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 Beacham
Raymond 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 nonengineering 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|Page
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
Aspen Model Description.......................................................................................................... 78
2|Page
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|Page
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Representative Chromatogram for the 2500 ppm standard solution. ............................ 15
Figure 2: Stacked chromatograms of the five standard solutions tested. ...................................... 17
Figure 3: Compilation of multiple injections done throughout testing. ........................................ 19
Figure 4: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=70C mash temperature. ................... 20
Figure 5: 70C Concentration of each sugar over the 60 minute mash time. ................................. 21
Figure 6: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=63C mash temperature. ................... 22
Figure 7: Concentrations of each sugar at every time point over the 60 minute mash time. ........ 23
Figure 8: Stacked chromatograms of all samples at the T = 55C mash temperature.................... 24
Figure 9: Concentrations of each sugar at every time point over the 60 minute mash time ......... 25
Figure 10: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 55 C ............................................................................. 29
Figure 11: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 70 C ............................................................................. 30
Figure 12: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 63 C ............................................................................. 30
Figure 13: Mash Temp 55 C - Experimental vs. Modeled ........................................................... 31
Figure 14: Mash Temp 63 C - Experimental vs. Modeled ........................................................... 31
Figure 15: Mash Temp 70 C - Experimental vs. Modeled ........................................................... 32
Figure 16: Flow Sheet of Brewery ................................................................................................ 33
Figure 17: Energy requirement difference for each experimental mash temperature, per batch. . 75
Figure 18: Aspen Flow Sheet ........................................................................................................ 76
Figure 19: Silo and Auger Conveyer ............................................................................................ 79
Figure 20: Diagram of Grain Mill. ................................................................................................ 80
Figure 21: Diagram of Mash Tun. The outer lines depict the insulation. ..................................... 81
Figure 22: Diagram of the Boiling Kettle. The outer vessel is the steam jacket. ......................... 82
Figure 23: Diagram of the Heat Exchanger. ................................................................................. 83
Figure 24: Diagram of the Fermentation Tank. The outer vessel is the jacketed for cooling. ..... 84
Figure 25: Diagram of the Filter. .................................................................................................. 85
Figure 26: Diagram of the Brightening Tank. .............................................................................. 86
Figure 27: Block Diagram for the Bottle/Labeler, Keg Filler, and In House Kegs. ..................... 87
Figure 28: Block Diagram of the Steam Generator. ..................................................................... 88
Figure 29: Diagram of the Instant Hot Water Heater. .................................................................. 89
Figure 30: Diagram of the Cooling Unit. ...................................................................................... 89
Figure 31: Diatomaceous Earth .................................................................................................... 91
Figure 32: Labor Distribution Tree ............................................................................................. 102
Figure 33: Bottle Label Design ................................................................................................... 115
Figure 34: Fructose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections .................................. 118
Figure 35: Dextrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections ................................. 118
Figure 36: Sucrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections ................................... 119
Figure 37: Maltose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections ................................... 119
Figure 38. Maltotriose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections ............................. 120
4|Page
Figure 39. Maltotetraose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections .......................... 120
Figure 40. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C ............. 125
Figure 41. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C ............... 125
Figure 42. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C ............... 126
Figure 43. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C ......... 126
Figure 44. Maltotatraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C ...... 127
Figure 45. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C ............. 130
Figure 46. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C ............... 130
Figure 47. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C ......... 131
Figure 48. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C ...... 131
Figure 49. Fructose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C .............. 134
Figure 50. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C ............. 134
Figure 51. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C ............... 135
Figure 52. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C ............... 135
Figure 53. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C ......... 136
Figure 54. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C ...... 136
5|Page
List of Tables
Table 1: Method Developed for HPLC Analysis of Sugars in Wort. ........................................... 14
Table 2: Integration Events Table for Analyzing Analog Peaks. ................................................ 16
Table 3: Calibration Curve Expressions from Known Standard Concentrations ......................... 18
Table 4: Model Stoichiometry ...................................................................................................... 27
Table 5: Grain and Hop Bill.......................................................................................................... 51
Table 6: Points Per Grain .............................................................................................................. 52
Table 7: Grain Required and Extraction Percentages ................................................................... 53
Table 8: Mass Balance - Mash Tun .............................................................................................. 55
Table 9: Mass Balance - Boiling Kettle ........................................................................................ 57
Table 10: Mass Balance - Aeration ............................................................................................... 59
Table 11: Mass Balance - Fermentation ....................................................................................... 61
Table 12: Mass Balance - Filtration .............................................................................................. 61
Table 13: Energy Calculations for the Mill and Auger Conveyers. ............................................. 65
Table 14: Energy Calculations for the Hot Water Heater and Pump. ........................................... 67
Table 15: Energy Calculations for Mash Tun and Mash Pump. ................................................... 68
Table 16: Energy Calculations for the Boiling Kettle, Whirlpool Pump, and Outlet Pump......... 71
Table 17: Energy Calculations for the Heat Exchanger and Pump .............................................. 72
Table 18: Energy Calculations for the Fermentation Tank and Pump.......................................... 74
Table 19. Comparative Energy Consumption in kW for the Three Tested Mash Temperatures. 75
Table 20: Price of Water Used in the Brewery for Each Batch and for Each Month. .................. 96
Table 21: Break Down of Cleaning Water per Batch. .................................................................. 98
Table 22: Product Distribution.................................................................................................... 107
Table 23: Essential Equipment, Capital Costs, and Manufacturers. ........................................... 110
Table 24: Raw Materials and Respective Manufacturer and Prices. .......................................... 111
Table 25: Utilities used, Respective Providers, and Pricing. ...................................................... 112
Table 26: Energy Costs for Each Piece of Equipment. ............................................................... 113
Table 27. Sequence Run for All Trials at All Temperatures ...................................................... 121
Table 28. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=70C mashing temperature. ..... 122
Table 29. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=63C mashing temperature. ..... 127
Table 30. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=55C mashing temperature. ..... 132
Table 31: HAZOP - Process Component: Silo and Mechanical Screw Auger ........................... 150
Table 32: HAZOP - Process Component: Grain Mill ................................................................. 151
Table 33: HAZOP - Process Component: Mash Tun ................................................................. 152
Table 34: HAZOP - Process Component: Boiling Kettle ........................................................... 154
Table 35: HAZOP - Process Component: Heat Exchanger ........................................................ 157
Table 36: HAZOP - Process Component: Primary Fermenter ................................................... 158
Table 37: HAZOP - Process Component: Filter ......................................................................... 160
Table 38: HAZOP - Process Component: Brightening Tank ..................................................... 162
6|Page
Table 39: HAZOP - Process Component: Keg Filler ................................................................. 165
Table 40: HAZOP - Process Component: Bottler/Labeler ......................................................... 167
Table 41: HAZOP - Process Component: In House Kegs .......................................................... 169
Table 42: HAZOP - Process Component: Steam Generator ....................................................... 171
Table 43: HAZOP - Process Component: Instant Water Heater ................................................ 172
Table 44: HAZOP - Process Component: Cooling Unit ............................................................. 174
7|Page
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.
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
8|Page
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|Page
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.
Components elute based on polarity and size; the polar molecules eluting first from smallest size
10 | P a g e
(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. UVVis 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 (UVVis 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
the chromatogram. The method of detection used in this experiment was refractive index. Sugars
11 | P a g e
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
six sugars and run on the Shimadzu liquid chromatograph in order to determine the retention
12 | P a g e
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
Akzo Nobel Kromasil 100 Å, 5 μm, NH2, 4.6 ×
Column
250 mm
Mobile Phase
75% Acetonitrile
Time Program
Isocratic Method
Time (minutes)
Flow Rate
0.01
Operation
55.01
Controller Start
1.00 mL/min
Controller Stop
Detection
Refractive Index
Sample Dilution
100x
Sample pH
~
Autosampler Temperature
25 °C
Column Oven Temperature
35 °C
Run Time
55 minutes
6.8
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.
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 2500 ppm
65
Area
65
55
50
50
45
45
40
40
Maltotetraose
mVolts
30
25
20
3246
9654
2086
15
3248
17261
28162
3654
16352
797
3029
778
483
390
1085
242
4546
9230
929
2856
10092
Maltose
8050
3929
3276
2284
15
10
35
253127
20
279009
223768
25
330348
30
264969
mVolts
35
Maltotriose
55
Sucrose
60
Fructose
Dextrose
60
10
5
5
0
0
-5
-5
-10
0.0
-10
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
Minutes
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
Channel 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
Integration Off
30
40
0
Yes
Width
42
45
0.3
Yes
Threshold
42
45
50
Yes
Integration Off
48
60
0
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
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 500 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 1000 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Suger Standard 1500 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 2000 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 2500 ppm
55
55
50
50
45
45
2500 ppm
40
40
35
35
2000 ppm
30
mVolts
mVolts
30
25
25
1500 ppm
20
20
1000 ppm
15
15
10
10
500 ppm
5
5
0
0
-5
-5
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
Minutes
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
Analog - Analog Board 2
Standard 2500 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Standard 2500 ppm
120
120
110
110
100
100
90
90
mVolts
mVolts
Analog - Analog Board 2
Standard 2500 ppm
3rd injection - Before 55C Samples
80
80
2nd injection - Before 63C Samples
70
70
1st injection - Before 70C Samples
60
60
50
50
40
40
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
Minutes
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
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=15
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=20
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=30
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=35
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=40
Maltotetraose
60
Sucrose
Fructose
Dextrose
65
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=10
Maltotriose
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=5
Maltose
because the concentrations were undetectable.
65
60
t = 60 min
55
t = 55 min
50
50
t = 50 min
45
40
t = 45 min
40
t = 40 min
30
35
mVolts
mVolts
55
45
35
mVolts
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=45
30
t = 35 min
25
25
t = 30 min
20
20
15
t = 20 min
10
t = 15 min
t = 10 min
5
0
t = 5 min
-5
15
10
5
0
-5
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
Minutes
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
Minutes
Figure 4: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=70C mash temperature.
20 | P a g e
Analog - Analog Boa
70C t=50
T = 70 C Sugar Profile
3.00E+05
2.50E+05
ppm
2.00E+05
1.50E+05
1.00E+05
5.00E+04
0.00E+00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (Min)
Maltose
Maltotetraose
Dextrose
Maltotriose
Sucrose
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
undetectable and inconsistent with the trend noticed between all other trials. It can be seen that
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.
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=15
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=20
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=25
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=30
Maltotetraose
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=10
Maltotriose
Sucrose
110
Maltose
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=5
Fructose
Dextrose
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=0
120
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=35
120
110
t = 60 min
t = 50 min
t = 45 min
t = 40 min
100
90
100
90
80
mVolts
mVolts
t = 35 min
t = 30 min
80
t = 25 min
70
70
t = 20 min
t = 15 min
60
t = 10 min
t = 5 min
t = 0 min
50
40
0.0
60
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
50
40
55.0
Minutes
Figure 6: Stacked chromatograms of all samples for the T=63C mash temperature.
22 | P a g e
Analog - Analog
63C t=45
ppm
T = 63 C Sugar Profile
4.5E+05
4.0E+05
3.5E+05
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (Minutes)
Dextrose
Maltose
Maltotriose
Maltotetraose
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
undetectable and inconsistent with the trend noticed between all other trials. It can be seen that
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
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=20
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=25
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=30
120
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=35
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=5
Maltotetraose
110
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=15
Maltotriose
115
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=10
Sucrose
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=0
Fructose
Dextrose
120
Maltose
inconclusive.
115
110
t = 60 min
t = 55 min
t = 50 min
105
100
105
100
95
95
t = 40 min
90
t = 35 min
t = 30 min
t = 25 min
t = 20 min
t = 15 min
t = 10 min
t = 5 min
80
75
70
65
60
85
mVolts
85
mVolts
90
80
75
70
65
60
55
55
t = 0 min
50
50
45
40
0.0
45
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
40
55.0
Minutes
Figure 8: Stacked chromatograms of all samples at the T = 55C mash temperature.
24 | P a g e
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=40
An
55
T = 55C Sugar Profile
3.5E+05
3.0E+05
ppm
2.5E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
0
Dextrose
10
Fructose
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
Maltose
Sucrose
50
60
Maltotetraose
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
to allow one recipe the ability to create a lighter more alcoholic beer or one with more depth and
26 | P a g e
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
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
[S]
→ 1800/B [HOS]
k8
[HOS] → H/12 [1]
k1
[HOS] →
k2
[HOS] →
k3
[HOS] →
k4
Where;
H/6
[2]
H/4
[3]
H/3
[4]
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 [𝑆]
𝑟4 = 𝑘4 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑟3 = 𝑘3 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑟2 = 𝑘2 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑟1 = 𝑘1 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
Rate Laws:
𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ = −𝑟8
𝑑[𝑆]
= −𝑘8 [𝑆]
𝑑𝑡
𝑟𝐻.𝑂.𝑆𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑠 =
𝑟𝐻.𝑂.𝑆𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑟𝑠 =
1800
𝐻
𝐻
𝐻
𝐻
𝑟8 − 𝑟4 − 𝑟3 − 𝑟2 − 𝑟1
𝐵
4
3
2
1
𝑑[𝐻𝑂𝑆] 1800
𝐻
𝐻
𝐻
=
𝑘8 [𝑆] − 𝑘4 [𝐻𝑂𝑆] − 𝑘3 [𝐻𝑂𝑆] − 𝑘2 [𝐻𝑂𝑆] − 𝐻𝑘1 [𝐻𝑂𝑆] =
𝑑𝑡
𝐵
4
3
2
𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑜𝑠𝑒 =
𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑠𝑒 =
𝐻
𝑑[4] 𝐻
𝑟4 =
= 𝑘4 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
3
𝑑𝑡
4
𝐻
𝑑[3] 𝐻
𝑟3 =
= 𝑘3 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
4
𝑑𝑡
3
𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑜𝑠𝑒 =
𝐻
𝑑[2] 𝐻
𝑟2 =
= 𝑘2 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
6
𝑑𝑡
2
𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑜𝑠𝑒 =
𝐻
𝑑[1]
𝑟1 =
= 𝐻𝑘1 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
12
𝑑𝑡
28 | P a g e
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 12, and
Figure 11.
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.
Wort Carbohydrate P rofile
55 Celsius
1.4
Concentration molL
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Time Seconds
Figure 10: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 55 C
29 | P a g e
Wort Carbohydrate P rofile
63 Celsius
Concentration molL
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
3000
3500
Time Seconds
Figure 12: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 63 C
Wort Carbohydrate P rofile
70 Celsius
1.4
Concentration molL
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Time Seconds
Figure 11: Wort Carbohydrate Model @ 70 C
30 | P a g e
A comparison of the end concentrations of each of the sugars experimentally and for the model
are presented in Figure 10, Figure 12, and Figure 11
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
mol/lit
0.7000
0.6000
0.5000
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
1
2
3
4
Sugar Units
Figure 13: Mash Temp 55 C - Experimental vs. Modeled
1.4000
1.2000
mol/lit
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
1
2
3
4
Sugar Units
Figure 14: Mash Temp 63 C - Experimental vs. Modeled
31 | P a g e
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
mol/lit
0.5000
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
1
2
3
4
Sugar Units
Figure 15: Mash Temp 70 C - Experimental vs. Modeled
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.
32 | P a g e
Flow Sheet
Steam Generator
City
Water
Instant Water Heater
Grain Mill
Mash Tun
Boiling
Kettle
Silo
Grain Truck
Mechanical Solid Screw Auger
Cooling Unit
Keg Filler
CO2 Tank
Brightening
Tank
Filter
Fermentation
Tank
Heat Exchanger
Bottler/labeler
In House Kegs
Figure 16: Flow Sheet of Brewery
Flow Sheet Description
Silo
The 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 ft 3 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
34 | 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 wellmodified 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:
35 | 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 DC650CK 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.
Mashing
Mashing 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
36 | 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
37 | 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
38 | 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
39 | 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 Exchanger
From 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
40 | 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
41 | 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 Tank
The 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 1825°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
42 | 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).
Filter
Once 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
43 | 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
44 | 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,
45 | 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).
46 | 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.
47 | 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
48 | 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.
49 | 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:
50 | P a g e
1 (30 − 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘)
28 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑠
360𝑜𝑧
𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙
∗ (5,000 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑠) ∗ (
)∗
∗
(𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘)(𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟)
𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟 30 − 𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑘 3968 𝑜𝑧
= 12,700
𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑠
𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟
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
𝜌𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
=
𝜌𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,(70 °𝐹)
Equation 2 Degrees Plato: Weight Percentage Soluble Material
°𝑃 =
𝑤𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
∗ 100
𝑤𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
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
Recipe: Grain Fraction
2 Row 88.2%
Caramel 60 L 5.9%
Carapils 5.9%
Recipe: Hops (Oz/Gallon)
SAAZ @ 90 min
0.2
Cascade @ 10 min
0.2
Cascade @ 5 min
0.1
51 | 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
(
15
) ∗ (89,700) = 79147 2 𝑅𝑜𝑤 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠
17
Table 6: Points Per Grain
79147
5276
5276
Points (2 Row)
Points (Caramel 60 L)
Points (Carapils)
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
shipments. The results are depicted as Course Grind Dry Basis (CGDB) and Fine Grind Dry
52 | P a g e
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 disaccharide, 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 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
= 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑
𝐶𝐺𝐷𝐵/𝐹𝐺𝐷𝐵 ∗ 46 ∗ 𝐵𝐻𝑌
79147
= 2390 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑜𝑓 2 𝑅𝑜𝑤
80% ∗ 46 ∗ 90%
Table 7: Grain Required and Extraction Percentages
2 -Row
Caramel 60 L
Carapils
lbs
2390
166
150
CG/FG
80.00%
77.00%
85.00%
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
53 | P a g e
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 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
∗ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 ∗ (2 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑠) = 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝑙𝑏 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
3.441 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
∗ 2705.2 ∗ 2 = 18,617 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑙𝑏 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
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.
Equation 7 calculates the strike water temperature needed for water being supplied at 70°F,
grain at 77°F, for the aforementioned mash temperature.
54 | P a g e
Equation 7
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑠ℎ (𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐻2 𝑂 + (0.4 ∗ 𝑘𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 )) −
70°𝐶 (4323 𝐿𝐻2 𝑂 @ 70°𝐶 + (0.4 ∗ 1227 𝑘𝑔)) −
0.4 ∗ 𝑘𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 ∗ 𝑇𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
= 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒
𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐻2 𝑂
0.4 ∗ 1227 𝑘𝑔 ∗ 25°𝐶
= 75°𝐶 = 167°𝐹
4323 𝐿𝐻2 𝑂 @ 70°𝐶
Table 8: Mass Balance - Mash Tun
In
Out
Creating The Wort
9308
2705
Infusion
Water (lbs)
Milled Grain (lbs)
9308
Sparging
Water (lbs)
Check
16453
1950
Wort (Sweet)
Water (lbs)
Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)
2164
755
Spent Grain
Water (lbs)
Un-Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)
0
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.
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
55 | P a g e
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 𝑆𝐴𝐴𝑍
0.2 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒
0.2 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒
) + (1950 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 ∗
) + (1950 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 ∗
)
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛
= 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
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.
56 | P a g e
Table 9: Mass Balance - Boiling Kettle
In
Out
Creating The Wort
16453
1950
60.9
Check
Wort (Sweet)
Water (lbs)
Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)
Hopping
Hops (lbs)
15417
1950
9.1
Wort (Bittered)
Water (lbs)
Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)
Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)
51.8
Trub
Un-Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)
48.8
Water
987
Evaporated
Water (lbs)
0
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
15417 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗
1 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
∗ 1.045 = 1933 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡
8.34 𝑙𝑏
57 | P a g e
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 ∗ 0.00000835
𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑂2
= 0.127 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑂2
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 ∗ °𝑃
0.127 𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑂2
𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑂2
= 0.0000655
1933 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
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
0.21𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
𝐿 ∗ 𝑎𝑡𝑚
(822.13
∗ 453.59
)
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑙𝑏
(
)
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚
𝑙𝑖𝑡
3.785
∗ 32
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝑚𝑜𝑙
= 𝐶 = 0.0000628
𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑂2
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡
0.0000655
𝑙𝑏𝑠𝑂2
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡
= 96% 𝑆𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
0.0000628 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡
𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑂2
58 | P a g e
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.
Table 10: Mass Balance - Aeration
In
Out
Aerating The Wort
15417
1959
Wort (Warm/Un-aired)
Water (lbs)
Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)
0.127
Oxygen
Oxygen (lbs)
Check
15417
1959
0.127
Wort (Cool/Aerated)
Water (lbs)
Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)
Oxygen (lbs)
0
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 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡
∗ 1933 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 16.1 𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡
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).
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.
59 | P a g e
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 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
= 430,027 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
0.00456 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
75% ∗ 430,027 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 ∗
75% ∗ 430,027 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 ∗
75% ∗ 430,027 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠 ∗
0.00211 𝑙𝑏𝑠𝐶𝑂2
= 680 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑂2
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
0.00220 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐸𝑡𝑂𝐻
= 711 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐸𝑡𝑂𝐻
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
0.000243 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡
= 711 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
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 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙
∗ 100 = 𝐴𝐵𝑊
𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 + 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙
711
∗ 100 = 4.29%
15370 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 490 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 + 711 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙
60 | P a g e
Table 11: Mass Balance - Fermentation
In
Out
Creating Beer
15417
1959
Unfermented Wort
Water (lbs)
Total Dissolved Material (lbs)
15370
711
490
680
Pre-Fermentation
16.1
Post-Fermentation
Yeast (lbs)
78.21
63
Check
Green Beer
Water (lbs)
Ethanol (lbs)
Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)
CO2 (lbs)
Yeast (lbs)
Water Absorbed (lbs)
0
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.
Table 12: Mass Balance - Filtration
In
Out
Creating Clear Beer
16571
78.21
Check
Unfiltered Beer
Beer (lbs)
Yeast (lbs)
16571
0.08
Filtered Beer
Beer (lbs)
Residual Yeast (lbs)
78.14
Filtrate
Yeast (lbs)
0
61 | P a g e
“Green beer” leaving the fermentation tank contains carbonation from the fermentation process
which can be estimated using Henry’s law. It was assumed that the partial pressure of CO2 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
(
𝐿 ∗ 𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠
)
∗ 453.59
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑙𝑏
)
𝑙𝑖𝑡
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚
3.785
∗ 44
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝑚𝑜𝑙
(31.77
=
0.012 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑂2
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.
62 | P a g e
0.012 𝑙𝑏𝑠𝐶𝑂2 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠𝐶𝑂2
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠𝐶𝑂2
= 0.70
0.0164 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑂2 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑟
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐵𝑒𝑒𝑟
2 − 0.7 = 1.3 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑
1.3 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠𝐶𝑂2 0.0164 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑂2
41 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝐶𝑂2
∗
∗ 1950 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 =
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐵𝑒𝑒𝑟
𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠𝐶𝑂2
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.
Table 13: Mass Balance - Carbonation
In
Out
Carbonating The Beer
16571
47.57
Check
Semi Carbonated Beer
Beer (lbs)
CO2 (lbs)
16619
Fully Carbonated Beer
Beer(lbs)
0
After carbonation beer would head to brightening tanks where it would be bottled and
kegged according to distribution logistics.
63 | P a g e
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.
1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
2705 𝑙𝑏 ∗ (
) = 0.68 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
4000 𝑙𝑏
60 ℎ𝑝 ∗ (
𝑘𝑊
ℎ𝑟 ) = 44.74 𝑘𝑊 ∗ 0.68 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = 34.86 𝑘𝑊
ℎ𝑝
ℎ𝑟
0.745
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
64 | 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
𝑘𝑊
∗ (0.68 ℎ𝑟) = 0.196 𝑘𝑊 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒𝑟
ℎ𝑟
Table 14: Energy Calculations for the Mill and Auger Conveyers.
Auger Conveyer 1
Req for Auger
Mill
Req for Mill:
Auger Conveyer 2
Req for Auger
for 18,000 lb/hr
kW for 4000 lb/hr
for 18,000 lb/hr
kW/h 1.13
kW/h for 4000 lb/h
0.251
kW/hr
44.74
kW/h 1.13
kW/h for 4000 lb/h
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:
65 | P a g e
Calculating for strike water addition:
𝑄 = (9308 𝑙𝑏 ∗
1 𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝐽
) 𝐻2 𝑂 ∗ 4.179
∗ ((75 °𝐶 + 273) − (21 °𝐶 + 273))
2.2 𝑙𝑏
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾
= 950,845 𝑘𝐽
Calculating for sparge water addition:
𝑄 = (9308 𝑙𝑏 ∗
1 𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝐽
) 𝐻2 𝑂 ∗ 4.179
∗ ((66 °𝐶 + 273) − (21 °𝐶 + 273))
2.2 𝑙𝑏
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾
= 784,202 𝑘𝐽
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 + 784,202𝑘𝐽
= 1,906,645 𝑘𝐽
91% 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑦
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 = 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒 ∗ 𝐺𝑃𝐻 ∗ .00244
Equation 11
𝑘𝑊 ∗
410
= 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐺𝑃𝐻)
𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑒
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
66 | 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
Strike
Hot Water Heater Pump
Power Req'd
kJ
950,845.0
hp
784,202.0
pump capacity
GPM
215
kg/s
13.54
Sparge
kJ
Total
kJ
(η= 91%)
Flow Rate
(GPH)
Gal Total
Hours
1,906,645.0
185
2235.24
gal/hr
kW
per week
0.024
250
40.63
162.50
per month
650.02
5
running at 200 GPM
GPM
kg/s
kW req'd at
capacity
kW req'd at
200 GPM
200
12.59
3.782
3.518
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
67 | 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 Pump
GPM
793
rpm
1800
m3/min
85
kW/h
2.2
run at 500 gpm 500
gal wort
1318.27
minutes
kW
2.64
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 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑘𝐽
∗ 4.2055
∗ ((100°C + 273) − (70°C + 273)) = 941,829 𝑘𝐽
2.204𝑙𝑏 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾
𝑘𝑔
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.
68 | P a g e
Equation 12
Q Required to Boil H2 𝑂 = 𝑚H2 𝑂 ∗ ℎ𝑣
Q required = 447.8 𝑘𝑔 H2 𝑂 ∗ 2257
𝑘𝐽
= 1,010,684.6 𝑘𝐽
𝑘𝑔
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 𝐵𝑇𝑈
= 1,859,591 𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑘𝐽
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
𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑙𝑏
.
𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ = 1,859,591 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗
𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝑙𝑏
= 1392.15 𝑙𝑏
1329.3 𝐵𝑇𝑈
1392.15 𝑙𝑏
𝑙𝑏
𝑙𝑏
= 928.10
= .2578
1.5 ℎ𝑟
ℎ𝑟
𝑠
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 𝐵𝑇𝑈
= 2,203,084 𝐵𝑇𝑈
0.84
69 | 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
𝐵𝑇𝑈
ℎ𝑟
to find the required time it takes to run the boiler per batch:
2,203,084 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗
ℎ𝑟
= 0.57 ℎ𝑟
3,864,000 𝐵𝑇𝑈
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
𝐻𝑃
𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ
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
𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑓𝑡 3
(Williams, 2011). The total amount of natural
gas required to operate the steam boiler is calculated by:
2,203,084 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗
𝑓𝑡 3
𝑓𝑡 3 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑎𝑠
= 2,203.08
1000 𝐵𝑇𝑈
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.
70 | P a g e
Table 17: Energy Calculations for the Boiling Kettle, Whirlpool Pump, and Outlet Pump.
Boiling Kettle
Q=mCpdT
Whirlpool Pump
Power Req'd
Pump
Power Req'd
Temperature in Kettle:
hp
hp
C
100
ms = q / he
he
pump capacity
GPM
215
kg/s
13.54
pump capacity
GPM
215
kg/s
13.54
kJ/kg
2257
running at 200 GPM
running at 200 GPM
kJ
1149.36
GPM
kg/s
kW req'd at
capacity
kW req'd at
200 GPM
GPM
200
kg/s
12.59
kW req'd at
3.782
capacity
kW req'd at
3.518
200 GPM
q Flow (kW)
kW
0.1715
5
200
12.59
3.782
3.518
5
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=
𝑚
𝐶 Δ𝑇
𝑡 𝑝
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.
71 | P a g e
𝑞=
0.0041 𝑘𝐽
7898 𝑘𝑔
∗ (21 − 100) ∗
= −7.64 𝑘𝑊
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾
606 𝑠𝑒𝑐
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
q = cp dT m / t
Pump
Power Req'd
q (heat transfer rate)
hp
kW
(kJ/s)
5
-7.64
pump capacity
GPM
215
kg/s
13.54
sec
606.27
running at 200 GPM
min
10.10
Runtime
Q
Total
Exchanger
kJ
through
-4630.78
GPM
200
kg/s
12.59
Heat kW req'd at
3.782
capacity
kW req'd at
3.518
200 GPM
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.
72 | P a g e
𝐶6 𝐻12 𝑂6 → 2𝐶2 𝐻5 𝑂𝐻 + 2𝐶𝑂2
Equation 14
𝐻°𝑓 = ∑𝐻°𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠 − ∑𝐻°𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝐻°𝑓 = ((2 ∗ −277.7
𝑘𝑗
𝑘𝑗
𝑘𝑗
𝐶2 𝐻5 𝑂𝐻 ) + (2 ∗ −394.5
𝐶𝑂2 )) − (−1271.0
𝐶𝐻 𝑂 )
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑚𝑜𝑙 6 12 6
𝐻°𝑓 = −(1344.4) − (−1271.0) = −73.4
𝑘𝑗
𝑚𝑜𝑙
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
𝑘𝑗
453.59 𝑔
𝑚𝑜𝑙
∗ 1950 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗
∗
∗ 75% = −270,269.5 𝑘𝑗
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑙𝑏𝑠
180.16 𝑔
Assuming the heat capacity of water at 21°C the temperature rise of the beer without cooling was
determined.
270,269.5 𝑘𝑗
𝑘𝑗
𝑘𝑔
4.185
∗ 1950 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾
2.204 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
enthalpy of formation released during glucose consumption and shall be assumed to be
73 | P a g e
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
Heat of formation (kj/mol): -73.4
Attenuation:
lbs glucose:
M.W. (mol/lb) Glucose:
75%
1950
2.517
Pump
Power Req'd
hp
5
pump capacity
GPM
215
kg/s
13.54
running at 200 GPM
Heat Evolved
270,269.5
GPM
200
kg/s
12.59
kW req'd at 3.782
capacity
kW req'd at
3.518
200 GPM
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
temperature selected for this brewery is 70°C in order to sell our product for the most amount of
74 | P a g e
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)
kW per batch
55C
63C
70C
113.44
122.44
130.615
1958.98
2089.84
kW per month 1815.09
kW per year
21781.04 23507.75 25078.08
Energy Requirement per Batch
135
kW Required
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
55C
63C
Temperature of Mash
70C
Figure 17: Energy requirement difference for each experimental mash temperature, per
batch.
75 | P a g e
Aspen Model Flow Sheet
Figure 18: Aspen Flow Sheet
76 | P a g e
Beer P r o d u ctio n Mo d elin g
S tr eam I D
Temp eratu r e F
P r es s u re
p s ia
V ap o r F r ac
Mo le F lo w lb m o l/h r
Mas s F lo w lb /h r
V o lu me F lo wcu ft/h r
En th alp y
Mas s F lo w
WA TER
G cal/h r
lb /h r
CO LD -H 2 O EX TRA CT1 EX TRA CT2 EX TRA CT3 G RI S T
H 2 O V A P O RH O P S
H TR1 - H 2 O H TR2 - H 2 O MA S H - H 2 O MI LLG RN S P EN TG RN S P RG - H 2 O W O RT- BIT W O RT- S WT
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 .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
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
0 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 6 2
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
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
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 .3 3 4
7 7 5 .7 0 8
S TA RCH
S TA RCH - S
S TA RCH - I
D RY G RA I N
HOPS
Mas s F rac
WA TER
7 7 5 .7 0 8
7 7 5 .7 0 8
0 .0 0 0
2 1 .5 2 9
3 8 7 .8 5 4
6 .2 2 7
0 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
2 1 .5 2 9
2 1 .5 2 9
3 8 7 .8 5 4
3 8 7 .8 5 4
6 .2 2 7 1 4 1 4 5 7 .8 4 8
- 0 .6 4 6
- 0 .0 6 0
- 0 .0 0 4
- 0 .6 6 7
- 0 .6 6 7
- 0 .5 6 1
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
8 1 .2 6 3
3 1 .4 4 6
8 1 .2 6 3
3 1 .4 4 6
8 1 .2 6 3
0 .0 0 0
0 .6 2 6
1 1 2 .7 0 8
1 .5 3 8
5 .4 0 4
1 2 5 .6 6 3
- 0 .0 8 5
9 4 .2 1 8
1 .0 0 0
2 1 .5 2 9
3 8 7 .8 5 4
1 4 0 8 5 7 .1 4 8
0 .0 0 0
3 5 .9 7 6
7 2 1 .2 5 9
1 2 .0 6 5
- 0 .5 6 1
- 1 .1 3 8
3 8 7 .8 5 4
6 3 9 .9 9 7
6 8 1 .4 9 1
8 1 .2 6 3
8 1 .2 6 3
0 .8 8 7
0 .8 9 3
0 .1 1 3
0 .1 0 7
3 5 .5 2 5
3 7 .8 2 8
0 .4 5 1
0 .4 5 1
3 8 .2 8 0
7 6 2 .7 5 4
1 1 2 .7 0 8
tr ace
3 1 .4 4 6
3 1 .4 4 6
2 .5 3 8
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 .2 2 5
0 .1 6 2
0 .0 6 3
0 .0 9 1
0 .0 3 5
0 .0 9 1
0 .7 5 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
2 PPB
0 .0 3 5
0 .2 5 0
1 .0 0 0
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
S TA RCH
S TA RCH - S
S TA RCH - I
D RY G RA I N
HOPS
0 .0 0 0
0 .1 4 1
2 .5 3 8
0 .0 4 1
1 1 2 .7 0 8
S TA RCH
S TA RCH - S
S TA RCH - I
D RY G RA I N
HOPS
Mo le F lo w
3 8 7 .8 5 4
1 .0 0 0
2 .3 0 3
4 1 .4 9 4
1 1 4 4 .7 7 9
2 1 .5 2 9
2 .3 0 3
2 1 .5 2 9
0 .6 2 6
0 .4 5 1
0 .1 7 5
0 .4 5 1
0 .1 7 5
0 .4 5 1
2 1 .5 2 9
2 1 .5 2 9
5 .2 3 0
2 1 .5 2 9
0 .6 2 6
tr ace
0 .1 7 5
0 .1 7 5
0 .1 4 1
77 | P a g e
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 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑘𝑔
𝑘𝑗
𝑘𝑗
∗ 4.134
∗ (342𝐾 − 294 𝐾) = 𝑄 = 838024
2.204 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ℎ𝑟
𝐾 ∗ 𝑘𝑔
ℎ𝑟
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.
78 | 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
Inlet: Grain from
grain truck
Silo
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
79 | P a g e
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
Grain Mill
Outlet:
Milled grain
to Mash Tun
Inlet: Intact
Grain from
Silo
Figure 20: Diagram of 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).
80 | P a g e
Mash Tun
Water from Instant
Hot Water Heater
Mash Tun
Milled Grain
from Mill
Mash fed to
Boiling Kettle
Recirculated
water
Figure 21: Diagram of Mash Tun. The outer lines depict the insulation.
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
81 | P a g e
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
Steam from
Generator
Hot Mash
from Mash
Tun
Boiling
Kettle
Recirculated
Wort
Wort fed to
Heat
Exchanger
Figure 22: Diagram of the Boiling Kettle. The outer vessel is the steam jacket.
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
82 | P a g e
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
Hot wort
from Boiling
Cold Water Kettle
from Cooling
Unit
Cooled Wort fed
to Fermentation
Tank
Heat Exchanger
Warm water
from Heat
Exchanger
Figure 23: Diagram of the 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
83 | P a g e
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
Cooling Water from
Cooling Unit
Fermentation
Tank
Beer fed to
Filter Unit
Cooled Wort from
Heat Exchanger
Cooling Water Recirculated
through Cooling Unit
Spent Yeast
Figure 24: Diagram of the Fermentation Tank. The outer vessel is the jacketed for cooling.
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
84 | P a g e
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
Filtered Beer fed
to Brightening
Tank
Filter
Beer from
Fermentation Tank
Figure 25: Diagram of the 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
85 | P a g e
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
Cooling Water from
Cooling Unit
CO2 Tank
Beer fed to
Distribution
Vessels
Brightenin
g Tank
Filtered Beer
from Filter Unit
Cooling Water
Recirculated to Cooling
Unit
Figure 26: Diagram of the 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
86 | P a g e
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
Keg
Filler
Beer from
Brightening
Tank
Bottler/labeler
In House Kegs
Figure 27: Block Diagram for the Bottle/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.
87 | P a g e
Steam Generator
Steam Generator
City Water Feed
Steam fed Boiling Kettle
Figure 28: Block Diagram of the 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.
88 | P a g e
Instant Hot Water Heater
Hot Water fed
to Mash Tun
City
Water
Instant Water Heater
Figure 29: Diagram of the 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
Cooling Unit
Recirculated
Cooling Water
City Water
Cooling Water fed to
Fermentation and
Brightening Tanks
Cooling Water fed
to Heat Exchanger
Figure 30: Diagram of the Cooling Unit.
89 | P a g e
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.
90 | 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 Figure 31: Diatomaceous Earth
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
Organics LLC). The filter cake can become clogged and must be removed and replaced. In
91 | P a g e
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
down the organic material present over a certain time period (usually 5 days) (ALAR
92 | P a g e
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)
93 | 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
94 | 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
95 | 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 FrancoBelges 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 Total Water Total
Batch (gallons)
Per Batch Per
(ft3)
(ft3)
2920.5
390
6240
Water Price Water Price Water Price Water
Month Per Batch
Per Month
Per Year
$8.27
$132.29
$1,587.46
Table 21: Price of Water Used in the Brewery for Each Batch and for Each Month.
96 | 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.
97 | P a g e
Cleaning Water Usage
Purpose
Amount Chemical
Needed
N/A
50 % (341.25
Tank Rinsing
gallons/batch)
30% (102.38
PBW Washing
102.38 oz. / batch
gallons/batch)
15% (51.19
General Rinsing N/A
gallons/batch)
5% (17.06
Star San
4.41 oz. / batch
gallons/batch)
Washing
Table 22: Break Down of Cleaning Water per Batch.
Chemical Price
N/A
$1000 every 4
Months
N/A
$118 every 8 Months
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).
98 | 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
99 | 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 CO2 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.
100 | 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.
101 | P a g e
Labor
Proprietor
Secretary
Brewer Master
Cleaner
Brewer’s Assistant
Inventory/Distribution
Specialist
Figure 32: Labor Distribution Tree
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
102 | P a g e
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
103 | 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.
104 | 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.
105 | 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.
106 | 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
Kegs
63.0
1006
Bottles (24 Pack)
430
6880
In House (1%)
Kegs
Bottles
Number/Batch Number/Month
1
16
20
320
Unit Price
Monthly Sales
$85.00 /Keg
$85,510.00
$18.00 /24 Pack $123,840.00
Unit Price
$4.50 /Pint
N/A
Totals
Monthly Sales
$8,928.00
N/A
Yearly Sales
$1,026,120.00
$1,486,080.00
Yearly Sales
$107,136.00
N/A
$218,278.00 $2,619,336.00
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
mushrooms. This method however is not widely used since the smell that is developed from the
rotting grain is unpleasant and overpowering.
107 | P a g e
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.
108 | 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).
109 | P a g e
Table 24: Essential Equipment, Capital Costs, and Manufacturers.
Item
Silo
Auger 1
Auger 2
Mill
Grain Vacuum
Mash Pump
Brew Pump
DE Filter
Mash Tun
Boil Kettle
Heat Exchanger
Fermentation Tank (8)
Brightening Tank (8)
Refridgeration Room
Bottling Machine
Labeling Machine
Kegging Machine
Hot Water Heater
Glycol-Water Chiller
Steam Boiler
Piping
Manufacturer
Price
Brock Grain Systems
$10,000.00
N/A
$7,000.00
N/A
$7,000.00
Pleasant Hill Grain Company
$7,100.00
JET
$499.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$2,471.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$4,276.00
Della Toffola
$73,633.86
AAA Metal Fabracation
$42,336.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$33,048.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$15,000.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$268,096.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$242,232.00
Foster Coolers
$5,199.00
Ager Tank & Equipment
$51,635.00
Ager Tank & Equipment
$19,800.00
Ager Tank & Equipment
$18,900.00
Hubble
$5,000.00
Glycol Chillers
$24,000.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$113,890.00
AAA Metal Fabracation
$33,238.00
Total
$984,353.86
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).
The working capital chosen was 75% of the purchased equipment cost due to the fact that this is
110 | P a g e
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.
Table 25: Raw Materials and Respective Manufacturer and Prices.
Item
2-Row Barley
Caramel Malt
Carapils Malt
Diatomaceous Earth
Saaz Hops
Casecade Hops
British Ale Yeast (WLP005)
Manufacturer
Amount (Batch)
Canada Malting Company
2387 lbs
Thomas Faucet and Sons
159 lbs
Malteries Franco-Belges
159 lbs
Country Malt
50 lbs
Country Malt
24.4 lbs
Country Malt
36.6 lbs
White Labs
34.5 L
Unit Price Price (Batch) Shipping/Delivery/Rental Price (Year) Price (Year)
$0.35 / lb
$835.45
Included
$160,406.40
$0.013 / lb
$2.07
$1,344.00
$1,740.86
$0.012 / lb
$1.91
$1,344.00
$1,710.34
$0.72 / lb
$36.00
$480.00
$7,392.00
$7.26 / lb
$177.14
Included
$34,011.65
$6.17 / lb
$225.82
Included
$43,357.82
$132.64 / lb
$25.42
Included
$4,576.08
Totals
$1,331.96
$3,168.00
111 | P a g e
$263,470.07
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.
Table 26: Utilities used, Respective Providers, and Pricing.
Item
Provider
Water
Windham Water Works
Natural Gas
DOE Connecticut
Water
CO2
O2
Windham Water Works
Esquire Gas
Aero All Gas
Amount (Batch)
Unit Price
Price (Batch) Shipping/Delivery/Rental Price (Year) Price (Year)
413.2 ft3
$0.02 /ft3
$8.76
$1,681.89
$1,681.89
3
3
$20.84
Included
$4,001.50
$0.02 /ft3
$0.15 / lb
$1.37 / lb
$13.80
$7.14
$0.17
Included
$4,800.00
$70.00
$2,649.83
$6,170.02
$103.41
Totals
$8.76
$6,551.89
$1,681.89
2203.08 ft
651 ft3
47.57 lbs
0.127 lbs
$0.0095 /ft
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,
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%
112 | P a g e
Table 27: Energy Costs for Each Piece of Equipment.
Component
Energy Required (Batch) Energy Required (Year) Energy Cost (Batch) Energy Cost (Year)
Auger 1
0.196 kW
37.632 kW
$0.0200
$3.83
Auger 2
0.196 kW
37.632 kW
$0.0200
$3.83
Mill
34.856 kW
6692.352 kW
$3.5511
$681.82
Grain Vacuum
1.13 kW
216.96 kW
$0.1151
$22.10
Brewing Pump
21.06 kW
4043.52 kW
$2.1456
$411.95
Mash Pump
2.24 kW
430.08 kW
$0.2282
$43.82
DE Filter
20.74 kW
3982.08 kW
$2.1130
$405.69
Mash Tun
2.24 kW
430.08 kW
$0.23
$43.82
Refridgeration Room
1.864 kW
134.208 kW
$0.19
$13.67
Bottling Machine
4.32 kW
829.44 kW
$0.4401
$84.50
Labeling Machine
0.054 kW
10.368 kW
$0.0055
$1.06
Kegging Machine
3.3 kW
633.6 kW
$0.34
$64.55
Hot Water Heater
40.63 kW
7800.96 kW
$4.14
$794.76
Glycol-Water Chiller
660 kW
237600 kW
$67.24
$24,206.69
792.826 kW
Totals
262878.912 kW
$80.77
$26,782.10
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
investment being 30.6% per year. These calculations provide a total net profit of $6,680,000
over ten years.
113 | 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
rate. Investing in this type of industry at this period in time would be a good business venture.
114 | P a g e
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.
Figure 33: Bottle Label Design
115 | P a g e
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/uvvis.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.).
Hemad Zareiforoush, M. H. (n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during
Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains. Journal of Agricultural Science.
116 | P a g e
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. McGrawHill 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-usespent-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/textidx?c=ecfr;sid=d7773ee6b09450c54ab24e0f8726bd32;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A
22.0.1.1.3.8;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)
117 | P a g e
Appendix – A: H.P.L.C. Data
Fructose Calibration
300000
y = 105.68x + 19327
R² = 0.9655
Area of Peak
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
500
1000
1500
PPM Solution
2000
2500
3000
Figure 34: Fructose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections
Dextrose Calibration
250000
y = 83.379x + 477.5
R² = 0.9834
Area of Peak
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
500
1000
1500
PPM Solution
2000
2500
3000
Figure 35: Dextrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections
118 | P a g e
Sucrose Calibration
350000
y = 121.37x + 15671
R² = 0.9904
Area of Peak
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
500
1000
1500
PPM Solution
2000
2500
3000
Figure 36: Sucrose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections
Maltose Calibration
300000
y = 108.34x - 8671.2
R² = 0.9967
Area of Peak
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
500
1000
1500
PPM Solution
2000
2500
3000
Figure 37: Maltose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections
119 | P a g e
Maltotriose Calibration
300000
y = 103.84x - 12110
R² = 0.9677
Area of Peak
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
500
1000
1500
PPM Solution
2000
2500
3000
Figure 38. Maltotriose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections
Maltotetraose Calibration
60000
Area of Peak
50000
y = 26.747x - 5833.2
R² = 0.9611
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
500
1000
1500
PPM Solution
2000
2500
Figure 39. Maltotetraose calibration curve from Standard Solution Injections
120 | P a g e
Table 28. Sequence Run for All Trials at All Temperatures
Reps Vial
Injection
Volume
(uL)
Sample ID
Method
Filename
1
3
1
40
50
40
20
20
20
Water Blank
Standard Solution 2000 ppm
Water Blank
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
41211.001
41211.002
41211.003
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
40
51
40
52
40
53
40
40
54
40
55
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Water Blank
Standard Solution 500 ppm
Water Blank
Standard Solution 1000 ppm
Water Blank
Standard Solution 2500 ppm
Water Blank
Water Blank
Standard 1500 ppm
Water Blank
70C t=0
Water Blank
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Dextrose.met
041211-2.001
041211-2.002
041211-2.003
041211-2.004
041211-2.005
041211-2.006
041211-2.007
041311-2.001
041311-2.002
41411.001
41411.002
41411.003
2
1
1
2
1
1
56
40
40
57
40
41
20
20
20
20
20
20
70C t=5
Water Blank
Water Blank
70C t=10
Water Blank
Standard 2500 ppm
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment Standard.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41411.004
41411.005
41411.006
41411.007
041511.001c
041511.002c
1
2
1
2
1
2
42
43
44
45
46
47
20
20
20
20
20
20
70C t=15
70C t=20
70C t=25
70C t=30
70C t=35
70C t=40
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.003
41511.004
41511.005
41511.006
41511.007
41511.008
1
2
1
2
2
1
48
49
40
50
51
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
70C t=45
70C t=50
Water Blank
70C t=55
70C t=60
Water Blank
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
41511.009
41511.010
041511.001e
41511.011
41511.012
41511.013
1
1
1
1
1
41
52
40
53
54
20
20
20
20
20
Standard 2500 ppm
63C t=0
WB
63C t=5
63C t=10
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.014
41511.015
041511.001f
41511.016
41511.017
121 | P a g e
1
1
55
56
20
20
63C t=15
63C t=20
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.018
41511.019
1
1
1
2
1
2
57
58
59
60
61
62
20
20
20
20
20
20
63C t=25
63C t=30
63C t=35
63C t=40
63C t=45
63C t=50
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.020
41511.021
41511.022
41511.023
41511.024
41511.025
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
63
64
40
33
32
41
34
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
63C t=55
63C t=60
Water Blank
55C t=60 dilution 50x
55C t=60
Standard 2500 ppm
55C t=55
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment7_35C_50Hz_Fructose.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.026
41511.027
41511.028
41511.029
41511.030
41511.031
41511.032
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
36
37
38
39
22
20
20
20
20
20
20
55C t=50
55C t=45
55C t=40
55C t=35
55C t=30
55C t=25
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.033
41511.034
41511.035
41511.036
41511.037
41511.038
1
1
1
1
1
23
24
25
26
27
20
20
20
20
20
55C t=20
55C t=15
55C t=10
55C t=5
55C t=0
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
Bioferment Standard 2.met
41511.039
41511.040
41511.041
41511.042
41511.043
Table 29. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=70C mashing temperature.
Fructose
Dextrose
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
10259
10259
27029
27029
Dilution
Corresponding C
205180
1758.64
540580
6478.74
Area Trial 1
Fructose
6048
Dextrose
22391
Area Trial 2
Average Area
6048
15928
19159.5
T=70 C Data
t=5 min
Sucrose
0
0
0
Maltose
298946
339463
319204.5
Malt-3
20023
57263
38643
Malt-4
4460
18123
11291.5
0
-129.12
6384090
58846.40
772860
7326.17
225830
8225.10
t=10 min
Sucrose
6102
Maltose
206216
Malt-3
Malt-4
7098
223124
214670
15002
15002
102565
54831.5
0
3051
122 | P a g e
Dilution
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
604800
5540.05
1915950
22975.92
Fructose
14881
Dextrose
17747
14881
17747
1488100
13898.31
305100
2384.68
21467000
198064.69
1500200
14330.60
5483150
204782.47
Maltose
185073
Malt-3
26293
Malt-4
16690
0
185073
26293
16690
1774700
21281.67
0
-129.12
18507300
170746.07
2629300
25204.06
1669000
62181.43
Fructose
Dextrose
t=20 min
Sucrose
Maltose
192379
Malt-3
Malt-4
75939
0
0
-182.88
24780
24780
2478000
29717.55
5527
5527
552700
4424.73
187296
189837.5
18983750
175143.80
33468
33468
3346800
32113.73
5658
40798.5
4079850
152316.78
t=15 min
Sucrose
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
t=25 min
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Fructose
4189
Dextrose
30884
Sucrose
2260
Maltose
0
Malt-3
1366
Malt-4
18309
4189
418900
3780.97
30884
3088400
37039.13
2260
226000
1732.96
0
0
-80.04
1366
136600
1198.86
18309
1830900
68234.45
t=30 min
Sucrose
10714
Malt-3
25688
15069
20378.5
Malt-4
44959
36141
40550
Fructose
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dextrose
30956
0
30956
10714
Maltose
272602
112939
192770.5
Dilution
Corresponding C
0
-182.88
3095600
37125.49
1071400
8698.43
19277050
177851.01
2037850
19508.28
4055000
151387.70
Maltose
329323
Malt-3
40942
Malt-4
33874
329323
32932300
303891.72
40942
4094200
39311.34
33874
3387400
126427.89
Area Trial 1
Fructose
3528
Dextrose
47894
t=35 min
Sucrose
9845
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
3528
352800
3155.50
47894
4789400
57442.16
9845
984500
7982.44
123 | P a g e
t=40 min
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Fructose
16771
1510
9140.5
914050
8466.34
Dextrose
13091
30919
22005
2200500
26389.02
Sucrose
16070
16070
1607000
13111.39
t=45 min
Sucrose
18211
Maltose
228044
227110
227577
22757700
209978.11
Malt-3
50566
74240
62403
6240300
59978.72
Malt-4
23681
25182
24431.5
2443150
91124.87
Maltose
278281
Malt-3
70381
Malt-4
26724
Fructose
29298
Dextrose
35691
29298
35691
18211
278281
70381
26724
2929800
27540.43338
3569100
42804.9958
1821100
14875.41402
27828100
256778.9256
7038100
67661.69106
2672400
99695.92104
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
266729
266729
26672900
246116.20
59504
59504
5950400
57186.92
15317
15317
1531700
57048.15
Malt-3
27050
28796
27923
2792300
26773.79
Malt-4
19649
33985
26817
2681700
100043.62
Fructose
Dextrose
o
0
-182.88
11901
11901
1190100
14269.55
t=50 min
Sucrose
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
18128
18128
1812800
14807.03
t=55 min
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Fructose
13162
9373
11267.5
1126750
10479.02
Dextrose
19427
17110
18268.5
1826850
21907.19
Sucrose
12381
12381
1238100
10071.92
Maltose
302400
275480
288940
28894000
266617.40
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Fructose
27917
29614
28765.5
Dextrose
60678
48429
54553.5
t=60 min
Sucrose
36590
13641
25115.5
Maltose
255898
222075
238986.5
Malt-3
48072
48072
Malt-4
11157
53268
32212.5
Dilution
Corresponding C
2876550
27036.55
5455350
65430.04
2511550
20564.22
23898650
220509.31
4807200
46177.68
3221250
120215.98
124 | P a g e
Dextrose
70000
60000
ppm
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 40. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C
Sucrose
25000
ppm
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Min)
50
60
70
Figure 41. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C
125 | P a g e
Maltose
300000
250000
ppm
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (min)
50
60
70
Figure 42. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C
Maltotriose
80000
70000
60000
ppm
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Min)
50
60
70
Figure 43. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C
126 | P a g e
Maltotetraose
160000
140000
120000
ppm
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Min)
50
60
70
Figure 44. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 70 C
Table 30. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=63C mashing temperature.
Fructose
T = 63 C Data
T=0
Dextrose
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
Area Trial 1
Average Area
19734
19734
29686
29686
4050
4050
113523
113523
14663
14663
15315
15315
Dilution
Corresponding C
1973400
18490.47
2968600
35602.16
405000
3207.78
11352300
104703.97
1466300
14004.14
1531500
57040.66
Area Trial 1
Fructose
10095
Dextrose
29248
T=5
Sucrose
2435
Maltose
167328
Malt-3
31699
Malt-4
27042
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
10095
1009500
9369.54
29248
2924800
35076.80
2435
243500
1877.14
167328
16732800
154367.07
31699
3169900
30410.15
27042
2704200
100884.84
Fructose
Dextrose
T=10
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
9768
9768
976800
9060.12
49505
49505
4950500
59374.51
21898
21898
2189800
17913.23
198094
198094
19809400
182764.71
61981
61981
6198100
59572.32
12200
12200
1220000
45394.50
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
127 | P a g e
T=15
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Fructose
49744
49744
4974400
46887.52
Dextrose
73308
73308
7330800
87925.54
Sucrose
5462
5462
546200
4371.17
Maltose
262237
262237
26223700
241969.99
Malt-3
55659
55659
5565900
53484.11
Malt-4
12794
12794
1279400
47615.31
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Fructose
12853
12853
1285300
11979.31
Dextrose
69326
69326
6932600
83149.24
T=20
Sucrose
4032
4032
403200
3192.96
Maltose
271811
271811
27181100
250806.99
Malt-3
22826
22826
2282600
21865.27
Malt-4
10476
10476
1047600
38948.92
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Dilution
Fructose
23136
23136
2313600
Dextrose
100534
100534
10053400
T=25
Sucrose
0
0
0
Maltose
324388
324388
32438800
Malt-3
15203
15203
1520300
Malt-4
11840
11840
1184000
Corresponding C
21709.62
120582.37
-129.12
299336.61
14524.17
44048.56
Maltose
292957
292957
Malt-3
13061
13061
Malt-4
19211
19211
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Fructose
93049
93049
Dextrose
8661
8661
T=30
Sucrose
7203
7203
Dilution
Corresponding C
9304900
87865.00
866100
10383.26
720300
5805.63
29295700
270325.17
1306100
12461.38
1921100
71606.79
Maltose
327955
Malt-3
13954
Malt-4
21280
Area Trial 1
Fructose
20267
Dextrose
79458
T=35
Sucrose
12934
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
20267
2026700
18994.82
79458
7945800
95302.30
12934
1293400
10527.55
327955
32795500
302629.03
13954
1395400
13321.36
21280
2128000
79342.24
Fructose
Dextrose
T=40
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
9690
16979
13334.5
1333450
12434.93
89149
95816
92482.5
9248250
110924.82
23838
20858
22348
2234800
18284.00
325264
315891
320577.5
32057750
295819.45
8216
21742
14979
1497900
14308.46
12774
14197
13485.5
1348550
50200.65
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
128 | P a g e
T=45
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
Fructose
20109
20109
2010900
18845.31605
Dextrose
93446
93446
9344600
112080.5146
Sucrose
10789
10789
1078900
8760.229052
Maltose
369701
369701
36970100
341161.4251
Malt-3
9840
9840
984000
9359.495378
Malt-4
18076
18076
1807600
67363.32299
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Fructose
41318
20739
31028.5
3102850
Dextrose
126285
111050
118667.5
11866750
T=50
Sucrose
10955
5024
7989.5
798950
Maltose
378938
399835
389386.5
38938650
Malt-3
7189
63402
35295.5
3529550
Malt-4
36872
28517
32694.5
3269450
Corresponding C
29177.92
142333.00
6453.65
359331.54
33873.65
122018.05
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Fructose
21456
17245
Dextrose
137043
105875
T=55
Sucrose
0
4149
Maltose
432678
405027
Malt-3
44918
37049
Malt-4
12598
12506
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
19350.5
1935050
18127.58
121459
12145900
145681.33
2074.5
207450
1580.12
418852.5
41885250
386529.25
40983.5
4098350
39351.31
12552
1255200
46710.54
Fructose
Dextrose
T=60
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
6875
132205
137107
134656
13465600
161510.77
3613
11011
7312
731200
5895.44
429786
479584
454685
45468500
419603.37
10717
8899
9808
980800
9328.68
21589
35253
28421
2842100
106040.56
Area Trial 1
Area Trial 2
Average Area
Dilution
Corresponding C
6875
687500
6322.61
129 | P a g e
ppm
Dextrose
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 45. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C
ppm
Maltose
450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 46. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C
130 | P a g e
Maltotriose
70000
60000
ppm
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 47. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C
Maltotetraose
120000
100000
ppm
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 48. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 63 C
131 | P a g e
Table 31. Summary of all peak areas for each sample of the T=55C mashing temperature.
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Fructose
13679
13679
T = 55 C Data
t=0 min
Dextrose
Sucrose
14522
2592
14522
2592
Maltose
23526
23526
Malt-3
14786
14786
Malt-4
13233
13233
Corresponding C
1367900
12760.91
1452200
17413.37
259200
2006.50
2352600
21634.93
1478600
14122.59
1323300
49256.62
Fructose
75053
Dextrose
10310
t=5 min
Sucrose
-
Maltose
63863
Malt-3
7174
Malt-4
14059
75053
7505300
70836.23
10310
1031000
12361.19
0
0
-129.12
63863
6386300
58866.80
7174
717400
6792.08
14059
1405900
52344.82
Fructose
Dextrose
t=10 min
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
0
0
-182.88
0
0
-5.37
0
0
-80.04
0
0
-116.62
0
0
-218.09
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
0
0
-129.12
t=15 min
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Fructose
16475
16475
1647500
15406.63
Dextrose
68782
68782
6878200
82496.73
Sucrose
0
0
-129.12
Maltose
89331
89331
8933100
82374.27
Malt-3
23339
23339
2333900
22359.30
Malt-4
13218
13218
1321800
49200.54
Fructose
15419
15419
1541900
14407.39
Dextrose
82750
82750
8275000
99250.96
t=20 min
Sucrose
0
0
-129.12
Maltose
47402
47402
4740200
43672.96
Malt-3
12371
12371
1237100
11796.90
Malt-4
11755
11755
1175500
43730.77
Fructose
13931
13931
1393100
Dextrose
101461
101461
10146100
t=25 min
Sucrose
6006
6006
600600
Maltose
80566
80566
8056600
Malt-3
9206
9206
920600
Malt-4
7531
7531
753100
132 | P a g e
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
12999.37
Fructose
21374
21374
2137400
20042.33
121694.28
4819.39
74284.00
8748.94
27938.34
Dextrose
89785
89785
8978500
107689.25
t=30 min
Sucrose
10545
10545
1054500
8559.19
Maltose
166547
166547
16654700
153646.20
Malt-3
17912
17912
1791200
17132.99
Malt-4
12730
12730
1273000
47376.03
Maltose
174451
174451
17445100
Malt-3
11344
11344
1134400
Malt-4
21488
21488
2148800
160941.75
10807.88
80119.89
Maltose
168743
168743
Malt-3
33709
33709
Malt-4
12452
12452
16874300
155673.15
3370900
32345.82
1245200
46336.67
t=45 min
Sucrose
3781
Maltose
13149
Malt-3
17134
Malt-4
41419
3781
378100
2986.15
13149
1314900
12056.75
17134
1713400
16383.76
41419
4141900
154636.66
t=50 min
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
177709
177709
17770900
163948.95
10637
10637
1063700
10127.02
10920
10920
1092000
40608.92
Maltose
192499
192499
19249900
177600.41
Malt-3
10320
10320
1032000
9821.74
Malt-4
13368
13368
1336800
49761.35
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Fructose
21738
21738
2173800
Dextrose
122751
122751
12275100
t=35 min
Sucrose
8950
8950
895000
Corresponding C
20386.76
147231.05
7245.03
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Fructose
28726
28726
Dextrose
127381
127381
Corresponding C
2872600
26999.18
12738100
152784.60
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Fructose
11389
Dextrose
114
11389
1138900
10593.99
114
11400
131.37
Fructose
Dextrose
3290
3290
329000
2930.29
74134
74134
7413400
88916.31
t=40 min
Sucrose
4699
4699
469900
3742.51
15263
15263
1526300
12446.48
t=55 min
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Fructose
5648
5648
564800
5161.55
Dextrose
33005
33005
3300500
39583.21
Sucrose
2371
2371
237100
1824.41
133 | P a g e
t=60 min
Fructose
34474
34474
3447400
32438.24
Area Trial 1
Average Area
Corresponding C
Dextrose
110419
110419
11041900
132439.16
Sucrose
3307
3307
330700
2595.61
Maltose
313866
313866
31386600
289624.60
Malt-3
12650
12650
1265000
12065.58
Malt-4
12458
12458
1245800
46359.10
Fructose
35000
30000
ppm
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 49. Fructose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C
ppm
Dextrose
180000
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 50. Dextrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C
134 | P a g e
ppm
Sucrose
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 51. Sucrose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C
Maltose
350000
300000
ppm
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 52. Maltose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C
135 | P a g e
Maltotriose
25000
ppm
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 53. Maltotriose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C
Maltotetraose
60000
50000
ppm
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Minutes)
50
60
70
Figure 54. Maltotetraose concentration profile over 60 minute mashing time for T = 55 C
136 | P a g e
Appendix – B: Mathematica Code for Kinetic Model
Sugar Profile Model for Mash Temp = 70 C
Define Time, Initial Concentration Boundaries and Final Desired Concentrations
Clear[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
-r8;
rhos
8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;
rm4
4;
rm3
3;
rm2
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 Concentrations
k8 = .001;
k4= .0005;
k3= .0007;
k2= .0006;
k1= .0005;
cm4fin = 0.167;
cm3fin = 0.085;
cm2fin = 0.669;
cm1fin = 0.513;
137 | P a g e
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 constants
cons0 = (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 plotting
Clear[t];
Time =3600;
A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)
138 | P a g e
HOS = A/B1calc;
M4 = HOS/4;
M3 = HOS/3;
M2 = HOS/2;
M1 = HOS/1;
r8= k8*Capp[t];
r4= k4* Chos[t];
r3= k3* Chos[t];
r2= k2* Chos[t];
r1= k1* Chos[t];
rapp
-r8;
rhos= Chos'[t] HOS*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;
rm4
4;
rm3
3;
rm2
2;
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 =
Plot[Evaluate[Capp[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
139 | P a g e
ChosPlot =
Plot[Evaluate[Chos[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm4Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm4[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm3Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm3[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm2Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm2[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm1Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Ca[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
AllPlot1 =Show[CappPlot,ChosPlot,Cm4Plot,Cm3Plot,Cm2Plot,
Carbohydrate Profile @ 70 Celsius"}},
Final Compositions
{0.0392} Amylopectin
{0.0070} Higher Order Sugars
{0.0655} M. Tetraose
{0.1223} M. Triose
{0.1572} Maltose
{0.2620} Glucose
Sugar Profile Model for Mash Temp = 63 C
Define Time, Initial Concentration Boundaries and Final Desired Concentrations
Clear[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;
140 | P a g e
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
-r8;
rhos
8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;
rm4
4;
rm3
3;
rm2
2;
rm1= Cm1'[t] == M1*r1;
ini0 = Capp[0] == 2.3324;
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 Concentrations
k8 = .001;
k4= .0001;
k3= .00003;
k2= .00009;
k1= .00002;
cm4fin = 0.147;
cm3fin = 0.073;
cm2fin = 1.181;
cm1fin = 0.932;
hosfin = 2.3324 - (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;
141 | P a g e
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 constants
cons0 = (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;
{B2calc} = {B}/.Last[ NMinimize[{SS[B],consALL},{B}]]
"Sum of Squares After"
SS [B2calc]
{503.189}
Sum of Squares After
0.57612
Plugging values into numerical differential equation solver and plotting
Clear[t];
Time =3600;
A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)
HOS = A/B2calc;
M4 = HOS/4;
M3 = HOS/3;
M2 = HOS/2;
M1 = HOS/1;
r8= k8*Capp[t];
r4= k4* Chos[t];
r3= k3* Chos[t];
r2= k2* Chos[t];
r1= k1* Chos[t];
rapp
rhos= Chos'[t]
-r8;
HOS*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;
142 | P a g e
rm4
4;
rm3
3;
rm2
2;
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 =
Plot[Evaluate[Capp[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
ChosPlot =
Plot[Evaluate[Chos[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm4Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm4[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm3Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm3[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm2Plot =
143 | P a g e
Plot[Evaluate[Cm2[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm1Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Ca[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
AllPlot2 =Show[CappPlot,ChosPlot,Cm4Plot,Cm3Plot,Cm2Plot,
Carbohydrate Profile @ 63 Celsius"}},
Final Compositions
{0.0392} Amylopectin
{0.3599} Higher Order Sugars
{0.3453} M. Tetraose
{0.1381} M. Triose
{0.6215} Maltose
{0.2762} Glucose
Sugar Profile Model for Mash Temp = 55 C
Define Time, Initial Concentration Boundaries and Final Desired Concentrations
Clear[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
rhos
rm4
rm3
rm2
-r8;
8
-3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;
4;
3;
2;
144 | P a g e
rm1= Cm1'[t] == M1*r1;
ini0 = Capp[0] == 1.8087;
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 Concentrations
k8 = .0003;
k4= .0005;
k3= .00006;
k2= .00003;
k1= .00003;
cm4fin = 0.167;
cm3fin = 0.085;
cm2fin = 0.669;
cm1fin = 0.513;
hosfin = 1.8087 - (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 constants
cons0 = (B>0);
(* The Master Constraint *)
consALL = cons0 && cons1;
145 | P a g e
Minimizing function, extraction and storage of calculated rate constants, and sum of squares
value
(* Calculating the best starch parameter *)
Clear[Bcalc]
t = 3600;
{B3calc} = {B}/.Last[ NMinimize[{SS[B],consALL},{B}]]
"Sum of Squares After"
SS [B3calc]
{570.172}
Sum of Squares After
0.127087
Plugging values into numerical differential equation solver and plotting
Clear[t];
Time =3600;
A = 1800; (*Starch Unit Length *)
HOS = A/B3calc;
M4 = HOS/4;
M3 = HOS/3;
M2 = HOS/2;
M1 = HOS/1;
r8= k8*Capp[t];
r4= k4* Chos[t];
r3= k3* Chos[t];
r2= k2* Chos[t];
r1= k1* Chos[t];
rapp
-r8;
rhos= Chos'[t] HOS*r8 -3r4 -4r3 -6r2-12r1;
rm4
4;
rm3
3;
rm2
2;
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;
146 | P a g e
(* 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 =
Plot[Evaluate[Capp[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
ChosPlot =
Plot[Evaluate[Chos[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm4Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm4[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
{Red}];
Cm3Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm3[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm2Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Cm2[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
Cm1Plot =
Plot[Evaluate[Ca[t]/.SolveIt], {t,0,Time},
AllPlot3 =Show[CappPlot,ChosPlot,Cm4Plot,Cm3Plot,Cm2Plot,
Carbohydrate Profile @ 55 Celsius"}},
147 | P a g e
Final Compositions
{0.4873} Amylopectin
{0.2329} Higher Order Sugars
{0.4775} M. Tetraose
{0.0764} M. Triose
{0.0573} Maltose
{0.1146} Glucose
148 | P a g e
Appendix – C: Malt Analysis Charts
Briess Organic 2-Row 50
Briess 2-Row 50
Canada Malting 2-Row
Great Western Premium 2-Row
Thomas Fawcett CaraMalt
Briess Caramel 60L
Briess Organic Caramel 60L
Franco-Belges Caramel Pilsen
Briess Organic Carapils
Briess Carapils
FGDB
80.5%
80.5%
73.0%
73.0%
73.0%
73.0%
ppg
36.57
36.57
36.80
36.80
35.42
33.58
33.58
39.10
33.58
33.58
CGDB
79.50%
79.50%
80.00%
80.00%
77.00%
85.00%
DP
150
150
Color
1.8
1.8
1.5-2.1
1.8-2.2
20-27
60
60
8-12
1.5
2.5
Price/55 lb bag
$0.86
$0.54
$0.46
$0.53
$0.73
$0.74
$0.97
$0.68
$0.94
$0.73
$/pound
$0.016
$0.010
$0.008
$0.010
$0.013
$0.013
$0.018
$0.012
$0.017
$0.013
149 | P a g e
Appendix – D: H.A.Z.O.P. Charts
Table 32: HAZOP - Process Component: Silo and Mechanical Screw Auger
Study Node
Silo Tower
Process
Parameters
Level
Composition
Deviatio
ns
Possible Causes
Action Required
unable to run batch
process, loss of sales
continuous shipping
schedule contract
with distributor
none
1. delay in
shipping of
grains
more
silo overflow,
2. delay in
contamination of
brewing schedule
grain
auxiliary storage
less
3. grain lost
during transfer
from truck
grain contamination
closed conveyer
4. contaminants
in
truck/environme
nt
grain contamination
routine
cleaning/maintenanc
e
possible explosion
keep silo safe
distance from
building, proper
ventilation
As well
as
5. fine dust build
as well as
up
Auger
Conveyer
Possible
Consequence
level
less
6. auger
conveyer to mill
malfunction
unable to run batch
process, loss of sales
routine
cleaning/maintenanc
e
Flow
reverse
7. auger
conveyer to mill
malfunction
unable to run batch
process, loss of sales
routine
cleaning/maintenance
, FIA
8. Metal
Impurities
Damage conveyer,
induce spark for
explosion
Install magnet to
remove metal
contaminants
Concentratio
n
As Well
As
150 | P a g e
Table 33: HAZOP - Process Component: Grain Mill
Study Node
Mill
Process
Parameters
level
Deviations Possible Causes
More
Less
Residue
Concentration
More
As Well
As
9. overfilling the
mill with grain
from silo
10. Auger
conveyer rate
too slow
11. Rupture of
vessel wall
12. Fine dust
from grain
accumulating
from milling
process
13. Impurity
Possible
Consequence
overflow,
contamination of
grains
wear to the mill,
waste of energy
loss of product
Action Required
coordinate flow rate
of auger conveyer to
milling capacity
coordinate flow rate
of auger conveyer to
milling capacity
Routine
cleaning/maintenance
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
contamination of
grains/product
silo and conveyer
closed from
environment,
inspection of grains
before entering mash
tun
151 | P a g e
Table 34: HAZOP - Process Component: Mash Tun
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Deviations
Level
Less
Mash Tun
Possible Causes
1. Rupture of
Vessel Wall
2. Outlet Valve
to boiling kettle
Fails to Close
2. Outlet Valve
to recirculation
Fails to Close
3. Leak From
Vessel Door
Possible
Consequence
Loss of Product
Install LIA
Compromised quality
Install FICA
of product
Compromised quality
Install FICA
of product
Loss of Product
3. Pump from
mash tun remains Loss of Product
on
3. Recirculation
Lower extraction
valve fails to
grom grain
open
Pressure
Action Required
Install New
Gasket, Routinely
Inspect water
tight seal before
each use
Install a FICA
and emergency
pump shutoff
Install FICA
More
4. 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
6. Rupture of
Vessel Wall
Loss of Product
Install Pressure
Release Valve
and PIA
7. Leak on
Pressure/
Temperature
Gauge
Loss of Product
Inspect seals
before use, add
temporary seal
8. Overfilling of
Tank
Tank
Explosion/Rupture
Install LAH and
shutoff valve
Less
More
152 | P a g e
Temperature
Less
More
Temperature
Insulation
Less
9. Boiling
induced
Tank
Explosion/Rupture,
loss of product due to
exceeding
temperature
10. Not enough
steam in heater
loss of product due to
inactive enzymes
11. Leak in
insulation
Wear of material,
corrosion
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
Install FICA and
TIA
11. Inlet hot
water too hot
loss of product due to
inactive enzymes
loss of product
due to inactive
enzymes
11. City water
flow rate through
heater too slow
Mash temperature too Install FICA and
high, loss of product TIA
11. Steam
Temperature in
heater is too high
loss of product due to
inactive enzymes
loss of product
due to inactive
enzymes
12. leak in
insulation
material in
between tank
Tank Temperature is
too low
Install a FICA
and TIA
13. Mash
temperature too
low
Tank Temperature is
too low
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install TIA
loss of product
due to inactive
enzymes
Inaccurate
temperature, loss
of product
153 | P a g e
More
17. Mash
Temperature too
high
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA
and TIA
Table 35: HAZOP - Process Component: Boiling Kettle
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Deviations
Boiling
Kettle
Level
Less
Possible Causes
44. Rupture of
Vessel Wall
45. Outlet Valve
Fails to Close
46. Leak From
Vessel Door
More
Pressure
Less
47. Valve for
city water does
not close
48. Steam Jacket
Ruptures into
Vessel
49. Rupture of
Vessel Wall
50. Leak on
Pressure/
Temperature
Gauge
More
Temperature
Less
51. Overfilling
of Tank
52. Temperature
too high
53. Not enough
steam
Possible
Consequence
Action Required
Loss of Product
Install LIA
Loss of Product
Install FICA
Loss of Product
Install New Gasket,
Routinely Inspect
water tight seal
before each use
Dilute Batch, loss of
product
Install a FICA
Product
Contamination
Install Emergency
Shut off
Loss of Product
Install Pressure
Release Valve and
PIA
Loss of Product
Inspect seals before
use, add temporary
seal
Loss of product
Install LAH and
shutoff valve
Loss of product due to
boil over
Install TIA
Tank temperature too
low
Install FICA and
TIA
154 | P a g e
More
Flow
Less
Steam Jacket
No
More
Temperature
Less
54. Steam
Temperature is
too high
Tank temperature is
too high, boil over
Install TIA and
LAH
Tank Temperature is
too low
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too low
Tank Temperature is
too low
Tank Temperature is
58. Pump Failure
too low
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
55. Inlet valve
Fails - Remains
Closed
56. Steam
Service Failure
57. Operator
Error
59. Inlet valve
Fails - Remains
Closed
60. Steam
Service Failure
61. Operator
Error
Tank Temperature is
too low
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too low
Tank Temperature is
too low
Tank Temperature is
62. Pump Failure
too low
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
63. Inlet valve
Fails - Remains
Open
64. Controller
Fails and leaves
inlet valve open
65. Operator
Error
66. Pump speed
too high
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
67. Inlet steam
supply is too low
Tank Temperature is
too cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
68. inlet valve
remains closed
Tank Temperature is
too cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
155 | P a g e
69. Pump speed
too low
More
70. Inlet steam
supply is too
high
71. inlet valve
Fails - Remains
open
72. Pump Failure
Tank Temperature is
too cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
156 | P a g e
Table 36: HAZOP - Process Component: Heat Exchanger
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Deviation
s
Heat
Exchanger
Flow
Less
More
Possible
Consequence
73. Valve from
Product too hot
city water fails to entering fermentation
open
tank
74. Valve from
Process delay/waste if
boiling kettle
cooling water
fails to open
75. Pump from
Process delay/waste of
boiling kettle
cooling water
fails
Product too hot
76. Pump from
entering fermentation
cooling unit fails
tank
inadequate heat
77. Plate rupture, transfer, product not at
crack
temperature for
fermentation
Possible Causes
78. Valve from
City water fails
to close
79. Valve from
boiling kettle
fails to close
Product too cool
entering fermentation
tank
Flow rate to high,
product too hot
entering fermentation
tank
Flow rate to high,
product too hot
entering fermentation
tank
81. Pump from
Product too cool
cooling unit flow entering fermentation
too fast
tank
80. Pump from
boiling kettle
flow too fast
No
82. Valve from
Product too hot
city water fails to entering fermentation
open
tank
Action Required
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Routine cleaning/
maintenance
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
157 | P a g e
83. Valve from
boiling kettle
fails to open
84. Pump from
boiling kettle
fails
85. Pump from
cooling unit fails
Process delay/waste if
cooling water
Install FIA
Process delay/waste of
cooling water
Install FIA
Product too hot
entering fermentation
tank
Install FIA
Table 37: HAZOP - Process Component: Primary Fermenter
Study Node
Fermentation
Vessel
Process
Deviations Possible Causes Possible Consequence Action Required
Parameters
Rupture of Vessel
Level
Less
Loss of Product
Install LIA
Wall
Outlet Valve Fails
Loss of Product
Install FICA
to Close
Install New Gasket,
Leak From Vessel
Routinely Inspect
Loss of Product
Door
water tight seal
before each use
More
Pressure
Less
More
Inlet valve Does
not close
Cooling Jacket
Ruptures into
Vessel
Product Contamination Install a FICA
Product Contamination
Install Emergency
Shut off
Rupture of Vessel
Loss of Product
Wall
Install Pressure
Release Valve and
PIA
Leak on Pressure/
Temperature
Loss of Product
Gauge
Inspect seals before
use, add temporary
seal
not opening a vent
Tank implosion,
while pumping
damage to vessel
out liquid
Install PIA and
emergency pump
shut off
Overfilling of
Tank
Install LAH and
shutoff valve
Tank
Explosion/Rupture
158 | P a g e
Temperature
Cooling
Jacket
Flow
CO2 Outlet
blocked
Tank
Explosion/Rupture
Pressure Release
Bypass Valve,
Install PIA
Less
Cooling Water
Temperature is
too cold
Reactor Failure due to
Yeast Death
Install TIA on
Cooling Water
In/Out
More
Cooling Water
Temperature is
too high
Reactor Failure due to
Yeast Death
Install TIA on
Cooling Water
In/Out
Tank Temperature is
too High
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too High
Tank Temperature is
too High
Tank Temperature is
too High
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
Inlet water valve
Fails - Remains
Open
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Controller Fails
and leaves Inlet
water valve open
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too Hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too Hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Less
Inlet water valve
Fails - Remains
Closed
Cooling water
Service Failure
Operator Error
Pump Failure
No
More
Same as Less
Operator Error
Pump speed too
high
Temperature
Less
Inlet Cooling
water supply is
too low
Inlet water valve
Flow too high
159 | P a g e
Pump speed too
high
More
Inlet Cooling
water supply is
too high
Inlet water valve
Fails - Remains
Closed
Pump Failure
Tank Temperature is
too Hot
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Tank Temperature is
too Cold
Install a FICA and
TIA
Table 38: HAZOP - Process Component: Filter
Study Node
Filter
Process
Deviations Possible Causes
Parameters
Flow
Less
Valve from
fermentation tank
fails to close
Pump failure
Filter clogs
Filter unit
damaged
More
No
Possible
Consequence
loss of product
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
damage to unit, delay
in process, loss of
product
damage to unit, delay
in process, loss of
product
Action Required
Install FIA
Install FICA
Routine cleaning
/maintenance
Routine cleaning
/maintenance
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
Valve from
fermentation tank
fails to close
loss of product
Install FIA
Pump failure
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
160 | P a g e
Pressure
More
Filter clogs
damage to unit, delay
in process, loss of
Routine cleaning
product, damage to
/maintenance
pump
Rupture in Piping
loss of product
Filter clogs
Pump failure
Filter damaged,
cracked plates
Less
No
damage to filter unit,
product not
adequately filtered
Flow rate too high,
damage to filter unit,
product not
adequately filtered
damage to unit, delay
in process, loss of
product
Install FICA
Routine
cleaning/maintenance
Install PIA
Routine
cleaning/maintenance
Valve 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
Valve 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
161 | P a g e
Table 39: HAZOP - Process Component: Brightening Tank
Study Node
Brightening
Tank
Process
Parameters
Deviations
Level
Less
More
Pressure
Less
Possible Causes
Rupture of Vessel
Wall
Outlet Valve Fails to
Close
Possible
Consequence
Loss of Product
Install LIA
Loss of Product
Install FICA
Leak From Vessel
Door
Loss of Product
Install New
Gasket,
Routinely
Inspect water
tight seal before
each use
Inlet valve Does not
close
Product
Contamination
Install a FICA
Cooling Jacket
Ruptures into Vessel
Product
Contamination
Install
Emergency Shut
off
Rupture of Vessel
Wall
Loss of Product
Leak on
Pressure/Temperature Loss of Product
Gauge
More
Action
Required
Install Pressure
Release Valve
and PIA
Inspect seals
before use, add
temporary seal
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
Overfilling of Tank
Tank
Explosion/Rupture
Over carbonation
Tank
Explosion/Rupture
CO2 Outlet blocked
Tank
Explosion/Rupture
Install LAH and
shutoff valve
Install a
pressure release
valve
Pressure
Release Bypass
Valve, Install
PIA
162 | P a g e
Temperature
Cooling
Jacket
Flow
Less
Cooling Water
Temperature is too
cold
Install TIA on
Reactor Failure
Cooling Water
due to Yeast Death
In/Out
More
Cooling Water
Temperature is too
high
Install TIA on
Reactor Failure
Cooling Water
due to Yeast Death
In/Out
Less
Inlet water valve
Fails - Remains
Closed
Cooling water
Service Failure
Tank Temperature
is too High
Install a FICA
and TIA
Tank Temperature
is too High
Tank Temperature
is too High
Tank Temperature
is too High
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Tank
Inlet water valve
Temperature is too
Fails - Remains Open
Cold
Install a FICA
and TIA
Controller Fails and
leaves Inlet water
valve open
Install a FICA
and TIA
Operator Error
Pump Failure
No
More
Same as Less
Operator Error
Pump speed too high
Temperature
Less
Inlet Cooling water
supply is too low
Inlet water valve
Flow too high
P-1 speed too high
Tank
Temperature is too
Cold
Tank
Temperature is too
Cold
Tank
Temperature is too
Cold
Tank
Temperature is too
Hot
Tank
Temperature is too
Hot
Tank
Temperature is too
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
163 | P a g e
Hot
More
Inlet Cooling water
supply is too high
Inlet water valve
Fails - Remains
Closed
Pump Failure
CO2 Tank
Pressure
More
Less
reverse flow back
into container
Leak in line
Vessel cracked,
leaking
Level
Less
Leak in line
Vessel cracked,
leaking
Container
explosion
product not
carbonated, waste
of material
waste of material,
product not
carbonated
product not
carbonated, waste
of material
waste of material,
product not
carbonated
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a FICA
and TIA
Install a check
valve
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
Line blocked
product not
carbonated
Install FIA
No
Vessel leaked
waste of material,
product not
carbonated
Install PIA and
Check valve
Less
Line blocked
More
Flow
Tank
Temperature is too
Cold
Tank
Temperature is too
Cold
Tank
Temperature is too
Cold
Valve not fully open
product not
carbonated
process delay,
product undercarbonated
Install FIA
Install FIA and
PIA
164 | 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
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Deviations
Possible Causes
Keg Filler
Flow
Less
Valve to filler fails
to open
More
Possible
Consequence
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Action Required
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
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FICA
Valves to Bottler
and In house full
closed
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FIA
165 | P a g e
No
Level
Less
Valve to filler fails
to open
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
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
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Valve to Keg filler
fails to open
Keg filler
malfunction
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
More
No
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Inaccurate product
levels, loss of sales
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FIA
Install FICA
Install FICA
Valves to Bottler
and In house full
closed
Keg filler
malfunction
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Overflow, loss of
Product
Valve to filler fails
to open
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Install FIA
Keg Filler
malfunction
unable to fill kegs,
loss of sales
Routine
maintenance,
Install FICA
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FICA
166 | P a g e
Pressure
More
Overfilling kegs
Valve to filler fails
to open
Less
No
Under filling kegs
Rupture in keg, loss
of product and sales
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Inaccurate product
levels, loss of sales
Install LAH
Install FIA
Install LAL
Keg Filler
malfunction
unable to fill kegs,
loss of sales
Routine
maintenance,
Install FICA
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Table 41: HAZOP - Process Component: Bottler/Labeler
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Deviations
Bottler
Flow
Less
Possible Causes
Valve to bottler
fails to open
Valve to keg filler
full open
Valve to In House
Vessels full open
Valve from
Brightening Tank
fails to open
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
More
Possible
Consequence
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Delay in process,
loss of product to
bottles
Delay in process,
loss of product to In
House storage
Delay in process,
possible pump
damage
Action
Required
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
Bottler malfunction
unable to fill kegs,
loss of sales
Routine
maintenance,
Install FICA
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FICA
Valves to keg filler
and In house full
closed
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FIA
167 | P a g e
No
Valve to bottler
fails to open
Valve from
Brightening Tank
fails to open
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Level
Less
No
Install FIA
Install FIA
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
Bottler malfunction
unable to fill kegs,
loss of sales
Routine
maintenance,
Install FICA
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Valve to Bottler
fails to open
Bottler malfunction
More
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Delay in process,
possible pump
damage
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Inaccurate product
levels, loss of sales
Install FIA
Install FICA
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
Valves to keg filler
and In house full
closed
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FIA
Bottler malfunction
Overflow, loss of
Product
Install FICA
Valve to bottler
fails to open
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Install FIA
Bottler malfunction
unable to fill kegs,
loss of sales
Routine
maintenance,
Install FICA
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
168 | P a g e
Pressure
Less
Under filling
bottles
Rupture in bottles,
loss of product and
sales
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Inaccurate product
levels, loss of sales
No
Bottler
malfunction
unable to fill kegs,
loss of sales
Routine
maintenance,
Install FICA
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Contaminant in
Bottles
Contamination of
product
Adequate rinsing
and sanitizing
More
Overfilling bottles
Valve to bottler
fails to open
Composition
As Well
As
Install LAH
Install PIA
Install LAL
Table 42: HAZOP - Process Component: In House Kegs
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Deviations
Possible Causes
In House
Kegs
Flow
Less
Valve to vessel
fails to open
Valve to keg
filler full open
Valve to bottler
full open
Valve from
Brightening Tank
fails to open
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
More
Possible
Consequence
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Delay in process,
loss of product to
storage
Delay in process,
loss of product to
storage
Delay in process,
possible pump
damage
Action Required
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
Leak in vessel
wall
Loss of product
Routine
maintenance,
Install LAL
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FICA
169 | P a g e
Valves to keg
filler and Bottler
full closed
No
Valve to vessel
fails to open
Valve from
Brightening Tank
fails to open
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Level
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Delay in process,
possible pump
damage
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
Rupture in Vessel
wall
Loss of product
Routine
maintenance,
Install LAL
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Valve to vessel
fails to open
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Install FIA
Leak in Vessel
wall
Loss of product
Routine
maintenance,
Install LAL
Pump from
brightening tank
fails
Flow rate too low,
delay in process
Install FICA
More
Valves to keg
filler and bottler
closed
Flow rate to high,
over flow, pressure
build
Install FIA, LAH
No
Valve to vessel
fails to open
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Install FIA
Rupture in vessel
wall
Loss of product
Routine
maintenance,
Install LAL
Rupture in piping
Loss of product
Install FIA
Less
170 | P a g e
Pressure
More
Overfilling
Vessel
Valve to vessel
fails to open
Less
No
Under filling
vessel
Leak in vessel
wall
Rupture in piping
Rupture in vessel
wall, loss of product
and sales
Delay in process,
pressure build in
pipes
Inaccurate product
levels, loss of sales
Install LAH
Install PIA
Install LAL
Loss of product
Routine
maintenance
Loss of product
Install FIA
Table 43: HAZOP - Process Component: Steam Generator
Study Node
Process
Parameter
s
Steam
Generator
Temperatur
e
Pressure
Possible
Consequence
Action Required
Less
not enough natural
gas
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
Install TIA
Later
not enough natural
gas
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
Install TIA
Less
not enough water
flow
Deviations Possible Causes
not enough natural
gas
Condensation in
pipes
Leak in pipe
threshold sensor in
pipe malfunction
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
wet steam,
inefficient heating,
possible loss of
product
loss of steam,
inefficient heating
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
Install PIA and
water flow water
flow meter
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
routine
maintenance/
testing on PIA
171 | P a g e
Burner
malfunction
More
too much water
flow
Furnace too hot
Blockage in pipe
No
Level
Less
No
Too much steam
produced, pipes
burst
steam being
produced too fast,
pipes burst
pipe bursts
routine
maintenance,
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
routine
maintenance/
testing on PIA
threshold sensor in
pipe malfunction
pipe bursts
Leak in water pipe
No steam produced Install FIA
No water flow
No steam produced Install FIA
not enough water
flow
Leak in water pipe
More
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
Not enough steam
produced, loss of
product
loss of steam,
inefficient heating
Install PIA and
water flow water
flow meter
Install FIA
Water flow rate
too high
wet steam
produced,
inefficient heating
Install FIA
blockage in steam
pipe
Pipe bursts
Install PIA
No water flow
leak in water pipe
Leak in steam pipe
No steam
produced, unable
to brew
No steam
produced, unable
to brew
unable to brew
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install PIA
Table 44: HAZOP - Process Component: Instant Water Heater
172 | P a g e
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Instant
Water
Heater
Temperature Less
Deviations Possible Causes
Steam flow rate too
low
Water flow rate too
high
Wet Steam
Leak in steam line
Heater malfunction
More
Steam flow rate too
high
Water low rate too
low
Heater malfunction
Pressure
Less
No steam flow
No water Flow
Condensation in
pipes
Leak in pipe
More
Water flow to high
Possible
Consequence
Wrong mash
temperature, loss
of product
Wrong mash
temperature, loss
of product
Wrong mash
temperature, loss
of product
less steam flow,
possible loss of
product
Wrong mash
temperature, loss
of product
mash temp too
high, loss of
product
mash temp too
high, loss of
product
mash temp too
high, loss of
product
loss of product
unable to regulate
temp, loss of
product
inefficient heating,
possible loss of
product
loss of steam,
inefficient heating
inefficient heating,
possible loss of
product
Action
Required
Install TIA
Install TIA
Install TIA
Install TIA and
FIA
Routine
maintenance
Install TIA
Install TIA and
FIA
Routine
maintenance
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA and
FIA
173 | P a g e
Steam flow too
high
Blockage in pipe
Flow
Less
Blockage in pipe
Leak in water pipe
Valve not fully
open
Blockage in steam
pipe
More
No
inefficient heating,
possible loss of
product
pipe ruptures
unable to regulate
temp, loss of
product
unable to regulate
temp, loss of
product
unable to regulate
temp, loss of
product
unable to regulate
temp, loss of
product
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install PIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
steam pressure too
high
temperature too
high, possible loss
of product
Install FIA and
PIA
Leak in steam pipe
unable to brew
Install PIA
Water valve closed
unable to brew
Install FIA
leak in water pipe
unable to regulate
temp, loss of
product
Install FIA
Table 45: HAZOP - Process Component: Cooling Unit
Study Node
Process
Parameters
Cooling Unit
Temperature Less
Deviations
More
Possible Causes
unit malfunction
unit malfunction
Possible
Consequence
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
Action
Required
Install TIA
Install TIA
174 | P a g e
Flow too fast
Flow
Less
Leak in vessel wall
pump failure
Unit malfunction
Valve from city
water not open
More
No
Pump speed too
high
Pump malfunction
valve from city
water not open
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product, Pump
runs dry
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product, Pump
runs dry
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product
wrong
fermentation
temperature, loss
of product, Pump
runs dry
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
Install FIA
175 | 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 lockout/tag-out procedures.
1910.272(i)(1)
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.
176 | P a g e
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)
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.
177 | P a g e
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.
1910.272(m)(1)
The employer shall implement preventive maintenance procedures consisting of:
1910.272(m)(1)(i)
178 | P a g e
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;
179 | P a g e
Appendix – F: Profitability Excel Charts
Capital Investment
ES TIMATION OF CAPITAL INVES TMENT BY PERCENTAGE OF DELIVERED EQUIPMENT METHOD
(See Table 6-9)
The fractions in the cells below are approximations applicable to typical chemical processing
plants. These values may differ depending on many factors such as location, process type, etc.
Required user input
Subtotal
Result
Default
Required, from a linked sheet or entered manually
Project Identifier: Illustration 101
Purchased equipment, E'
Delivery, fraction of E'
Subtotal: delivered equipment
Purchased equipment installation
Instrumentation&Controls(installed
Piping (installed)
Electrical systems (installed)
Buildings (including services)
Yard improvements
Service facilities (installed)
Total direct costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction expenses
Legal expenses
Contractor's fee
Contingency
Total indirect costs
Notes & comments
Fraction of delivered equipment
User: copy Calculated
from values values, million
SolidSolid-fluid Fluid
processing processing processing at left or $
insert
plant
plant
plant
Direct Costs
0.984
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.000
0.45
0.18
0.16
0.10
0.39
0.26
0.31
0.10
0.47
0.36
0.68
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.15
0.40
1.69
0.29
0.12
0.55
2.02
0.18
0.10
0.70
2.60
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.12
Indirect Costs
0.33
0.39
0.04
0.17
0.35
1.28
0.32
0.34
0.04
0.19
0.37
1.26
0.33
0.41
0.04
0.22
0.44
1.44
0.10
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.29
Fixed capital investment (FCI)
Working capital (WC)
0.70
0.75
Total capital investment (TCI)
0.000
0.984
0.030
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.059
0.010
0.000
1.102
0.098
0.079
0.010
0.020
0.079
0.285
1.388
0.89
0.75
0.738
2.126
180 | P a g e
Materials and Labor
ANNUAL RAW MATERIAL COSTS AND PRODUCTS VALUES
Process Identifier: Illustration 101
Required user input
Notes & comments
Default, may be changed
RESULT
Products, Coproducts and Byproducts
Name of
Price,
Annual Annual value
Material
$/kg
Amount, of product,
million
million $/y
kg/y
Main
1.60
30.000
48.00
General
Byproduct
0.25
12.000
3.00
Head Brew
0.00
Owner
0.00
Invetory
0.00
0.00
Total annual value of products =
2.619336 Sent to 'Evaluation'
and 'Year-0 $'
Name of
Material
1
2
3
Raw Materials
Price,
Annual
$/kg
Amount,
million
kg/y
0.45
0.25
0.05
20.000
12.000
13.000
Total annual cost of raw materials =
Annual raw
materials
cost, million
$/y
9.00
3.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26347
ANNUAL OPERATING LABOR COSTS
Process Identifier: Illustration 101
Required user input
Notes & comments
Default, may be changed
RESULT
Operating Labor
Number of
Shifts per Operator Annual
operators per
day**
rate, $/h # operating
shift*
labor
cost,
1
14.42
3
0.126
1
48.08
1
0.140
1
26.44
1
0.077
1
16.83
1
0.049
0.393
*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
ENR skilled labor index)/6067 =
1
Sent to sheet 'Annual
TPC'
181 | P a g e
Utility Cost
Utility
0.039
million $/y
Sent to sheet 'Annual TPC'
Annual utility
Default
requirement, in
cost units
appropriate units
Default
unit cost
TOTAL UTILITY COST =
Default units Annual utility
of utility
cost, million
requirement
$/y
Air, compressed
Process air
0.45
$/100m3 #
100 m3# /y
Instrument air
0.90
$/100m3 #
100 m3# /y
Electricity
Purchased, U.S. average
0.045 $/kWh
Self-generated
0.05
$/kWh
Coal
1.66
$/GJ
Fuel oil
3.30
$/GJ
Natural gas
3.00
$/GJ
Manufactured gas
1800000
kWh/y
0.0267820
kWh/y
Fuel
GJ/y
GJ/y
GJ/y
0.0017395
12.00 $/GJ
GJ/y
0.0062734
4.00
$/GJ
GJ/y
5.00
$/GJ
GJ/y
8.00
$/GJ
GJ/y
14.00 $/GJ
GJ/y
360000
Refrigeration, to temperature
15 o C
5 °C
o
-20 C
o
-50 C
Steam, saturated
3550 kPa
8.00
$/1000 kg
790 kPa
6.00
$/1000 kg
2.00
$/1000 kg
0.53
$/m3
0.53
3
Exhaust (150 kPa)
1000 kg/y
40000
1000 kg/y
1000 kg/y
Waste water
Disposal
Treatment
$/m
m3 /y
400000
m3 /y
Waste disposal
Hazardous
145.00 $/1000 kg
1000 kg/y
Non-hazardous
36.00 $/1000 kg
1000 kg/y
0.001908
Water
Cooling
0.08
$/ m3
2500000
m3 /y
0.53
$/m3
400000
m3 /y
0.90
3
Process
General
Distilled
$/m
0.00264983
3
m /y
182 | P a g e
Depreciation
Recovery
period
3-year
f
7-year
10-year
15-year
20-year
Entry = MACRS depreciation as fraction/y of FCI
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0.333 0.444 0.148 0.074
0.200 0.320 0.192 0.115 0.115 0.058
0.143 0.245 0.175 0.125 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.045
0.100 0.180 0.144 0.115 0.092 0.074 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.033
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 0.030
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
Evaluation
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Project identifier: Illustration 101
Expenditures, entries must be negative
Default values, can be changed
Required, user must supply
CURRENT, i.e. INFLATED, DOLLARS
Construction inflation rate, fraction/y
=
0.02
Product price inflation rate, fraction/y =
0
TPC inflation rate, fraction/y
=
0.02
Annual-compounding discount rate, fraction/y = minimum acceptable rate of return, m ar =
Required, may be calculated here, in linked
worksheet, or entered manually
Comments and notes begin in column S
Year ending at time
-3
6
1. Land, 10 $ (see notes)
-2
-1
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2. Fixed Capital Investment, 106$
-0.21
-0.50
-0.72
3. Working Capital, 106$ (see notes)
-0.76
4. Salvage Value, 106$
5. Total Capital Investment, 106$
-0.21
-0.50
-1.48
6. Annual Investment, 106$
6
7. Start-up cost, 10 $
8. Operating rate, fraction of capacity
9. Annual sales, 106$
10. Annual Total Product Cost,
depreciation not included,106$
11. Annual depreciation factor, 1/y
12. Annual depreciation, 106$/y
13. Annual Gross Profit, 106$
14. Annual Net Profit, 106$
15. Annual operating cash flow,106$
16. Total annual cash flow, 106$
0.00
-0.21
-0.50
-1.48
17. Cumulative cash position, 106$
0.00
-0.21
-0.70
-2.18
Profitability measures, time value of money NOT included:
18. Return on investment, ave. %/y
19. Payback period, y
20. Net return, 106$
0.21
Continuous-compounding discount rate, fraction/y = minimum acceptable rate of return, r ma=
Income tax rate =
0.35
RESULT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.19
10
0.00
0.76
0.00
Row Sum
0.00
-1.43
0.00
0.00
-2.18
0.00
0.00
-0.14
0.50
1.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
2.36
1.00
2.62
1.00
2.62
1.00
2.62
1.00
2.62
1.00
2.62
1.00
2.62
1.00
2.62
1.00
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
0.20
0.29
0.07
0.05
0.33
0.33
-1.85
0.320
0.46
0.75
0.49
0.94
0.94
-0.91
0.192
0.27
1.09
0.71
0.98
0.98
0.07
0.115
0.16
1.17
0.76
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.115
0.16
1.14
0.74
0.91
0.91
1.91
0.058
0.08
1.20
0.78
0.86
0.86
2.77
1.26
0.82
0.82
0.82
3.58
1.23
0.80
0.80
0.80
4.38
1.20
0.78
0.78
0.78
5.16
1.17
0.76
0.76
0.76
5.93
1.43
10.28
6.68
8.11
5.93
30.6
1.8
0.21 at mar =
21.0 %/y
183 | P a g e
Annual TPC
ANNUAL TOTAL PRODUCT COST AT 100% CAPACITY
See Figure 6-7 and 6-8
Default, may be changed
Subtotal
Notes & comments
User input
RESULT
Required, may be calculated here, in linked worksheet, or entered manually.
Project identifier: Illustration 101
Capacity
Fixed Capital Investment, FCI
Item
30
1.426
106 kg per year
million $
Default
factor, user
may
change
Basis
Basis
Cost,
cost,
million $/y
million $/y
0.263
Raw materials
0.393
Operating labor
Operating supervision
0.15
of operating labor 0.393
0.059
Utilities
0.039
Maintenance and repairs
0
of FCI
1.426
0.000
Operating supplies
0
of maintenance & repair
0.000
0.000
Cleaners
0
of operating labor 0.393
0.003
of c o
Royalties (if not on lump-sum basis)
0
1.141
0.000
Bottels/Labels
0
-0.003
Variable cost =
0.761
Taxes (property)
0.02
of FCI
1.426
0.029
Financing (interest)
0.08
of FCI
1.426
0.114
Insurance
0.01
of FCI
1.426
0.014
Rent
0
of FCI
1.426
0.000
Depreciation
Calculated separately
Fixed Charges =
0.157
Plant overhead, general
0.5
of labor, supervision and
0.452
maintenance
0.226
Plant Overhead =
0.226
Manufacturing cost =
1.144
Administration
0
of labor, supervision and
0.452
maintenance
0.000
of c o
Distribution & selling
0
1.141
0.000
Research & Development
0
of c o
1.141
General Expense =
TOTAL PRODUCT COST WITHOUT DEPRECIATION
= co =
0.000
0.000
1.141
184 | P a g e
185 | P a g e