

generating revenue. Economic growth and company expansion are the goals for the owner if the

company and its employees are to prosper. Apart from making day to day decision the owner

must be willing to adapt to customer and industry demands in order to stay competitive in the

market. This can mean exploring process improvements to upgrade the production flow. The

104 | P a g e

Proprietor

Brewer Master

Cleaner Brewer’s Assistant Inventory/Distribution Specialist

Secretary

Figure 32: Labor Distribution Tree

optimization of process efficiency is extremely important in order to save the company money.

This is a concern the owner must always keep in mind and is trying to achieve with as little

spending as possible. Ideally in this brewery the owner should approximately make $100,000

annually.

Secretary

The secretary for the brewery plays an important role in keeping the company organized

and maintaining positive public relations. Not only is it important the secretary makes sure that

the public view the company in a professional manner but also to help maintain a good rapport

among employees, venders, and customers. They are directly responsible for answering and

returning telephone calls as well as emails for the brewery. Tours that will occur within the

brewery for the general public must be organized and set up by the secretary. The secretary must

also set up meetings for the owner with possible clientele or any other general company

representative. Another very important role the secretary plays in the company is maintaining

and updating all of the brewery’s records. In this brewery the secretary will have an annual base

salary of $30,000.

Head Brewer

The head brewer’s main responsibility is to maintain a consistent output of beer. They

are in charge of checking the amounts and quality of brewing materials to maintain superior

quality. The head brewer is in charge of overseeing the entire brewing operation from barley to

105 | P a g e

beer, including the overseeing of tank controllers. Not only is the head brewer responsible for

brewing the beer, they are also in charge of the warehouse staff. They need to make sure that all

of the brewery’s day to day operations are running in an efficient and effective manner. Once a

batch has reached its completion it must be inspected and tested for quality control. The head

brewer is responsible for making sure each batch has brewed correctly before he can certify it to

be distributed. The head brewer is also responsible for the upkeep of the brewery’s equipment

and instruments. Another important part of the head brewer’s responsibilities involve research

and development by the experimenting with different recipe combinations for future beers. In

this brewery the head brewery is expected to make $55,000 annually for their base pay salary.

Cleaner

The cleaner is the aseptic technician in the brewery, responsible for maintaining the

cleanliness of the entire brewery. They are specifically responsible for keeping all of the brewing

process equipment sanitized and clean. Improper sanitation of the facility can lead to product

contamination and the loss of an entire brew day’s production. The cleaner is also responsible for

maintaining the quality of the waste water leaving any part of the brewery. It is important that the

cleaner treats and wastewater stream to federal standards if it is necessary. They are also in

charge of distributing and transferring spent grain to the farmers for pick up daily. General

housekeeping is also a key component to the cleaner’s responsibilities. In this brewery the

cleaner is expected to make $30,000 annually for their base pay.

106 | P a g e

Brewer’s Assistant

The brewer’s assistant’s role in the brewing process is to perform non-critical tasks so

that the head brewer can maintain quality control. Duties can include operating the mill, augers,

and pumps as well as transferring specialty malt to the mill for each batch. Other duties include

removing spent grain from mash tun and trub from the boiling kettle after each batch and

collecting samples for the head brewer to analyze. They must monitor and upkeep all of the

fermentation tanks and brightening tanks in the brewery. It is important that they inspect and

make sure all of the fermenters and brightening tanks remain at constant temperatures during

fermentation and carbonation. The brewer’s assistant is also in charge of running the bottler,

kegger, and labeler for each batch. It is also important that they be able to give tours to interested

members of the general public upon their visits to the brewery. In this brewery the brewer’s

assistant is expected to make $30,000 annually for their base pay salary.

Inventory/Distribution Specialist

The inventory/distribution specialist’s role key role is to the logistics to ensure smooth

flow of materials into and out of the brewery. They are in charge of securing all finished product

for the distributors and involves packing kegs and cases of bottles onto pallets. They are in

charge of operating the forklift to transfer heavy materials to and from the loading dock. They

are in charge of inspecting and signing off for all material entering and leaving the premises as

well as directing incoming materials to their respective locations around the plant. They will

maintain up to date inventory and distribution records and manage the timing for future orders.

The inventory/distribution specialist is expected to make $35,000 annually.

107 | P a g e

Profitability Analysis

Distribution

Once the final product has finished being packaged, whether it is in keg form or bottle

form, it must be sent out to stores, bars, and restaurants. In order to achieve this, the brewery

needs to select a distributor in order to eliminate the need for having added expenses such as

buying a truck, fuel costs, driver salary, as well truck maintenance.

Connecticut is what is known as a “three tier state” when it comes to the distribution

process (Budweiser, 2011). This means that the brewery sets its own price for each item that will

be sold to the distribution company. Once they come and pick it up they are allowed to again set

their own higher price to sell to their clients in order to make a profit. The bars and restaurants

that receive the beer from the distributor then can sell it for their own price to make a profit as

well.

In the case for this brewery, the Budweiser Distribution Company based out of

Manchester, CT was the choice of distributor. The BD Company is able to reach out to a larger

number of states and spread the word about the product better than many of the smaller

Connecticut distributors. They are simply the largest company in this business and using them is

the best option for getting the product out there.

In the case of this brewery, 99% of all products will be sent out with the distributor and

only 1% will be kept for in house sales. On a monthly basis 1006 kegs will be sold to the

distributor for $85.00 each for total monthly sales of $85,510.00. This can be seen in Table 23 as

well as 6880 cases (24-packs) of bottles per month at $18.00 a case for total monthly sales of

$123,840.

108 | P a g e

This particular brewery will also keep 1% of its final products to be used in house. The

16 kegs per month collected will be used for open houses and sold in pint form at $4.50 a pint.

This brings the total monthly sales for the use of in house kegs to $8,928.00. In the case of

bottles, there will be 320 per month used for testing and quality control within the brewery. This

is to ensure that all batches are being produced in a consistent manner.

Table 23: Product Distribution

Distributed (99%) Number/Batch Number/Month Monthly Sales Yearly SalesKegs 63.0 1006 $85.00 /Keg $85,510.00 $1,026,120.00Bottles (24 Pack) 430 6880 $18.00 /24 Pack $123,840.00 $1,486,080.00

In House (1%) Number/Batch Number/Month Monthly Sales Yearly SalesKegs 1 16 $4.50 /Pint $8,928.00 $107,136.00Bottles 20 320 N/A N/A

Totals $218,278.00 $2,619,336.00

Unit Price

Unit Price

N/A

The reason for choosing a set keg price at $85.00 and a set bottle price at $18.00 is due to

the fact that the beer created in this brewery would be of high craft brew quality. A higher

quality beer such as this one means that the market it is being distributed will be willing to spend

the extra money as compared to lower quality beers for the better beer drinking experience.

Spent Grains

The solid waste that comes out of the mash tun in the form of spent grains needs to be

disposed of in some form. There are many solutions to this problem for any type of brewery. One

largely reusable way of disposing of spent grains is to use them for compost. This method helps

provide an ecofriendly disposal of the grains which can even be used as a growing medium for

109 | P a g e

mushrooms. This method however is not widely used since the smell that is developed from the

rotting grain is unpleasant and overpowering.

Another use for spent grain on a smaller scale is to dry out the grain and mill it into flour

for the use in baked goods or dog biscuits. This is not a very cost effective method for a brewery

to do them-selves due to energy requires to dry and then further mill the grain.

Yet another use for the grain is to convert it into ethanol to be used as a petroleum

alternative. Coors brewing company has been working with Merrick & Company since before

2005 in order to meet a growing demand for this fuel-ethanol product. Bio-plastics can also be

constructed from spent grains but is a fairly new process. It requires the grain to be fully dried

until it can be processed and is currently not the most favored option.

Perhaps the most common use for spent grain is the unrefined use of it as feed for

animals and birds. Many breweries use the grain as feed for cows since cattle require as much as

20 pounds of grain per pound of beef (O'Brien, 2007). This is the most cost effective method to

dispose of this waste. Local farmers will come by and pick up the grain in order to get it for free

from the brewery. This is an ideal situation for both parties since the brewery does not need to

pay for the disposal of the waste and the farmer does not need to buy grain for his cattle.

110 | P a g e

Economic Analysis

In order to determine the economic feasibility of a venture it is crucial to perform a

profitability analysis. Once this analysis is completed a decision to move forward with the

venture, alter the original proposal, or cease planning would be taken. An economic analysis of

this particular process was performed using the “Estimation of Capital Investment by Percentage

of Delivered Equipment Method” analysis (Max S. Peters, 2003).

In the case of this particular brewery all of the equipment needed were priced out exactly

with specific sizing and quotations provided by different manufacturers. There were a total of 21

items that were considered essential pieces of equipment needed in order to carry out the

complete brewing process. A list of these pieces of equipment, their respective manufacturers,

and price can be seen in Table 24.

There is an initial purchase cost of $984,353.86 for all the equipment needed for this

brewery. Based off the purchased equipment cost there is an estimated 3% installation fee and

another 2% for the installation and calibration of electronic equipment. In order to account for

the building structure, 6% of the purchase equipment cost was chosen for the price due to the fact

that this brewery would be a small to medium size operation. This was also chosen because the

building materials and structure would be that of a typical warehouse so it would be relatively

inexpensive. An additional 1% was assigned to go toward preparing the land and maintaining the

general area of the business. All of these percentages were chosen based on given ranges

provided by the model for each category (Max S. Peters, 2003).

111 | P a g e

Table 24: Essential Equipment, Capital Costs, and Manufacturers.

It is also important to consider indirect costs when constructing any new process plant.

General engineering and supervision costs were estimated to be 10% of the purchased equipment

cost as well as the general construction costs accounting for an additional 8%. Legal expenses

were set to be 1% in order to achieve assistance with federal and state regulations as well as

different contract negotiations. In order to account for different types of unforeseen events, a

contingency of 8% was chosen of the purchased equipment cost. All of these percentages were

chosen based on provided ranges given by the model for each category (Max S. Peters, 2003).

112 | P a g e

Item Manufacturer PriceSilo Brock Grain Systems $10,000.00Auger 1 N/A $7,000.00Auger 2 N/A $7,000.00Mill Pleasant Hill Grain Company $7,100.00Grain Vacuum JET $499.00Mash Pump AAA Metal Fabracation $2,471.00Brew Pump AAA Metal Fabracation $4,276.00DE Filter Della Toffola $73,633.86Mash Tun AAA Metal Fabracation $42,336.00Boil Kettle AAA Metal Fabracation $33,048.00Heat Exchanger AAA Metal Fabracation $15,000.00Fermentation Tank (8) AAA Metal Fabracation $268,096.00Brightening Tank (8) AAA Metal Fabracation $242,232.00Refridgeration Room Foster Coolers $5,199.00Bottling Machine Ager Tank & Equipment $51,635.00Labeling Machine Ager Tank & Equipment $19,800.00Kegging Machine Ager Tank & Equipment $18,900.00Hot Water Heater Hubble $5,000.00Glycol-Water Chiller Glycol Chillers $24,000.00Steam Boiler AAA Metal Fabracation $113,890.00Piping AAA Metal Fabracation $33,238.00

Total $984,353.86

The working capital chosen was 75% of the purchased equipment cost due to the fact that this is

the given estimated percentage for this type of solid-fluid processing plant. This is very

important to a company since it is what is necessary to invest in raw materials and supplies

carried in stock, accounts receivable, money for monthly salaries, accounts payable, and taxes

payable. In the case of this brewery it is $1,388,000. The fixed capital investment is also

extremely important since it is the money necessary to instillation and preparation of the entire

designed process and in this process it is $738,000. Summing the fixed capital investment and

the working capital total capital investment is acquired and in this case it is $2,126,000.

The amount of profit, raw material cost, as well as annual operating costs is all factored

into the analysis. In this particular brewery the raw materials used as well as their manufacturer

and price can be seen in Table 25. The total amount of raw materials needed in this brewery per

year is $263,470.07.

The amount of products that are priced out to be sold in this process total $2,619,336, as

mentioned earlier. Also, the total cost that went to employee labor and salaries was mentioned

earlier is $393,000. These three components were then factored in with all of the yearly utility

costs for this brewery.

113 | P a g e

Item Manufacturer Price (Batch) Shipping/Delivery/Rental Price (Year) Price (Year)2-Row Barley Canada Malting Company 2387 lbs $0.35 / lb $835.45 Included $160,406.40Caramel Malt Thomas Faucet and Sons 159 lbs $0.013 / lb $2.07 $1,344.00 $1,740.86Carapils Malt Malteries Franco-Belges 159 lbs $0.012 / lb $1.91 $1,344.00 $1,710.34Diatomaceous Earth Country Malt 50 lbs $0.72 / lb $36.00 $480.00 $7,392.00Saaz Hops Country Malt 24.4 lbs $7.26 / lb $177.14 Included $34,011.65Casecade Hops Country Malt 36.6 lbs $6.17 / lb $225.82 Included $43,357.82British Ale Yeast (WLP005) White Labs 34.5 L $132.64 / lb $25.42 Included $4,576.08

$1,331.96 $3,168.00 $263,470.07

Amount (Batch) Unit Price

Totals

Table 25: Raw Materials and Respective Manufacturer and Prices.

There are five different types of utilities used within this brewery. These utilities can be

viewed in Table 26 along with their provider and yearly costs. The use of all of these utilities

totals to $1,681.89 and does not include the electricity to run the equipment.

The amount of electricity required to run this particular process was calculated using the

amounts of energy required to run each piece of equipment. These amounts of energy were

calculated previously in the energy balance and can be seen in Table 27. The total required

amount of energy per year is equivalent to 262,878.91 kW which costs $26,782.10. The cost for

waste disposal is also taken into account with the utilities. The use of non-hazardous waste

disposal was mentioned earlier and totaled $1,908 a year. All of utilities that would be required

to run this process on a yearly basis totals about $39,000. This value is then sent to the to the

annual total production cost analysis. First however, the depreciation value is calculated for the

facility. The depreciation method used in this provided model is the 5-year MACRS model and

calculates the decrease in value of a facility over time. These totals are eventually used to

calculate the final evaluation. Next, the annual total production cost is calculated which

essentially the combination of everything previously calculated. In the case of this brewery,

114 | P a g e

Item Provider Price (Batch) Shipping/Delivery/Rental Price (Year) Price (Year)

Water Windham Water Works 413.2 ft3 $0.02 /ft3 $8.76 $1,681.89 $1,681.89Natural Gas DOE Connecticut 2203.08 ft3 $0.0095 /ft3 $20.84 Included $4,001.50Water Windham Water Works 651 ft3 $0.02 /ft3 $13.80 Included $2,649.83CO2 Esquire Gas 47.57 lbs $0.15 / lb $7.14 $4,800.00 $6,170.02O2 Aero All Gas 0.127 lbs $1.37 / lb $0.17 $70.00 $103.41

$8.76 $6,551.89 $1,681.89Totals

Amount (Batch) Unit Price

operating supervision is represented to be 15% of the operating labor. In addition, property taxes

are factored in to be 2% of the fixed capitol income as well as 8% being for financing, and 1%

going toward insurance. The plant overhead in this brewery is set to be 50% of the labor price.

The price of bottles and labels is added at this stage which is quoted to be $2,800 per year as well

as the price of cleaning solution per year which is $3,118. After adding all of these components,

the total product cost (without depreciation) is $1,141,000, which is sent to the final evaluation.

All percentage values chosen in this section were based on ranges provided by the model (Max

S. Peters, 2003).

The final evaluation takes into account some additional factors such as the federal income

tax amount (35%) and the annual-compounding discount rate which was chosen to be 21%. After

final calculations, this particular brewery’s payback period is 1.8 years with an average return on

115 | P a g e

Component Energy Required (Year) Energy Cost (Batch) Energy Cost (Year)Auger 1 0.196 kW 37.632 kW $0.0200 $3.83Auger 2 0.196 kW 37.632 kW $0.0200 $3.83Mill 34.856 kW 6692.352 kW $3.5511 $681.82Grain Vacuum 1.13 kW 216.96 kW $0.1151 $22.10Brewing Pump 21.06 kW 4043.52 kW $2.1456 $411.95Mash Pump 2.24 kW 430.08 kW $0.2282 $43.82DE Filter 20.74 kW 3982.08 kW $2.1130 $405.69Mash Tun 2.24 kW 430.08 kW $0.23 $43.82Refridgeration Room 1.864 kW 134.208 kW $0.19 $13.67Bottling Machine 4.32 kW 829.44 kW $0.4401 $84.50Labeling Machine 0.054 kW 10.368 kW $0.0055 $1.06Kegging Machine 3.3 kW 633.6 kW $0.34 $64.55Hot Water Heater 40.63 kW 7800.96 kW $4.14 $794.76Glycol-Water Chiller 660 kW 237600 kW $67.24 $24,206.69

Totals 792.826 kW 262878.912 kW $80.77 $26,782.10

Energy Required (Batch)

Table 27: Energy Costs for Each Piece of Equipment.

investment being 30.6% per year. These calculations provide a total net profit of $6,680,000

over ten years.

116 | P a g e

Final Decision

There are many factors to go into making a brewery a reality but it is essential to

calculate if it is actually feasible or not. After extended investigation it is apparent that this

brewery is a good invest on many levels. On an engineering and mathematical level, the mass

balances and energy balances for this process were able to be closed. This solidifies that the

equipment, as well as the configuration of the equipment, is arranged in a sound engineering

manner. In addition to a mass and energy balance, the constructed kinetic model using

experimental HPLC data provided results that were able to be of use for future brewing choices.

Choosing a quality of beer and using the kinetic model would allow this brewery to easily be

able to calculate the mash temperature required. Another optimization aspect that was

investigated was the batch size reduction. By brewing in smaller batch sizes more times a year

this brewery was able to calculate that it would require far less energy by brewing a batch size of

1950 gallons. It was also investigated that using a single hot water heater and brewing four days

a week with one batch each day cut the energy cost required to heat the wort in half. Full pricing

of equipment as well as raw materials, utility costs, and the cost of labor were all priced out.

These values, as well as other factors, were used in order to conduct a profitability analysis on

this brewery. The profitability analysis provided promising results in that the payback period

would be 1.8 years with a possible net profit of $6,680,000 over a ten year period. This profit

would able to be used for future expansion of the company which would produce a greater output

and in turn a greater amount of profit per year.

Another key component was choosing where this brewery should be located as well as

the size of the brewery. The craft brewing market represents a niche that is growing at a quick

117 | P a g e

rate. Investing in this type of industry at this period in time would be a good business venture.

The market provides great room for expansion as well an opportunity to emerge as a successful

brewery in a short amount of time with good product distribution. The chosen location of Storrs,

CT provides an atmosphere where there is an unlimited supply of consumers. Selling to local

bars would provide an increase in demand for this brewery’s beer as well as brand recognition

generating an increase in overall net profit over time. Overall, this is an excellent investment and

a sound business decision.

118 | P a g e

Figure 33: Bottle Label Design

Horsebarn PilsHusky Brewing Company

Works Cited

Ultraviolet and Visible Absorption Spectroscopy (UV-Vis). (2000). Retrieved from The Chemistry Hypermedia Project: http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/spec/uv-vis/uv-vis.html

ALAR Engineering Corporation. (2010). Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Retrieved April 2011, from ALARWater Pollution Control Systems: http://www.alarcorp.com/applications/biological-oxygen-demand-bod

Baker, J. (2008). Material Safety Data Sheet: Diatomaceous Earth.

Boilers, P. (n.d.). Steam Boiler Manual.

Briggs, D. E., Boulton, C. A., Brookes, P. A., & Stevens, R. (2004). Brewing Science and Practice. Woodhead Publishing.

Britannica, E. (2011). Refractive Index.

Budweiser, H. (2011, March). Distribution Specifications. (R. J. Jr., Interviewer)

Container, K. (2011). Bottle Quote. Diana Boyle.

Coolers, F. (n.d.). Refridgeration Room Quote.

Equipment, B. P. (n.d.). Ampco AC-216 Centrifugal Pump.

Equipment, I. (n.d.). RVS HELICOIDAL IMPELLER PUMP .

Fabrication, A. M. (2011, April). Brewery Quote.

Fix, G. (1989). Principles of Brewing Science. Brewers Publications.

Golden Harvest Organics LLC. (n.d.). Diatomaceous Earth. Retrieved April 2011, from Golden Harvest Organization: http://www.ghorganics.com/DiatomaceousEarth.html

Goldhammer, T. (2008). The Brewer's Handbook. Apex.

Grain, P. H. (n.d.). Specifications, Table A. Hampton, Nebraska .

Harris, T. (2011, March). Long Trail Brewery. (M. Williams, Interviewer)

Heater, H. H. (n.d.).

119 | P a g e

Hemad Zareiforoush, M. H. (n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains. Journal of Agricultural Science.

Lehloenya KV, S. D. (2008). Effects of feeding yeast and propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield and components, and reproduction*. Pub Med, 190-202.

Max S. Peters, K. D. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill higher Education.

Northern Brewer. (2011). Star San. Retrieved from Northern Brewer: http://www.northernbrewer.com/brewing/star-san.html

O'Brien, C. (2007). Grains of Possibility: Ways to Use Spent Brewing Grains. Retrieved from American Brewer: http://beeractivist.com/2007/04/15/grains-of-possibility-ways-to-use-spent-brewing-grains/

Palmer, J. J. (2006). How To Brew . Brewers Publications.

Priest, F. G., & Stewart, G. G. (2006). Handbook of Brewing. Taylor & Francis.

Regulation, C. (1989). Title 40: Protection of Environment. Retrieved April 2011, from eCFR: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d7773ee6b09450c54ab24e0f8726bd32;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A22.0.1.1.3.8;idno=40;cc=ecfr

Russell, I. (2003). Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing. Academic Press.

(n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains.

Steed, A., Steed, A., & Steed, A. (1992). Filters and Filtration. National Rural Water Association.

Swadesh, J. (2001). HPLC: practical and industrial applications. CRC Press.

Tank, A. (n.d.). Bottle Labeler and Keg Quote.

Toffola, D. (n.d.). DE Filter Quote.

UV-Vis Absorption Spectroscopy. (n.d.). Retrieved from Sheffield Hallam University: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/uvvisab1.htm

Williams, J. L. (2011, April). Natural Gas Futures Close. Retrieved from Natural Gas Futures Prices - NYMEX: http://www.wtrg.com/daily/gasprice.html

Yates, M. (2011, April 5). Tour of Hooker Brewery. (B. Beacham, Interviewer)

120 | P a g e

121 | P a g e

Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 30000

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

f(x) = 105.684366666667 x + 19326.9500000001R² = 0.96554072870651

Fructose Calibration

PPM Solution

Are

a of

Pea

k

Figure 34: Fructose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 30000

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

f(x) = 83.3786 x + 477.499999999985R² = 0.983417577594197

Dextrose Calibration

PPM Solution

Are

a of

Pea

k

Figure 35: Dextrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections

122 | P a g e

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 30000

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

f(x) = 121.3668 x + 15671.3R² = 0.990396872174367

Sucrose Calibration

PPM Solution

Are

a of

Pea

k

Figure 36: Sucrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 30000

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

f(x) = 108.337 x − 8671.1666666666R² = 0.996715300051667

Maltose Calibration

PPM Solution

Are

a of

Pea

k

Figure 37: Maltose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections

123 | P a g e

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 30000

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

f(x) = 103.8404 x − 12110.3R² = 0.967700021157684

Maltotriose Calibration

PPM Solution

Are

a of

Pea

k

Figure 38. Maltotriose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 22000

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

f(x) = 26.747 x − 5833.16666666666R² = 0.961109796357125

Maltotetraose Calibration

PPM Solution

Area

of P

eak

Figure 39. Maltotetraose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections

124 | P a g e

Table 28. Sequence Run for All Trials at All Temperatures

Reps

Vial

Injection Volume

(uL)Sample ID Method Filename

1 40 20 Water BlankBioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met 41211.001

3 50 20 Standard Solution 2000 ppm Bioferment Standard.met 41211.002


1 40 20 Water BlankBioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met 041211-2.001

3 51 20 Standard Solution 500 ppm Bioferment Standard.met 041211-2.002







3 54 20 Standard 1500 ppm Bioferment Standard.met 041311-2.002

1 40 20 Water BlankBioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met 41411.001

2 55 20 70C t=0 Bioferment Standard.met 41411.002






1 40 20 Water BlankBioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met 041511.001c

1 41 20 Standard 2500 ppm Bioferment Standard 2.met 041511.002c1 42 20 70C t=15 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0032 43 20 70C t=20 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0041 44 20 70C t=25 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0052 45 20 70C t=30 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0061 46 20 70C t=35 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0072 47 20 70C t=40 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0081 48 20 70C t=45 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0092 49 20 70C t=50 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.010

1 40 20 Water BlankBioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met 041511.001e

125 | P a g e

2 50 20 70C t=55 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0112 51 20 70C t=60 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.012


1 41 20 Standard 2500 ppm Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0141 52 20 63C t=0 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.015

1 40 20 WBBioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met 041511.001f

1 53 20 63C t=5 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0161 54 20 63C t=10 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0171 55 20 63C t=15 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0181 56 20 63C t=20 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0191 57 20 63C t=25 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0201 58 20 63C t=30 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0211 59 20 63C t=35 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0222 60 20 63C t=40 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0231 61 20 63C t=45 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0242 62 20 63C t=50 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0252 63 20 63C t=55 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0262 64 20 63C t=60 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.027


1 33 20 55C t=60 dilution 50x Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0291 32 20 55C t=60 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0301 41 20 Standard 2500 ppm Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0311 34 20 55C t=55 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0321 35 20 55C t=50 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0331 36 20 55C t=45 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0341 37 20 55C t=40 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0351 38 20 55C t=35 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0361 39 20 55C t=30 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0371 22 20 55C t=25 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0381 23 20 55C t=20 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0391 24 20 55C t=15 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0401 25 20 55C t=10 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0411 26 20 55C t=5 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.0421 27 20 55C t=0 Bioferment Standard 2.met 41511.043

Table 29. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=70C mashing temperature.

T=70 C Datat=5 min

Fructose Dextrose Sucrose Maltose Malt-3 Malt-4Area Trial 1 0 298946 20023 4460Area Trial 2 10259 27029 0 339463 57263 18123

126 | P a g e

Average Area 10259 27029 0 319204.5 38643 11291.5Dilution 205180 540580 0 6384090 772860 225830

Corresponding C 1758.64 6478.74 -129.12 58846.40 7326.17 8225.10

t=10 minFructose Dextrose Sucrose Maltose Malt-3 Malt-4

Area Trial 1 6048 22391 6102 206216 7098Area Trial 2 - 15928 0 223124 15002 102565

Average Area 6048 19159.5 3051 214670 15002 54831.5Dilution 604800 1915950 305100 21467000 1500200 5483150

Corresponding C 5540.05 22975.92 2384.68 198064.69 14330.60 204782.47


Area Trial 1 14881 17747 185073 26293 16690Area Trial 2

Average Area 14881 17747 0 185073 26293 16690Dilution 1488100 1774700 0 18507300 2629300 1669000

Corresponding C 13898.31 21281.67 -129.12 170746.07 25204.06 62181.43


Area Trial 1 192379 75939Area Trial 2 24780 5527 187296 33468 5658

Average Area 0 24780 5527 189837.5 33468 40798.5Dilution 0 2478000 552700 18983750 3346800 4079850

Corresponding C -182.88 29717.55 4424.73 175143.80 32113.73 152316.78


Area Trial 1 4189 30884 2260 0 1366 18309Area Trial 2


Corresponding C 3780.97 37039.13 1732.96 -80.04 1198.86 68234.45


Area Trial 1 30956 10714 272602 25688 44959Area Trial 2 112939 15069 36141

Average Area 0 30956 10714 192770.5 20378.5 40550Dilution 0 3095600 1071400 19277050 2037850 4055000

Corresponding C -182.88 37125.49 8698.43 177851.01 19508.28 151387.70

127 | P a g e




Corresponding C 3155.50 57442.16 7982.44 303891.72 39311.34 126427.89


Area Trial 1 16771 13091 228044 50566 23681Area Trial 2 1510 30919 16070 227110 74240 25182

Average Area 9140.5 22005 16070 227577 62403 24431.5Dilution 914050 2200500 1607000 22757700 6240300 2443150

Corresponding C 8466.34 26389.02 13111.39 209978.11 59978.72 91124.87




Corresponding C 27540.43338 42804.9958 14875.41402 256778.9256 67661.69106 99695.92104


Area Trial 1Area Trial 2 11901 18128 266729 59504 15317

Average Area o 11901 18128 266729 59504 15317Dilution 0 1190100 1812800 26672900 5950400 1531700

Corresponding C -182.88 14269.55 14807.03 246116.20 57186.92 57048.15


Area Trial 1 13162 19427 12381 302400 27050 19649Area Trial 2 9373 17110 275480 28796 33985

Average Area 11267.5 18268.5 12381 288940 27923 26817Dilution 1126750 1826850 1238100 28894000 2792300 2681700

Corresponding C 10479.02 21907.19 10071.92 266617.40 26773.79 100043.62



128 | P a g e

Average Area 28765.5 54553.5 25115.5 238986.5 48072 32212.5Dilution 2876550 5455350 2511550 23898650 4807200 3221250

Corresponding C 27036.55 65430.04 20564.22 220509.31 46177.68 120215.98

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Dextrose

Time (Minutes)

ppm

Figure 40. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Sucrose

Time (Min)

ppm

Figure 41. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C

129 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Maltose

Time (min)

ppm

Figure 42. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Maltotriose

Time (Min)

ppm

Figure 43. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C

130 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Maltotetraose

Time (Min)

ppm

Figure 44. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C


T = 63 C DataT=0

Fructose Dextrose Sucrose Maltose Malt-3 Malt-4Area Trial 1 19734 29686 4050 113523 14663 15315


Corresponding C 18490.47 35602.16 3207.78 104703.97 14004.14 57040.66

T=5Fructose Dextrose Sucrose Maltose Malt-3 Malt-4

Area Trial 1 10095 29248 2435 167328 31699 27042Average Area 10095 29248 2435 167328 31699 27042

Dilution 1009500 2924800 243500 16732800 3169900 2704200Corresponding C 9369.54 35076.80 1877.14 154367.07 30410.15 100884.84




T=15

131 | P a g e



Corresponding C 46887.52 87925.54 4371.17 241969.99 53484.11 47615.31






Dilution 2313600 10053400 0 32438800 1520300 1184000Corresponding C 21709.62 120582.37 -129.12 299336.61 14524.17 44048.56








Area Trial 1 9690 89149 23838 325264 8216 12774Area Trial 2 16979 95816 20858 315891 21742 14197

Average Area 13334.5 92482.5 22348 320577.5 14979 13485.5Dilution 1333450 9248250 2234800 32057750 1497900 1348550

Corresponding C 12434.93 110924.82 18284.00 295819.45 14308.46 50200.65


132 | P a g e


Dilution 2010900 9344600 1078900 36970100 984000 1807600

Corresponding C18845.3160

5112080.514

68760.22905

2341161.425

19359.49537

867363.3229

9



Average Area 31028.5 118667.5 7989.5 389386.5 35295.5 32694.5Dilution 3102850 11866750 798950 38938650 3529550 3269450

Corresponding C 29177.92 142333.00 6453.65 359331.54 33873.65 122018.05



Average Area 19350.5 121459 2074.5 418852.5 40983.5 12552Dilution 1935050 12145900 207450 41885250 4098350 1255200

Corresponding C 18127.58 145681.33 1580.12 386529.25 39351.31 46710.54




Corresponding C 6322.61 161510.77 5895.44 419603.37 9328.68 106040.56

133 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Dextrose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

50000100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000

Maltose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


134 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Maltotriose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Maltotetraose

Time (Minutes)

ppm



135 | P a g e

T = 55 C Datat=0 min


Average Area 13679 14522 2592 23526 14786 132331367900 1452200 259200 2352600 1478600 1323300

Corresponding C 12760.91 17413.37 2006.50 21634.93 14122.59 49256.62


Area Trial 1 75053 10310 - 63863 7174 14059Average Area 75053 10310 0 63863 7174 14059

7505300 1031000 0 6386300 717400 1405900Corresponding C 70836.23 12361.19 -129.12 58866.80 6792.08 52344.82


Area Trial 1 - - - - - -Average Area 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0Corresponding C -182.88 -5.37 -129.12 -80.04 -116.62 -218.09



1647500 6878200 0 8933100 2333900 1321800Corresponding C 15406.63 82496.73 -129.12 82374.27 22359.30 49200.54



1541900 8275000 0 4740200 1237100 1175500Corresponding C 14407.39 99250.96 -129.12 43672.96 11796.90 43730.77



1393100 10146100 600600 8056600 920600 753100Corresponding C 12999.37 121694.28 4819.39 74284.00 8748.94 27938.34

t=30 min

136 | P a g e


Average Area 21374 89785 10545 166547 17912 127302137400 8978500 1054500 16654700 1791200 1273000

Corresponding C 20042.33 107689.25 8559.19 153646.20 17132.99 47376.03



2173800 12275100 895000 17445100 1134400 2148800Corresponding C 20386.76 147231.05 7245.03 160941.75 10807.88 80119.89



2872600 12738100 469900 16874300 3370900 1245200Corresponding C 26999.18 152784.60 3742.51 155673.15 32345.82 46336.67



1138900 11400 378100 1314900 1713400 4141900Corresponding C 10593.99 131.37 2986.15 12056.75 16383.76 154636.66



329000 7413400 1526300 17770900 1063700 1092000Corresponding C 2930.29 88916.31 12446.48 163948.95 10127.02 40608.92



564800 3300500 237100 19249900 1032000 1336800Corresponding C 5161.55 39583.21 1824.41 177600.41 9821.74 49761.35


Area Trial 1 34474 110419 3307 313866 12650 12458

137 | P a g e

Average Area 34474 110419 3307 313866 12650 124583447400 11041900 330700 31386600 1265000 1245800

Corresponding C 32438.24 132439.16 2595.61 289624.60 12065.58 46359.10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Fructose

Time (Minutes)

ppm

Figure 49. Fructose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

20000400006000080000

100000120000140000160000180000

Dextrose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


138 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

1000

2000

30004000

50006000

70008000

9000

Sucrose

Time (Minutes)

ppm

Figure 51. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Maltose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


139 | P a g e

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Maltotriose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Maltotetraose

Time (Minutes)

ppm


140 | P a g e

Appendix – B: Mathematica Code for Kinetic Model

Sugar Profile Model for Mash Temp = 70 CDefine Time, Initial Concentration Boundaries and Final Desired ConcentrationsClear[t];Clear[B]

Time =3600;

A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)H = A/B; (* Fitting parameter to determine size of higher order sugar *)M4 = H/4;M3 = H/3;M2 = H/2;M1 = H/1;

r8= k8*Capp[t];r4= k4* Chos[t];r3= k3* Chos[t];r2= k2* Chos[t];r1= k1* Chos[t];

rapp= Capp'[t] -r8;rhos= Chos'[t] H*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;rm4= Cm4'[t] M4*r4;rm3= Cm3'[t] M3*r3;rm2= Cm2'[t] M2*r2;rm1= Cm1'[t] == M1*r1;

ini0 = Capp[0] == 1.435;ini1 = Chos[0] 0;ini2 = Cm4[0] 0;ini3 = Cm3[0] 0;ini4 = Cm2[0] 0;ini5= Cm1[0] == 0;Defining Emperical Reaction Rates and Final Concentrationsk8 = .001;k4= .0005; k3= .0007;k2= .0006;k1= .0005;

cm4fin = 0.167;cm3fin = 0.085;

141 | P a g e

cm2fin = 0.669;cm1fin = 0.513;hosfin = 1.435 - (cm4fin+cm3fin+cm2fin+cm2fin);

Solving for each Concentration symbolically (Functions of: Time and Rate Constants)Clear[t]

Solution=DSolve[{rapp,rhos,rm4 ,rm3 ,rm2 ,rm1, ini0, ini1, ini2, ini3, ini4, ini5},{Capp, Chos,Cm4 ,Cm3 ,Cm2, Cm1},t];

funcCapp=Solution[[1,1,2]]//FullSimplify;funcChos = Solution[[1,2,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm4 = Solution[[1,3,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm3 = Solution[[1,4,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm2 = Solution[[1,5,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm1 = Solution[[1,6,2]] //FullSimplify;

Defining Sum of Squares Function (Used to minimize final concentrations)SS[B_] =((funcChos[t]-hosfin)2+(funcCm4[t]-cm4fin)2+(funcCm3[t]-cm3fin)2+(funcCm2[t]-cm2fin)2+ (funcCm1[t]-cm1fin)2);

Defining constraints of rate constantscons0 = (B>0);cons1 = (B 0);

(* The Master Constraint *)consALL = cons0 && cons1;

Minimizing function, extraction and storage of calculated rate constants, and sum of squares value(* Calculating the best starch parameter *)Clear[Bcalc]t = 3600;

{B1calc} = {B}/.Last[ NMinimize[{SS[B],consALL},{B}]]

"Sum of Squares After"SS [Bcalc]{787.116}Sum of Squares After(-0.669+18627.9/Bcalc^2)2+(-0.085+24837.3/Bcalc^2)2+(-0.513+37255.9/Bcalc^2)2+(-0.167+155233./Bcalc^2)2+(0.155 +132.799/Bcalc)2

Plugging values into numerical differential equation solver and plottingClear[t];Time =3600;

142 | P a g e

A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)HOS = A/B1calc;M4 = HOS/4;M3 = HOS/3;M2 = HOS/2;M1 = HOS/1;


rapp= Capp'[t] -r8;rhos= Chos'[t] HOS*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;rm4= Cm4'[t] M4*r4;rm3= Cm3'[t] M3*r3;rm2= Cm2'[t] M2*r2;rm1= Cm1'[t] == M1*r1;

ini0 = Capp[0] == 1.435;ini1 = Chos[0] 0;ini2 = Cm4[0] 0;ini3 = Cm3[0] 0;ini4 = Cm2[0] 0;ini5= Cm1[0] == 0;

(* Solving System of Differential Equations *)SolveIt = NDSolve[ {rapp,rhos,rm4,rm3,rm2,rm1, ini0, ini1, ini2, ini3, ini4,ini5}, {Capp, Chos, Cm4, Cm3, Cm2, Cm1}, {t,0,Time}];

"Final Compositions"TextForm[" Amylopectin " ]NumberForm[Capp[Time]/.SolveIt , {5,4}] TextForm[" Higher Order Sugars "] NumberForm[Chos[Time]/.SolveIt , {5,4}] TextForm[" M. Tetraose "] NumberForm[Cm4[Time]/.SolveIt , {5,4}] TextForm[" M. Triose " ]NumberForm[Cm3[Time]/.SolveIt , {5,4}] TextForm[" Maltose " ]NumberForm[Cm2[Time]/.SolveIt , {5,4}] TextForm[" Glucose " ]NumberForm[Cm1[Time]/.SolveIt , {5,4}]

(* The Plotting *)CappPlot =

143 | P a g e

Plot[Evaluate[Capp[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Black}];

ChosPlot = Plot[Evaluate[Chos[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Orange}];

Cm4Plot = Plot[Evaluate[Cm4[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Red}];

Cm3Plot = Plot[Evaluate[Cm3[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Cyan}];

Cm2Plot = Plot[Evaluate[Cm2[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Green}];

Cm1Plot = Plot[Evaluate[Ca[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Blue}];

AllPlot1 =Show[CappPlot,ChosPlot,Cm4Plot,Cm3Plot,Cm2Plot, Frame True,FrameLabel {{"Concentration(mol/L)", ""},{ "Time (Seconds)","Wort Carbohydrate Profile @ 70 Celsius"}}, PlotRange All ]

Final Compositions{0.0392} Amylopectin {0.0070} Higher Order Sugars {0.0655} M. Tetraose {0.1223} M. Triose {0.1572} Maltose {0.2620} Glucose


Time =3600;

A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)H = A/B; (* Fitting parameter to determine size of higher order sugar *)

144 | P a g e

M4 = H/4;M3 = H/3;M2 = H/2;M1 = H/1;


rapp= Capp'[t] -r8;rhos= Chos'[t] H*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;rm4= Cm4'[t] M4*r4;rm3= Cm3'[t] M3*r3;rm2= Cm2'[t] M2*r2;rm1= Cm1'[t] == M1*r1;


cm4fin = 0.147;cm3fin = 0.073;cm2fin = 1.181;cm1fin = 0.932;hosfin = 2.3324 - (cm4fin+cm3fin+cm2fin+cm2fin);



funcCapp=Solution[[1,1,2]]//FullSimplify;funcChos = Solution[[1,2,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm4 = Solution[[1,3,2]] //FullSimplify;

145 | P a g e

funcCm3 = Solution[[1,4,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm2 = Solution[[1,5,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm1 = Solution[[1,6,2]] //FullSimplify;






"Sum of Squares After"SS [B2calc]{503.189}Sum of Squares After0.57612




146 | P a g e





(* The Plotting *)CappPlot = Plot[Evaluate[Capp[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Black}];




147 | P a g e






Time =3600;

A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)H = A/B; (* Fitting parameter to determine size of higher order sugar *)M4 = H/4;M3 = H/3;M2 = H/2;M1 = H/1;


rapp= Capp'[t] -r8;rhos= Chos'[t] H*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;rm4= Cm4'[t] M4*r4;

148 | P a g e

rm3= Cm3'[t] M3*r3;rm2= Cm2'[t] M2*r2;rm1= Cm1'[t] == M1*r1;


cm4fin = 0.167;cm3fin = 0.085;cm2fin = 0.669;cm1fin = 0.513;hosfin = 1.8087 - (cm4fin+cm3fin+cm2fin+cm2fin);



funcCapp=Solution[[1,1,2]]//FullSimplify;funcChos = Solution[[1,2,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm4 = Solution[[1,3,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm3 = Solution[[1,4,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm2 = Solution[[1,5,2]] //FullSimplify;funcCm1 = Solution[[1,6,2]] //FullSimplify;




149 | P a g e



"Sum of Squares After"SS [B3calc]{570.172}Sum of Squares After0.127087






150 | P a g e



(* The Plotting *)CappPlot = Plot[Evaluate[Capp[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time}, PlotStyle{Black}];







151 | P a g e


152 | P a g e

Appendix – C: Malt Analysis Charts

153 | P a g e

FGDB ppg CGDB DP Color Price/55 lb bag $/poundBriess Organic 2-Row 50 80.5% 36.57 79.50% 150 1.8 $0.86 $0.016

Briess 2-Row 50 80.5% 36.57 79.50% 150 1.8 $0.54 $0.010Canada Malting 2-Row 36.80 80.00% 1.5-2.1 $0.46 $0.008

Great Western Premium 2-Row 36.80 80.00% 1.8-2.2 $0.53 $0.010Thomas Fawcett CaraMalt 35.42 77.00% 20-27 $0.73 $0.013

Briess Caramel 60L 73.0% 33.58 60 $0.74 $0.013Briess Organic Caramel 60L 73.0% 33.58 60 $0.97 $0.018

Franco-Belges Caramel Pilsen 39.10 85.00% 8-12 $0.68 $0.012Briess Organic Carapils 73.0% 33.58 1.5 $0.94 $0.017

Briess Carapils 73.0% 33.58 2.5 $0.73 $0.013

Appendix – D: H.A.Z.O.P. Charts

Table 32: HAZOP - Process Component: Silo and Mechanical Screw Auger

Study Node Process Parameters

Deviations Possible Causes Possible

Consequence Action Required

Silo Tower Level none1. delay in shipping of grains

unable to run batch process, loss of sales

continuous shipping schedule contract with distributor

more 2. delay in brewing schedule

silo overflow, contamination of grain

auxiliary storage

less3. grain lost during transfer from truck

grain contamination closed conveyer

Composition As well as

4. contaminants in truck/environment

grain contaminationroutine cleaning/maintenance

as well as 5. fine dust build up possible explosion

keep silo safe distance from building, proper ventilation

Auger Conveyer level less

6. auger conveyer to mill malfunction


routine cleaning/maintenance

Flow reverse7. auger conveyer to mill malfunction


routine cleaning/maintenance, FIA

Concentration

As Well As

8. Metal Impurities

Damage conveyer, induce spark for explosion

Install magnet to remove metal contaminants

154 | P a g e

Table 33: HAZOP - Process Component: Grain Mill

Study Node Process Parameters Deviations Possible Causes Possible


Mill level More9. overfilling the mill with grain from silo

overflow, contamination of grains

coordinate flow rate of auger conveyer to milling capacity

Less10. Auger conveyer rate too slow

wear to the mill, waste of energy

coordinate flow rate of auger conveyer to milling capacity

11. Rupture of vessel wall loss of product Routine

cleaning/maintenance

Residue More

12. Fine dust from grain accumulating from milling process

Explosion, accumulation on surfaces, becomes sticky when in contact with water

Cover the mill to collect the dust and install vacuum system to remove accumulation

Concentration

As Well As 13. Impurity contamination of

grains/product

silo and conveyer closed from environment, inspection of grains before entering mash tun

155 | P a g e

Table 34: HAZOP - Process Component: Mash Tun




Mash Tun

Level Less 1. Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product Install LIA

2. Outlet Valve to boiling kettle Fails to Close

Compromised quality of product Install FICA

2. Outlet Valve to recirculation Fails to Close

Compromised quality of product Install FICA

3. Leak From Vessel Door Loss of Product

Install New Gasket, Routinely Inspect water tight seal before each use

3. Pump from mash tun remains on

Loss of ProductInstall a FICA and emergency pump shutoff

3. Recirculation valve fails to open

Lower extraction grom grain Install FICA

More4. Valve for city water does not close

Dilute Batch, loss of product Install a FICA

As Well As

4. Recirculation valve fails to close

Product constantly recirculated, inaccurate extraction from grain

Install FICA

Pressure Less 6. Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product

Install Pressure Release Valve and PIA

7. Leak on Pressure/ Temperature Gauge

Loss of ProductInspect seals before use, add temporary seal

More 8. Overfilling of Tank

Tank Explosion/Rupture

Install LAH and shutoff valve

156 | P a g e

9. Boiling induced

Tank Explosion/Rupture, loss of product due to exceeding temperature

Install TIA

Temperature Less 10. Not enough steam in heater

loss of product due to inactive enzymes


11. Leak in insulation

Wear of material, corrosion

Inaccurate temperature, loss of product

11. City water flow rate through heater too high

Mash Temperature too low, loss of product

Install FICA and TIA

11. Steam service failure, generator malfunction

Mash Temperature too low, loss of product


More 11. Inlet hot water too hot



11. City water flow rate through heater too slow

Mash temperature too high, loss of product


11. Steam Temperature in heater is too high



Insulation

Temperature Less

12. leak in insulation material in between tank

Tank Temperature is too low

Install a FICA and TIA

13. Mash temperature too low



157 | P a g e

More17. Mash Temperature too high

Tank Temperature is too hot


Table 35: HAZOP - Process Component: Boiling Kettle



Boiling Kettle Level Less 44. Rupture of

Vessel Wall Loss of Product Install LIA

45. Outlet Valve Fails to Close Loss of Product Install FICA

46. Leak From Vessel Door Loss of Product


More47. Valve for city water does not close

Dilute Batch, loss of product Install a FICA

48. Steam Jacket Ruptures into Vessel

Product Contamination

Install Emergency Shut off

Pressure Less 49. Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product


50. Leak on Pressure/ Temperature Gauge


More 51. Overfilling of Tank Loss of product Install LAH and

shutoff valve52. Temperature too high

Loss of product due to boil over Install TIA

Temperature Less 53. Not enough

steamTank temperature too low


158 | P a g e

More54. Steam Temperature is too high

Tank temperature is too high, boil over

Install TIA and LAH

Steam JacketFlow Less

55. Inlet valve Fails - Remains Closed



56. Steam Service Failure



57. Operator Error



58. Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too low


No59. Inlet valve Fails - Remains Closed



60. Steam Service Failure



61. Operator Error



62. Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too low


More63. Inlet valve Fails - Remains Open



64. Controller Fails and leaves inlet valve open



65. Operator Error



66. Pump speed too high



Temperature Less 67. Inlet steam

supply is too low Tank Temperature is too cold


68. inlet valve remains closed

Tank Temperature is too cold


159 | P a g e

69. Pump speed too low

Tank Temperature is too cold


More70. Inlet steam supply is too high



71. inlet valve Fails - Remains open



72. Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too hot


160 | P a g e

Table 36: HAZOP - Process Component: Heat Exchanger




Heat Exchanger Flow Less

73. Valve from city water fails to open

Product too hot entering fermentation tank

Install FIA

74. Valve from boiling kettle fails to open

Process delay/waste if cooling water Install FIA

75. Pump from boiling kettle fails

Process delay/waste of cooling water Install FIA

76. Pump from cooling unit fails


Install FIA

77. Plate rupture, crack

inadequate heat transfer, product not at temperature for fermentation

Routine cleaning/ maintenance

More78. Valve from City water fails to close

Product too cool entering fermentation tank

Install FIA

79. Valve from boiling kettle fails to close

Flow rate to high, product too hot entering fermentation tank

Install FIA

80. Pump from boiling kettle flow too fast

Flow rate to high, product too hot entering fermentation tank

Install FIA

81. Pump from cooling unit flow too fast

Product too cool entering fermentation tank

Install FIA

No82. Valve from city water fails to open


Install FIA

161 | P a g e

83. Valve from boiling kettle fails to open

Process delay/waste if cooling water Install FIA

84. Pump from boiling kettle fails

Process delay/waste of cooling water Install FIA

85. Pump from cooling unit fails


Install FIA

Table 37: HAZOP - Process Component: Primary Fermenter

Study Node Process Parameters Deviations Possible Causes Possible Consequence Action Required

Fermentation Vessel

Level Less Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product Install LIA

Outlet Valve Fails to Close Loss of Product Install FICA

Leak From Vessel Door Loss of Product


More Inlet valve Does not close Product Contamination Install a FICA

Cooling Jacket Ruptures into Vessel

Product Contamination Install Emergency Shut off

Pressure Less Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product


Leak on Pressure/ Temperature Gauge


not opening a vent while pumping out liquid

Tank implosion, damage to vessel

Install PIA and emergency pump shut off

More Overfilling of Tank



162 | P a g e

CO2 Outlet blocked


Pressure Release Bypass Valve, Install PIA

Temperature LessCooling Water Temperature is too cold

Reactor Failure due to Yeast Death

Install TIA on Cooling Water In/Out

MoreCooling Water Temperature is too high



Cooling Jacket

Flow LessInlet water valve Fails - Remains Closed

Tank Temperature is too High


Cooling water Service Failure



Operator Error Tank Temperature is too High


Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too High


No Same as Less

MoreInlet water valve Fails - Remains Open

Tank Temperature is too Cold


Controller Fails and leaves Inlet water valve open



Operator Error Tank Temperature is too Cold


Pump speed too high



Temperature LessInlet Cooling water supply is too low

Tank Temperature is too Hot


Inlet water valve Flow too high



Pump speed too high



163 | P a g e

MoreInlet Cooling water supply is too high



Inlet water valve Fails - Remains Closed



Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too Cold


Table 38: HAZOP - Process Component: Filter



Filter Flow LessValve from fermentation tank fails to close

loss of product Install FIA

Pump failure Flow rate too low, delay in process Install FICA

Filter clogsdamage to unit, delay in process, loss of product

Routine cleaning /maintenance

Filter unit damaged

damage to unit, delay in process, loss of product


More Pump failure Flow rate too high, clogging in unit Install FICA

Valve from fermentation tank fails to open

yeast sent to filter unit, clogs filter

Install FIA, routine cleaning/maintenance

NoValve from fermentation tank fails to close

loss of product Install FIA

Pump failure Flow rate too low, delay in process Install FICA

164 | P a g e

Filter clogs

damage to unit, delay in process, loss of product, damage to pump


Rupture in Piping loss of product Install FICA

Pressure More Filter clogsdamage to filter unit, product not adequately filtered

Routine cleaning/maintenance

Pump failure

Flow rate too high, damage to filter unit, product not adequately filtered

Install PIA

Filter damaged, cracked plates

damage to unit, delay in process, loss of product

Routine cleaning/maintenance

LessValve from fermentation tank fails to close

loss of product Install PIA

Pump failure Flow rate too low, delay in process Install PIA

Crack in filter wall loss of product Routine cleaning/maintenance

NoValve from fermentation tank fails to close

loss of product Install PIA

Pump failure No flow, delay in process Install FICA

Rupture of filter wall loss of product Routine

cleaning/maintenance

Rupture in Piping loss of product Install FICA

165 | P a g e

Table 39: HAZOP - Process Component: Brightening Tank



ConsequenceAction

Required

Brightening Tank

Level Less Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product Install LIA

Outlet Valve Fails to Close Loss of Product Install FICA

Leak From Vessel Door Loss of Product


More Inlet valve Does not close

Product Contamination Install a FICA

Cooling Jacket Ruptures into Vessel

Product Contamination

Install Emergency Shut off

Pressure Less Rupture of Vessel Wall Loss of Product


Leak on Pressure/Temperature Gauge


not opening a vent while pumping out liquid

Tank implosion, damage to vessel Install PIA

carbon dioxide not flowing into tank

beer not carbonated

install a PIA and FIA

More Overfilling of Tank Tank Explosion/Rupture


Over carbonation Tank Explosion/Rupture

Install a pressure release valve

CO2 Outlet blocked Tank Explosion/Rupture

Pressure Release Bypass Valve, Install PIA

166 | P a g e

Temperature LessCooling Water Temperature is too cold



MoreCooling Water Temperature is too high



Cooling Jacket

Flow LessInlet water valve Fails - Remains Closed



Cooling water Service Failure



Operator Error Tank Temperature is too High


Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too High


No Same as Less

More Inlet water valve Fails - Remains Open



Controller Fails and leaves Inlet water valve open



Operator Error Tank Temperature is too Cold


Pump speed too high Tank Temperature is too Cold


Temperature Less Inlet Cooling water supply is too low



Inlet water valve Flow too high



P-1 speed too high Tank Temperature is too


167 | P a g e

Hot

More Inlet Cooling water supply is too high



Inlet water valve Fails - Remains Closed



Pump Failure Tank Temperature is too Cold


CO2 Tank Pressure More reverse flow back into container

Container explosion

Install a check valve

Less Leak in lineproduct not carbonated, waste of material

Install PIA

Vessel cracked, leaking

waste of material, product not carbonated

Install PIA

Level Less Leak in lineproduct not carbonated, waste of material

Install PIA

Vessel cracked, leaking

waste of material, product not carbonated

Install PIA

More Line blocked product not carbonated Install FIA

No Vessel leakedwaste of material, product not carbonated

Install PIA and Check valve

Flow Less Line blocked product not carbonated Install FIA

Valve not fully openprocess delay, product under-carbonated

Install FIA and PIA

168 | P a g e

More leak in line product under/not carbonated Install PIA

Reverse liquid leaking into pipeline

pressure in tank, loss of product

Install check valve

No Line blocked product not carbonated

Install FIA and PIA

Table 40: HAZOP - Process Component: Keg Filler



Keg Filler Flow Less Valve to filler fails to open

Delay in process, pressure build in pipes

Install FIA

Valve to Bottler full open

Delay in process, loss of product to bottles

Install FIA

Valve to In House Vessels full open

Delay in process, loss of product to In House storage

Install FIA

Valve from Brightening Tank fails to open

Delay in process, possible pump damage

Install FIA

Pump from brightening tank fails

Flow rate too low, delay in process Install FICA

Keg Filler malfunction

unable to fill kegs, loss of sales

Routine maintenance, Install FICA

MorePump from brightening tank fails

Flow rate to high, over flow, pressure build

Install FICA

Valves to Bottler and In house full closed


Install FIA

169 | P a g e

No Valve to filler fails to open


Install FIA



Install FIA






Rupture in piping Loss of product Install FIA

Level Less Valve to Keg filler fails to open


Install FIA

Keg filler malfunction

Inaccurate product levels, loss of sales Install FICA



MoreValves to Bottler and In house full closed


Install FIA

Keg filler malfunction

Overflow, loss of Product Install FICA

No Valve to filler fails to open


Install FIA





Pressure More Overfilling kegs Rupture in keg, loss of product and sales Install LAH

170 | P a g e

Valve to filler fails to open


Install FIA

Less Under filling kegs Inaccurate product levels, loss of sales Install LAL

No Keg Filler malfunction




Table 41: HAZOP - Process Component: Bottler/Labeler



ConsequenceAction

Required

Bottler Flow Less Valve to bottler fails to open


Install FIA

Valve to keg filler full open

Delay in process, loss of product to bottles

Install FIA

Valve to In House Vessels full open

Delay in process, loss of product to In House storage

Install FIA



Install FIA



Bottler malfunction unable to fill kegs, loss of sales




Install FICA

Valves to keg filler and In house full closed


Install FIA

171 | P a g e

No Valve to bottler fails to open


Install FIA



Install FIA






Level Less Valve to Bottler fails to open


Install FIA

Bottler malfunction Inaccurate product levels, loss of sales Install FICA



MoreValves to keg filler and In house full closed


Install FIA

Bottler malfunction Overflow, loss of Product Install FICA

No Valve to bottler fails to open


Install FIA




Pressure More Overfilling bottlesRupture in bottles, loss of product and sales

Install LAH

172 | P a g e

Valve to bottler fails to open


Install PIA

Less Under filling bottles

Inaccurate product levels, loss of sales Install LAL

No Bottler malfunction




Composition

As Well As

Contaminant in Bottles

Contamination of product

Adequate rinsing and sanitizing

Table 42: HAZOP - Process Component: In House Kegs



In House Kegs Flow Less Valve to vessel

fails to open


Install FIA

Valve to keg filler full open

Delay in process, loss of product to storage

Install FIA

Valve to bottler full open

Delay in process, loss of product to storage

Install FIA



Install FIA



Leak in vessel wall Loss of product

Routine maintenance, Install LAL



Install FICA

173 | P a g e

Valves to keg filler and Bottler full closed


Install FIA

No Valve to vessel fails to open


Install FIA



Install FIA



Rupture in Vessel wall Loss of product



Level Less Valve to vessel fails to open


Install FIA

Leak in Vessel wall Loss of product




MoreValves to keg filler and bottler closed


Install FIA, LAH

No Valve to vessel fails to open


Install FIA

Rupture in vessel wall Loss of product



174 | P a g e

Pressure More Overfilling Vessel

Rupture in vessel wall, loss of product and sales

Install LAH

Valve to vessel fails to open


Install PIA

Less Under filling vessel

Inaccurate product levels, loss of sales Install LAL

No Leak in vessel wall Loss of product Routine

maintenance


Table 43: HAZOP - Process Component: Steam Generator

Study NodeProcess Parameters

Deviations Possible Causes Possible Consequence Action Required

Steam Generator

Temperature Less not enough natural

gas

Not enough steam produced, loss of product

Install TIA

Later not enough natural gas


Install TIA

Pressure Less not enough water flow


Install PIA and water flow water flow meter

not enough natural gas


Install PIA

Condensation in pipes

wet steam, inefficient heating, possible loss of product

Install PIA

Leak in pipe loss of steam, inefficient heating Install PIA

threshold sensor in pipe malfunction


routine maintenance/ testing on PIA

175 | P a g e

Burner malfunction


routine maintenance, Install PIA

More too much water flow

Too much steam produced, pipes burst

Install PIA

Furnace too hotsteam being produced too fast, pipes burst

Install PIA

Blockage in pipe pipe bursts Install PIA

threshold sensor in pipe malfunction pipe bursts

routine maintenance/ testing on PIA

No Leak in water pipe No steam produced Install FIA

No water flow No steam produced Install FIA

Level Less not enough water flow


Install PIA and water flow water flow meter

Leak in water pipe loss of steam, inefficient heating Install FIA

More Water flow rate too high

wet steam produced, inefficient heating

Install FIA

blockage in steam pipe Pipe bursts Install PIA

No No water flowNo steam produced, unable to brew

Install FIA

leak in water pipeNo steam produced, unable to brew

Install FIA

Leak in steam pipe unable to brew Install PIA

Table 44: HAZOP - Process Component: Instant Water Heater

176 | P a g e


ConsequenceAction Required


Temperature Less Steam flow rate too low

Wrong mash temperature, loss of product

Install TIA

Water flow rate too high

Wrong mash temperature, loss of product

Install TIA

Wet SteamWrong mash temperature, loss of product

Install TIA

Leak in steam lineless steam flow, possible loss of product

Install TIA and FIA

Heater malfunctionWrong mash temperature, loss of product

Routine maintenance

More Steam flow rate too high

mash temp too high, loss of product

Install TIA

Water low rate too low

mash temp too high, loss of product

Install TIA and FIA

Heater malfunctionmash temp too high, loss of product

Routine maintenance

Pressure Less No steam flow loss of product Install PIA

No water Flowunable to regulate temp, loss of product

Install PIA

Condensation in pipes

inefficient heating, possible loss of product

Install PIA

Leak in pipe loss of steam, inefficient heating Install PIA

More Water flow to highinefficient heating, possible loss of product

Install PIA and FIA

Steam flow too high

inefficient heating, possible loss of product

Install PIA

177 | P a g e

Blockage in pipe pipe ruptures Install PIA

Flow Less Blockage in pipeunable to regulate temp, loss of product

Install PIA

Leak in water pipeunable to regulate temp, loss of product

Install FIA

Valve not fully open

unable to regulate temp, loss of product

Install FIA

Blockage in steam pipe

unable to regulate temp, loss of product

Install FIA

More steam pressure too high

temperature too high, possible loss of product

Install FIA and PIA

Leak in steam pipe unable to brew Install PIA

No Water valve closed unable to brew Install FIA

leak in water pipeunable to regulate temp, loss of product

Install FIA

Table 45: HAZOP - Process Component: Cooling Unit


ConsequenceAction

Required

Cooling Unit Temperature Less unit malfunction

wrong fermentation temperature, loss of product

Install TIA

More unit malfunction


Install TIA

Flow too fastwrong fermentation temperature, loss

Install FIA

178 | P a g e

of product

Flow Less Leak in vessel wall

wrong fermentation temperature, loss of product, Pump runs dry

Install FIA

pump failure


Install FIA

Unit malfunction


Install FIA

Valve from city water not open


Install FIA

More Pump speed too high


Install FIA

No Pump malfunction


Install FIA

valve from city water not open


Install FIA

179 | P a g e

Appendix – E: Environmental Concerns: Dust Regulations and Containment

In any process in which dust is being generated there exists the potential for an explosion

which may result in the death of personnel and the destruction of property. An increasing

incidence rate of explosions has prompted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) to enact industry standards to minimize this risk.

In a brewery barley is transported from a grain silo to a mill which breaks open barley in

order to make the starch inside of it accessible in the mashing tank. Significant amounts of dust

are generated during this process and so it must abide to the regulations set forth by OSHA in

order to provide a safe working environment.

The following regulations pertain to minimizing the risk of grain explosions:

1910.272(e)(1)(i)

General safety precautions associated with the facility, including recognition and preventive

measures for the hazards related to dust accumulations and common ignition sources such as

smoking; and,

1910.272(e)(1)(ii)

Specific procedures and safety practices applicable to their job tasks including but not limited

to, cleaning procedures for grinding equipment, clearing procedures for choked legs,

housekeeping procedures, hot work procedures, preventive maintenance procedures and lock-

out/tag-out procedures.

1910.272(i)(1)

180 | P a g e

The employer shall inform contractors performing work at the grain handling facility of

known potential fire and explosion hazards related to the contractor's work and work area. The

employer shall also inform contractors of the applicable safety rules of the facility.

1910.272(j)(1)

The employer shall develop and implement a written housekeeping program that establishes

the frequency and method(s) determined best to reduce accumulations of fugitive grain dust on

ledges, floors, equipment, and other exposed surfaces.

1910.272(j)(2)(i)

Priority housekeeping areas shall include at least the following:

1910.272(j)(2)(i)(B)

Floors of enclosed areas containing grinding equipment;

1910.272(j)(2)(ii)

The employer shall immediately remove any fugitive grain dust accumulations whenever they

exceed 1/8 inch (.32 cm) at priority housekeeping areas, pursuant to the housekeeping program,

or shall demonstrate and assure, through the development and implementation of the

housekeeping program, that equivalent protection is provided.

1910.272(j)(3)

The use of compressed air to blow dust from ledges, walls, and other areas shall only be

permitted when all machinery that presents an ignition source in the area is shut-down, and all

other known potential ignition sources in the area are removed or controlled.

1910.272(j)(4)

181 | P a g e

Grain and product spills shall not be considered fugitive grain dust accumulations. However,

the housekeeping program shall address the procedures for removing such spills from the work

area.

1910.272(l)

Filter collectors.

1910.272(l)(1)

All fabric dust filter collectors which are a part of a pneumatic dust collection system shall be

equipped with a monitoring device that will indicate a pressure drop across the surface of the

filter.

1910.272(l)(2)

Filter collectors installed after March 30, 1988 shall be:

1910.272(l)(2)(i)

Located outside the facility; or

1910.272(l)(2)(ii)

Located in an area inside the facility protected by an explosion suppression system; or

1910.272(l)(2)(iii)

Located in an area inside the facility that is separated from other areas of the facility by

construction having at least a one hour fire-resistance rating, and which is adjacent to an exterior

wall and vented to the outside. The vent and ductwork shall be designed to resist rupture due to

deflagration.

1910.272(m)

Preventive maintenance.

182 | P a g e

1910.272(m)(1)

The employer shall implement preventive maintenance procedures consisting of:

1910.272(m)(1)(i)

Regularly scheduled inspections of at least the mechanical and safety control equipment

associated with dryers, grain stream processing equipment, dust collection equipment including

filter collectors, and bucket elevators;

183 | P a g e

Appendix – F: Profitability Excel Charts

Capital Investment

184 | P a g e

(See Table 6-9)

Default Subtotal ResultNotes & comments

Fraction of delivered equipment

0.9840.10 0.10 0.10 0.000 0.000

0.9840.45 0.39 0.47 0.03 0.0300.18 0.26 0.36 0.02 0.0200.16 0.31 0.68 0.00 0.0000.10 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.000

0.25 0.29 0.18 0.06 0.059

0.15 0.12 0.10 0.01 0.0100.40 0.55 0.70 0.00 0.0001.69 2.02 2.60 0.12 1.102

0.33 0.32 0.33 0.10 0.0980.39 0.34 0.41 0.08 0.0790.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.0100.17 0.19 0.22 0.02 0.0200.35 0.37 0.44 0.08 0.0791.28 1.26 1.44 0.29 0.285

1.388

Working capital (WC) 0.70 0.75 0.89 0.75 0.738

2.126

plants. These values may differ depending on many factors such as location, process type, etc.

Purchased equipment, E'

Total indirect costs

Purchased equipment installation Subtotal: delivered equipment

Yard improvements Service facilities (installed)

Total direct costs

Engineering and supervisionConstruction expenses

Legal expenses

Total capital investment (TCI)

Direct Costs

Indirect Costs

Piping (installed) Electrical systems (installed)

Instrumentation&Controls(installed

ESTIMATION OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY PERCENTAGE OF DELIVERED EQUIPMENT METHOD

Contingency

User: copy from values

at left or insert

Calculated values, million $

Solid- processing plant

Contractor's fee

The fractions in the cells below are approximations applicable to typical chemical processing

Required, from a linked sheet or entered manuallyRequired user input

Delivery, fraction of E'

Buildings (including services)

Fixed capital investment (FCI)

Fluid processing plant

Solid-fluid processing plant

Project Identifier: Illustration 101

Materials and Labor

185 | P a g e

ANNUAL OPERATING LABOR COSTSProcess Identifier: Illustration 101 Process Identifier: Illustration 101

Required user input Notes & comments Required user input Notes & commentsDefault, may be changed Default, may be changedRESULT RESULT

Main 1.60 30.000 48.00 General 3 1 14.42 0.126Byproduct 0.25 12.000 3.00 Head Brew 1 1 48.08 0.140

0.00 Owner 1 1 26.44 0.0770.00 Invetory 1 1 16.83 0.0490.00 0.3930.002.619336

*See Tables 6-13 and Fig. 6-9.**Default = 3 for continuous process.Enter appropriate value for batch operation.#To obtain current, local value, enter (latest local

1 0.45 20.000 9.00 12 0.25 12.000 3.003 0.05 13.000 0.65

0.000.000.00

0.26347

Annual raw materials

cost, million $/y

Annual Amount, million kg/y

Operator rate, $/h #

Annual value of product, million $/y

Total annual cost of raw materials = Sent to sheet 'Annual TPC'

Shifts per day**

ENR skilled labor index)/6067 =

Sent to 'Evaluation' and 'Year-0 $'

Total annual value of products =

Raw MaterialsName of Material

Price, $/kg

Annual Amount, million kg/y

ANNUAL RAW MATERIAL COSTS AND PRODUCTS VALUES

Products, Coproducts and Byproducts Number of

operators per shift*

Operating LaborName of Material

Price, $/kg

Annual operating

labor cost,

Utility Cost

186 | P a g e

TOTAL UTILITY COST = million $/y

Process air 0.45 $/100m3 # 100 m3#/y Instrument air 0.90 $/100m3 # 100 m3#/y

Purchased, U.S. average 0.045 $/kWh 1800000 kWh/y 0.0267820 Self-generated 0.05 $/kWh kWh/y

Coal 1.66 $/GJ GJ/y Fuel oil 3.30 $/GJ GJ/y Natural gas 3.00 $/GJ 360000 GJ/y 0.0017395 Manufactured gas 12.00 $/GJ GJ/y 0.0062734

15 oC 4.00 $/GJ GJ/y 5 °C 5.00 $/GJ GJ/y

-20 oC 8.00 $/GJ GJ/y

-50 oC 14.00 $/GJ GJ/y

3550 kPa 8.00 $/1000 kg 1000 kg/y 790 kPa 6.00 $/1000 kg 40000 1000 kg/y Exhaust (150 kPa) 2.00 $/1000 kg 1000 kg/y

Disposal 0.53 $/m3 m3/y Treatment 0.53 $/m3 400000 m3/y

Hazardous 145.00 $/1000 kg 1000 kg/y Non-hazardous 36.00 $/1000 kg 1000 kg/y 0.001908

Cooling 0.08 $/ m3 2500000 m3/y

General 0.53 $/m3 400000 m3/y 0.00264983 Distilled 0.90 $/m3 m3/y

Electricity

Fuel

UtilityAnnual utility cost, million

$/y

Default cost units D

efau

lt un

it co

st Annual utility requirement, in

appropriate units

Sent to sheet 'Annual TPC'0.039

Default units of utility

requirementAir, compressed

Refrigeration, to temperature

Process

Steam, saturated

Waste water

Waste disposal

Water

187 | P a g e

Depreciation

Evaluation

188 | P a g e

Construction inflation rate, fraction/y = 0.02Expenditures, entries must be negative Product price inflation rate, fraction/y = 0

TPC inflation rate, fraction/y = 0.02Annual-compounding discount rate, fraction/y = minimum acceptable rate of return, mar = 0.21

Continuous-compounding discount rate, fraction/y = minimum acceptable rate of return, rma= 0.19Income tax rate = 0.35

Comments and notes begin in column S RESULT

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2. Fixed Capital Investment, 106$ -0.21 -0.50 -0.72 -1.433. Working Capital, 106$ (see notes) -0.76 0.76 0.004. Salvage Value, 106$ 0.00 0.005. Total Capital Investment, 106$ -0.21 -0.50 -1.48 -2.186. Annual Investment, 106$ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007. Start-up cost, 106$ -0.148. Operating rate, fraction of capacity 0.50 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.009. Annual sales, 106$ 1.31 2.36 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62 24.62

-0.81 -1.15 -1.26 -1.28 -1.31 -1.34 -1.36 -1.39 -1.42 -1.45 -12.77

11. Annual depreciation factor, 1/y 0.20 0.320 0.192 0.115 0.115 0.05812. Annual depreciation, 106$/y 0.29 0.46 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.08 1.4313. Annual Gross Profit, 106$ 0.07 0.75 1.09 1.17 1.14 1.20 1.26 1.23 1.20 1.17 10.2814. Annual Net Profit, 106$ 0.05 0.49 0.71 0.76 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.76 6.6815. Annual operating cash flow,106$ 0.33 0.94 0.98 0.92 0.91 0.86 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.76 8.1116. Total annual cash flow, 106$ 0.00 -0.21 -0.50 -1.48 0.33 0.94 0.98 0.92 0.91 0.86 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.76 5.9317. Cumulative cash position, 106$ 0.00 -0.21 -0.70 -2.18 -1.85 -0.91 0.07 1.00 1.91 2.77 3.58 4.38 5.16 5.93Profitability measures, time value of money NOT included:18. Return on investment, ave. %/y 30.619. Payback period, y 1.8

0.21 at mar = 21.0 %/y

ECONOMIC EVALUATION CURRENT, i.e. INFLATED, DOLLARS

Required, may be calculated here, in linked worksheet, or entered manually

Project identifier: Illustration 101

10. Annual Total Product Cost, depreciation not included,106$

Year ending at time

20. Net return, 106$

Default values, can be changedRequired, user must supply

1. Land, 106$ (see notes)

Row Sum

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

3-year 0.333 0.444 0.148 0.074f 0.200 0.320 0.192 0.115 0.115 0.0587-year 0.143 0.245 0.175 0.125 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.04510-year 0.100 0.180 0.144 0.115 0.092 0.074 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.03315-year 0.050 0.095 0.086 0.077 0.069 0.062 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.03020-year 0.038 0.072 0.067 0.062 0.057 0.053 0.049 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.022

YEARRecovery period

Entry = MACRS depreciation as fraction/y of FCI

Annual TPC

189 | P a g e

Default, may be changed Subtotal Notes & commentsUser input RESULT

30 106 kg per year Fixed Capital Investment, FCI 1.426 million $

0.2630.393

0.15 of operating labor 0.393 0.059 0.0390 of FCI 1.426 0.0000 of maintenance & repair0.000 0.0000 of operating labor 0.393 0.0030 of c o 1.141 0.0000 -- 0.003

0.7610.02 of FCI 1.426 0.0290.08 of FCI 1.426 0.1140.01 of FCI 1.426 0.014

0 of FCI 1.426 0.000 Calculated separately

0.157Plant overhead, general 0.5 of labor, supervision and maintenance0.452 0.226

0.2261.144

0 of labor, supervision and maintenance0.452 0.0000 of c o 1.141 0.000

0 of c o 1.141 0.0000.000

Research & Development

Plant Overhead =

AdministrationDistribution & selling

Manufacturing cost =

General Expense =

TOTAL PRODUCT COST WITHOUT DEPRECIATION = c o = 1.141

Fixed Charges =

InsuranceRent

Variable cost =

ANNUAL TOTAL PRODUCT COST AT 100% CAPACITY See Figure 6-7 and 6-8

Depreciation

Project identifier: Illustration 101

Utilities

Operating suppliesCleanersRoyalties (if not on lump-sum basis)

Taxes (property)Financing (interest)

Required, may be calculated here, in linked worksheet, or entered manually.

Raw materials Operating labor

Cost, million $/y

Capacity

Default factor, user

may change

ItemBasis cost,

million $/y

Bottels/Labels

Basis

Maintenance and repairs

Operating supervision

effect of temperature on starch decomposition to...

Documents