Design Report
Team 3: iBrew
Alissa Jones, Lota Onwumelu, Nolan Worstell
Engr 339/340 Senior Design Project
Calvin College
5/10/2013
© 2013, Calvin College and Alissa Jones, Lota Onwumelu, Nolan Worstell
i
Executive Summary
Team iBrew of Calvin College’s 2013 senior class of engineers designed a microbrewery with a
carbon dioxide compression and purification system. The proposal was made to the college by local
brewer and alum, Barry VanDyke of Harmony Brewing Company, who wanted to reduce the overall
carbon dioxide used by his brewery. Because there is little data available concerning off-gas composition
of fermentation tanks, the team assembled an analytical pipe to measure gasses from Harmony’s tanks to
model the carbon dioxide production rate along with impurity concentration over time. The team also
used specific gravity data from the liquid to develop a rate model for alcohol and thus carbon dioxide
production. The feasibility of a compression and purification system for Harmony depends upon the
initial purity of the gasses along with space and economic constraints. A hypothetical microbrewery was
designed using Super Pro Designer software to evaluate the economies of scale of the batch system from
a theoretical basis rather than industry experience, and then confirmed with experimental data.
The total amount of pure carbon dioxide available per batch is 104 ft3 using a perfect mixing
model for headspace mixing, or 625 ft3 using a plug flow model for oxygen push-out. A system of two
absorber each containing 13.9 kg of granular activated carbon of 8x20 mesh. A replacement frequency of
all the activated carbon once every five months is recommended to remove non-oxygen impurities. A
compressor of 0.5 horsepower designed to operate up to 750 psi and worth $5449 would be purchased to
compress the carbon dioxide to 750 psi for later usage in the brewery. Of the 600lb of carbon dioxide
required per month at Harmony, 44% to 100% could be obtained from recycling (assuming pefect mixing
and plug flow, respectively), resulting in $72.80 to $290.50 monthly savings. The recycle system has a
return on interest for the best case scenario of 27% and a worst case scenario of -68% and can be paid
back with the savings between 6.72 to 26.8 years respectively.
The initial capital cost involved in building an entire brewery with a capacity of 1,000 bbl/yr,
equivalent to Harmony’s size, is approximately $170,000 and will have a break even period of 0.2 years
ii
assuming full capacity production and sales in year one. The return on investment for the entire brewery
is calculated to be between 4500% and 5300%.
iii
Table of Contents
Copyright……………………………………………………………………………………………………i
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vi
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Project Management .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Method of Approach ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.1.1 Super Pro Designer 4.7 .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Team Members ................................................................................................................................... 3
3 Requirements ............................................................................................................................................. 4
4 Design Norms ............................................................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Cultural Appropriateness .................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Transparency ....................................................................................................................................... 5
4.3 Integrity/Trust ..................................................................................................................................... 5
4.4 Stewardship ......................................................................................................................................... 6
5 Overall Brewery ......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Mash Tun ............................................................................................................................................ 9
5.1.1 Heat exchanger........................................................................................................................... 11
5.1.2 Lauter Tun .................................................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Wort Kettle........................................................................................................................................ 12
5.2.1 Whirlpool ................................................................................................................................... 13
5.2.2 Heat Exchanger .......................................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Fermentation Tank ............................................................................................................................ 13
5.3.1 Fermentation Models ................................................................................................................. 14
5.3.2 Downfalls of the Chosen Model ................................................................................................ 15
5.3.3 Calibration of the Model ............................................................................................................ 16
5.4 Beer Conditioning ............................................................................................................................. 18
5.5 Beer Filtration ................................................................................................................................... 19
5.6 Beer Carbonation .............................................................................................................................. 19
5.6.1 Traditional methods ................................................................................................................... 19
iv
5.6.2 Modern Methods ........................................................................................................................ 20
5.6.3 CO2 Capture and Compression System...................................................................................... 20
5.7 Bottling Process ................................................................................................................................ 23
6 Task Specifications and Schedule ............................................................................................................ 24
7 Experiment ............................................................................................................................................... 24
7.1 Design Method .................................................................................................................................. 24
7.2 Design Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 25
7.3 Testing............................................................................................................................................... 26
7.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 29
7.4.1 Non-O2 Impurity Removal ......................................................................................................... 29
7.4.2 Oxygen Removal........................................................................................................................ 32
7.4.3 Control Loop .............................................................................................................................. 35
7.4.4 Recommended Investment in Identification Technology .......................................................... 36
8 Business Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 37
8.1 Marketing Study................................................................................................................................ 38
8.1.1 Competitor analysis.................................................................................................................... 38
8.1.2 Market Survey ............................................................................................................................ 39
8.2 Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................................... 42
8.2.1 Development .............................................................................................................................. 42
8.2.2 Production .................................................................................................................................. 42
9 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 46
10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 47
11 Resources ............................................................................................................................................... 49
12 Appendices............................................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix I: Super Pro Designer PFD ..................................................................................................... 52
Appendix II: Equipment Sheets, Overall ................................................................................................ 52
Appendix III: Equipment Sheets, Recycle .............................................................................................. 52
Appendix IV: Beersmith Recipe ............................................................................................................. 52
Appendix V: Team Structure .................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix VI: Equipment Quotes ............................................................................................................ 52
v
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Overall Brewery Design ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 2: Purification and Recycle Diagram............................................................................................... 21
Figure 3: GC/MS output for Air and Gas Sample, full Spectrum ............................................................... 27
Figure 4: GC/MS output for Air and Gas Sample, Low count focus, identification in Table 4 ................. 28
Figure 5: Concentration Model for CO2 from Matlab. ............................................................................... 34
Figure 6: Flow Rate Model for Off-gasses from Matlab ............................................................................ 34
Figure 7: Control Loop Diagram ................................................................................................................ 36
Table of Tables
Table 1: Food Grade Specifications, (International Society of Beverage Technologists, 2001) .................. 4
Table 2: Materials of Construction Design Matrix ..................................................................................... 25
Table 3: Velocity Measurement Design Matrix .......................................................................................... 25
Table 4: Identification of Impurities in Off-Gas Sampling ......................................................................... 28
Table 5: Growth of Craft Breweries Industry ............................................................................................. 40
Table 6: Pricing per Volume of Product ..................................................................................................... 41
Table 7: Gross Profit Margin during scale-up............................................................................................. 41
Table 8: Balance Sheet utilizing a 44 % savings on carbon dioxide purchase ........................................... 43
Table 9: Balance Sheet utilizing a 100% savings on carbon dioxide purchase .......................................... 44
Table 10: Overall Brewery Equipment Estimate Costs .............................................................................. 45
Table 11: Recycle System Equipment Estimate Costs ............................................................................... 46
Table 12: Predicted and Final Budget ................................................................................................. Ap.V-3
Table 13: Major Tasks Work Division .............................................................................................. Ap. V-3
Table 14: Major Equipment Specification and Sources ....................................................................Ap. VI-1
vi
1 Introduction
Barry Van Dyke approached Calvin College in the summer of 2012 with the idea of making his
small brewpub more environmentally friendly. The way that Barry proposed to do this was by the
implementation of a CO2 capture and compression system. Barry was inspired by looking at his brewery
and considering how he vented CO2 from his fermentation tanks and then turned around to buy more CO2
from a vendor and realized that he must be releasing a significant amount of CO2. With this in mind,
Barry decided that his brewery needed to change how it operated to reduce the impact the brewery was
having on the environment and save the cost of CO2.
Later in the summer, Calvin College posted options for senior design projects and the forming
Team iBrew expressed interest. With the start of the school year, Team iBrew officially accepted Barry’s
project as their senior design project. Shortly after team iBrew accepted Barry’s project, the team advisor,
Wayne Wentzheimer, suggested that the team should look beyond just producing a one off project of a
CO2 capture and compression system to designing a full-fledged microbrewery so that the design of the
CO2 system could be incorporated into future sustainable microbreweries and serve as an example for
how existing breweries can be retrofitted to incorporate a CO2 capture and compression system. Thus, the
iBrew began the design of a more efficient and sustainable microbrewery with a carbon dioxide recycle
system.
2 Project Management
2.1 Method of Approach
The design project is divided into two sections: an overall brewery design and a carbon dioxide
recycle unit. The team decided to develop the carbon dioxide recycle system and optimize the
fermentation process for a microbrewery modeled after Harmony Brewing Company, which is owned by
Barry Van Dyke, and work to develop an economic analysis of the brewery.
1
For the overall brewery design, developed in the spring, the team was concerned with
determining a good rate law for the fermentation process. Research was carried out to determine the
chemical components required for the modeling of the batch fermentation process. Individual residence
times in the fermentation tank, wort vessel and the mash tun were determined to be dependent on this
batch modeling process. The team was also concerned with the decision on the final alcohol composition
of the beer being produced. This decision pertaining to the alcohol was dependent on the team decision to
be culturally appropriate and not negatively impact the community. However, the decision on the final
alcohol composition of the beer was also important for the modeling of the fermentation reaction as the
rate laws are dependent on alcohol and sugar concentrations. Decisions were also made about the required
hops, yeast strains and malt sugars to be used in the brewery. Lastly, specifications on the filtration
systems and the heat exchangers to be used were carried out.
The other part of this project which was tackled simultaneously with the overall brewery design is
the carbon dioxide recycle system. For the recycle system, the team worked to determine the composition
and rate of the off-gas of fermentation. Tests were carried out to determine both composition and flow
rate. However, a direct measure of flow rate using pressure meters was hindered by water in the pressure
lines, sugar clogging the pitot tube, and incorrect pressure reading range. So the team over came this
challenge by indirectly measuring the flow rate of the carbon dioxide by testing specific gravity.
Alongside the experiments, research was also done to investigate possible alternatives for the purification
of the off gases to obtain the appropriate grade of carbon dioxide quality. Process alternatives that arose
from research were:

A Molecular Sieve

Activated Carbon

Liquefaction and stripping process.

Timing of collection after oxygen is pushed out

Water Stripping

A possible combination of the above.
These options were then analyzed to obtain the best design.
2
2.1.1 Super Pro Designer 4.7
An integral part of the design of the overall brewery was the decision to use Super Pro Designer
4.7 modeling software. This choice was made because there was no other batch modeling software
available to the team. The use of batch modeling software was important to the project as it enables the
quick scale up and scale down of systems and helps prevent errors in basic sizing calculations as well as
simplifying the solution of kinetic rate rate laws. The major advantages to Super Pro Designer were that it
allows for the design of batch scheduling and can even be used to incorporate the bottling part of the
brewery. However, Super Pro Designer was not without its flaws. Some major hurdles that Super Pro
Designer posed were that it required simplified enzyme kinetic models for the yeast fermentation, could
not model the carbon dioxide recycle system, and the team did not have any prior experience with Super
Pro Designer before starting the project and without anyone at Calvin College that was knowledgeable
about Super Pro Designer the learning curve was steep. Despite all of the hurdles, the team was able to
improvise and overcome them allowing the batch modeling simulation to be of great assistance.
2.2 Team Members
Alissa Jones, ChE
Alissa is from Royal Oak, MI. She worked as an Analytical Chemist Intern at LECO Corporation
where she gained experience in development of technologies and methods for testing analytic
instruments. She will be graduating in May with a B.S.E. degree with a concentration of
Chemical Engineering. She plans on working in Houston, TX area after graduation.
Lota Onwumelu, ChE
Lota is from Abuja, Nigeria. He plans to graduate in December with a B.S.E. degree with a
concentration of Chemical Engineering. He has served three years on the international student
association committee and was the president of the association for the 2012-2013 school sessions.
Nolan Worstell, ChE
Nolan is from Stuttgart, Arkansas area. He has worked as a biological science aide and as a
chemical engineering intern with the Department of Agriculture where he gained experience in
biodiesel plant and amine reclamation unit constructions as well as with various biochemistry and
analytical chemistry skills. He will be graduating in May with a B.S.E. degree with a
concentration of Chemical Engineering and an ACS Chemistry double major and an international
designation. He plans to pursue graduate studies at Texas A&M in the fall.
3
3 Requirements
The CO2 capture and compression system needed to meet requirements for food grade carbon
dioxide on maximum tolerances of oxygen, hydrocarbons, and sulfuric compounds. These specifications,
given by the International Society of Beverage Technologists in 2001, are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Food Grade Specifications, (International Society of Beverage Technologists, 2001)
Component
Carbon Dioxide
Water
Oxygen
Sulfur
Volatile Hydrocarbons
Specification
99.9% v/v min
20 ppm v/v max
30 ppm v/v max
0.1 ppm v/v max
20 ppm v/v max
Reason
Process
Process
Sensory
Sensory
Sensory
The reason that the team decided upon food grade carbon dioxide standards as the required purity is based
off of several reasons. The first and most important reason that the food grade specification was chosen
was that Harmony Brewing Co. currently utilizes food grad carbon dioxide as part of their carbonation
system so that it is known to be a good standard of purity. The second reason that the team chose the food
grade specification was that the team deemed that testing the point at which the concentration of oxygen
became detrimental to the beer was outside of the scope of the project. Thus, the team was confident in its
choice of the food grade specifications for carbon dioxide.
The system was also required to fit in the small space, approximately 6ft * 15ft*5ft, available in
Harmony Brewery, and the compression unit must fit into the current bottling and proofing system there.
The pressure required for the compressed CO2 is 750 psi (VanDyke, 2012).
The overall brewery design was designed for maximum utilization of carbon dioxide recovery
and optimized for profitability. An important requirement that was kept in mind during the overall
brewery was the required food grade materials of construction. For all pieces of equipment except for the
fermentation and conditioning tanks, 304 or 316 stainless steel could be used, but the team decided to use
304 stainless steel for its decreased cost (Cowart). For the fermentation and condition tanks, only 316
4
stainless steel could be used as the length of time that the vessels are in contact with the acidic beer
solution could result in corrosion (Cowart).
4 Design Norms
4.1 Cultural Appropriateness
Grand Rapids has a wealth of thriving microbreweries and home brewers, evidenced by the 10
microbreweries within 30 minutes of Calvin College. This means that art of brewing is well integrated
into the community and its culture. Our project sought to develop a more efficient approach to brewing
and one that impacted the community positively. The project was also approached in an appropriate way
to the college’s rules with regards to alcohol use. While in the beer production industry alcohol is the
product and carbon dioxide the byproduct, our project emphasized the usefulness of the carbon dioxide
and the alcohol a byproduct, treated and tested by Harmony Brewery.
4.2 Transparency
The project had to be transparent to benefit the local microbreweries. The decisions made by the
design team to design the brewery had to be easily understood by those interested in adopting our method
of brewing. This was an integral part of the overall design process as there are at least 5 breweries just in
the Grand Rapids area that are similarly sized to Harmony Brewery and any system designed around
Harmony’s current brewery could be easily modified for their set up. Thus, a transparent design that was
consistent, reliable and predictable was very desirable.
4.3 Integrity/Trust
Integrity/Trust is a highly placed value of this project as Harmony has entrusted the team to
safeguard its trade secret specifications for its beers. Because the recipes that were developed by the
Harmony Brewers are secret, a generic recipe was formulated for the iBrew Super Pro Designer
simulation rather than simulating an actual Harmony brew. The recipe was required to be similar enough
5
to apply to the principles of the simulation to real beer recipes, and still different enough that the flavor
mastery of experienced brewers remained trade secret. For this reason, the team decided to focus on
designing the overall brewery around a generic ale recipe as ale’s are a stable of the craft brewing
industry.This is evidenced by the brown ale at Harmony, the pale ales available from virtually every
brewery, and that local breweries like Harmony, Founders, and Schomz as well as Arkansan breweries
like Diamond Bear Brewery each have at least three ales in stock at any given point in time. Furthermore,
our design was complete in its approach to solving the problem of carbon dioxide recycle in the brewery.
This means that design did not miss any important pieces that may compromise the overall brewery in the
long run. Understanding the design was also not hindered by the method of presentation as it was logical
and easy to follow.
4.4 Stewardship
Stewardship was the overall driving force for the project, since we are primarily creations of God
that are entrusted with taking care of the rest of creation. With the knowledge of being stewards of
creation, we designed processes that reflected this in our minimization of overall discarded waste and
increased recycle use. This was in mind as we designed our brewery, hence incorporating the carbon
dioxide recycle and compression system.
5 Overall Brewery
The design of a brewery is a multifaceted problem that requires optimization for several types of
beer beyond a base case design for one particular type of beer. This is required as any operating brewery
brews a variety of beers and each requires a different ratio of sugar and hops to water and yeast. However,
as the main goal of the project was to design a CO2 capture and compression system and an optimized
microbrewery to provide a functional model with which the CO2 system can be designed, the team
decided not to create a large number of slight variations on a base case. Instead, the team decided to focus
on optimizing the brewery design for the production of a generic ale. The technical reason that an ale was
6
chosen as opposed to a different type of beer, such as a lager or a stout, was that not only is an ale much
easier to model having a much less variable brewing time, but also is the main stay of most microbreweries. Ales also have a moderate alcohol content (4-6% abv) that corresponds to a production of CO2
that is less than a stout, but is higher than that typically associated with a lager. This meant that an ale
provided the best approximation of average brewery conditions without requiring multiple base cases
optimized for a variety of beers to be created.
The design of the brewery consisted of designing several batch systems in sequence. Initial
brewing involving the mash tun and wort kettle can be completed in an afternoon, but fermentation,
where the conversion of sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide takes place, requires more than a week for
completion. Post production of the beer, including conditioning, filtration, carbonation and bottling,
requires additional days of work. The Super Pro Designer software model PFD is complex and is best
viewed as a secondary file or printout in Appendix I, however a simplified PFD of the overall brewery is
shown in Figure 1 on page 9. Equipment Sheets for each piece of equipment in this main section of the
brewery are available in Appendix II while equipment sheets for the recycle system are in Appendix III.
All equipment in the brewery had to be of the same capacity. Equipment was sized according
capacity of the fermentation tanks, and American standards using the Barrel Numbering system. The
equipment holding only liquid had a nominal value that is equal to the actual liquid volume. For example,
an eight barrel brewery would have fermentation tanks that hold eight barrels (250 gallons) of beer, and
would have a mash tun and wort kettle with higher volume to hold all eight barrels of liquid as well as the
solids required.
When the team was deciding on the number of tanks to use, there were two factors. The first
factor was the variety of beers that were intended to be brewed at any time. This means that if the brewery
was only making a few kinds of beer it made more sense to buy a few larger fermentation tanks whereas
if there were many varieties then it made more sense to buy many smaller fermentation tanks. The second
factor was the amount of time it took to clean and perform maintenance on the tanks. For instance, if you
buy only a few large tanks, but they need to always be running at full capacity then you should increase
7
the number of tanks so that a tank can be taken offline for maintenance or cleaning since both are required
to keep the brewery running. However since the design of the overall brewery was based off of Harmony
Brewery, the team decided to design around 5 fermentation tanks. This design should be re-evaluated for
any new brewery on the basis of tank costs and popularity/necessity of the selection of beers to be
brewed, i.e. stouts, ales, porters, lagers, etc.
8
Overall Brewery Design
Preparatory Phase
Water
Malt Barley
Hops
Heated Sweet Wort
Malt Filter
Hops Filter
Wort
Sweet Wort
Heater
Jacketed Wort Kettle
Mash Tun
Spent Malt
Spent Hops
Beer Production Phase
Yeast
Wort
Compressed CO2
X6
x6
Beer
CO2+aromatics+sulfides
Green Beer
Dead Yeast
Fermenter
Conditioning Tank
Yeast Filter
Bottles
Proposed CO2 Compression and Purification Phase
Air Lock Vessel
Compressed CO2 + aromatics
CO2 + aromatics
Water
CO2 + aromatics
Compressed CO2
Compressor
Water + Sulfides
Gas Retention Vessel
with Pressure Gauge
CO2 Dryer: Activated Charcoal
or Molecular Sieve
Gas Cylinder: CO2
Figure 1: Overall Brewery Design
5.1 Mash Tun
The Mash Tun is where the brewing process begins for the typical microbrewery. Larger scale
breweries can do their own malting—the partial germination and drying of the barley—and grain
9
specialization due to their large spatial capacity, but microbreweries which have a maximum capacity of
15,000 barrels/year do not have economic or spatial ability to specialize in this way and thus buy
processed malt.
The mash tun consists of a large vessel in which the malt barely is placed into hot water to extract
the now water soluble sugars, resulting from the malting process. After a residence time of a between 4-6
(Othmer, 1997) hours, the sugary water—sweet wort—is then filtered and heated before flowing to the
wort kettle. This process is a dissolution reaction that the team decided to model as a stoichiometric
reaction with an extent of reaction of 90% as estimated by Intelligen, Inc. (Intelligen, Inc.) The team
decided that the approximation of the dissolution as a stoichiometric reaction was sufficient because it
was outside of the scope of the project in that the team desired to primarily focus on determining good
models for the fermentation tank and this number made sense to the team because it was not quite 100%,
but it was still quite high which is to be expected since sugar readily dissolves into hot water.
In the case of team iBrew’s brewery designed with the Beersmith Recipe Designer’s generic ale
recipe, see Appendix IV, the mash tun was designed to receive approximately 250 kg of malt barley
grains namely: Munich malt, Vienna malt, pale malt, aromatic malt and biscuit malt in a ratio of
6:6:4:2:2:1 in the following order. First, about 56kg of the malt barley were placed in the boiling water
and then after about 20 minutes the remaining 194 kg of malt were added. The total water added to the
mash tun was 946 Liters (250 gallons). At set intervals during the process, after the mixture had reached
temperatures of 45, 60 and 75 °C (113, 140 and 167 °F) the heating was briefly halted, between 10 to 15
minutes, this helped to enable the saccharification process to occur.
The majority of the time spent in the mash tun was to enable the saccharification reaction to take
place. The saccharification reaction entails the breakdown of extracted starch from malt barley to
disaccharide maltose with the aid of beta-amylase produced from the malt.
The resident time here in the mash tun was designed to be approximately five and a half
hours. The design of the mash tun was dependent on the size of the wort kettle. The mash tun designed to
be of similar size if not slightly smaller than the wort kettle because all of the sweet wort from the mash
10
tun goes to the wort kettle. This meant that if you were making too much or too little sweet wort in the
mash tun then you were wasting sweet wort or you were underutilizing the wort kettle, which is poor
stewardship.
5.1.1 Heat exchanger
The heat exchanger was a crucial part of the transfer of the sweet wort from the mash tun to the
wort kettle. This is because when the sweet wort is introduced with the hops and adjuncts, non-barley
ingredients for flavoring, in the wort kettle it must be up to a 100°C (Othmer, 1997). This temperature of
100°C is necessary for the isomerization of the humolones or alpha acids in the hops and hence
responsible for the characteristic beer flavor that we all know and love. (Othmer, 1997)
For the purpose of the overall brewery modeling in Super Pro Designer 4.7, the temperature
coming into the heat exchanger was set at 74°C and exited at 100°C.
5.1.2 Lauter Tun
The Lauter Tun is the location of the brewery’s first filtration process (Othmer, 1997). The lauter
tun was important for three reasons. The first was that it removed the spent grains that could cause
clouding of the beer after fermentation as well as provide off flavors if left in. The second was that the
spent grains can serve as a minor profit stream as many feed lots and livestock growers use the spent
grains as a way to add protein to the animal’s diet. In addition to the feed lots and livestock growers
utilizing spent grains, spent grains can also be used to make bread as evidenced by Nantucket Baking Co.
in East Grand Rapids, MI. Since our brewery is a small microbrewery an emphasis was placed on minor
profit as the amount made from sales of the spent grains may not be anything significant. The third reason
was the process of sparging. Sparging is the process of trickling about 50% of the water used in the
mashing through the spent grains to extract sugars but care was taken because if done at the wrong
temperature extra tannins from the grain husks would be extracted. This was also undesirable because
each beer has a characteristic color and if extra tannins are present in the water then the beer becomes
darker than normal resulting in an off-spec product.
11
In our design, the lauter tun possessed a false bottom with slits of about 1.1 mm (Othmer, 1997)
to hold back the spent grains and allow the liquids to pass through. The solids grains caked on the false
bottom form a filtration medium and hold back small solids, allowing the clear liquid to run out the lauter
tun. For the sake of sparging, the lauter tun possessed a ring system of spray heads that ensured an even
and gentle introduction of the sparge water at 76 degrees Celsius. In the iBrew lautering process, about
369 Liters of water were gradually introduced and this process took about an hour and then the clear sugar
water was withdrawn through the bottom of the lauter tun to a holding tank called the Grant tank. The
spent grains were also removed via the top of the lauter tun using a mini shovel and then dried via sun
light or sold as is depending on season.
5.2 Wort Kettle
From the Grant tank, the sweet wort is transferred to the wort kettle. In the wort kettle, the hops
and adjuncts are added to the sweet wort and boiled to create a sterile flavorful mixture for fermentation.
It is important at this stage to keep the wort boiling as this is the sterilization stage where most
microorganism present are killed but not spore forming microbes. Also in the wort boiling, there is the
occurrence of an isomerization reaction and subsequent solubilisation of alpha acids. Isomerized alpha
acids are the molecules responsible for the bitter flavor in beer. The main components of the alpha acids
are a compounds called humolones (Wort Boiling: Homebrew Science., 2013). The humolones are
responsible for the characteristic flavor in beer.
The wort boiling process in team iBrew’s kettle was designed to be a two-step boiling procedure.
First the wort was introduced and the wort heated initially to about 80 degrees Celsius and 1atm to enable
the sterilization process begin. After the wort reached the initial desired temperature, the hops were then
introduced to the wort kettle and then the temperature of the wort was increased to 100 degrees Celsius.
For the beer brewed by team iBrew, approximately 150 kg of hops, with even amounts of both the
Nuggets and Hallertauer Hersbrucker brand, were introduced to the wort kettle. After about an hour and
half in the wort kettle, the wort was sent into a whirlpool.
12
5.2.1 Whirlpool
In the whirlpool, a teacup effect forces the more dense solids into a cone in the center of the
whirlpool tank (Goldammer, Beer Conditioning from The Brewer's Handbook, 2008). The more dense
solids mentioned in this case refers to trub that is formed in the wort kettle and spent hops. Technically,
trub is defined as the insoluble precipitate that results from protein coagulation and simpler nitrogenous
constituents that interact with carbohydrates and polyphenols (Barchet, 1993). Hot trub is that part of the
precipitates that occurs during the boil and is mostly proteinaceous; cold trub, which consists of proteins
and protein-tannin complexes, is formed as the wort cools and the beer settles (Barchet, 1993).
The whirlpool was used to form a cohesive trub cone in the middle of the whirlpool and the tub
was removed after the bitter wort had been transferred to the fermentation tanks.
5.2.2 Heat Exchanger
This heat exchanger was designed to be part of the wort kettle to cool the bitter wort to a
temperature permissible for fermentation. The double-tube heat exchanger with process water was used
to cool the bitter wort to a temperature of 22 degrees Celsius and then sent through a mixer and then to
the fermentation tank. The purpose is to prepare create in the bitter wort a condition favorable for
fermentation.
5.3 Fermentation Tank
The fermentation tank is the reactor of the brewery. This is where the sugars in the wort are
converted into alcohol and carbon dioxide. During this process, the only thing added is the yeast that
causes the fermentation and air so the yeast colony can initially grow before beginning the anaerobic
fermentation.
Throughout the fermentation process, there are two key factors. The first key factor is that the
temperature of the fermentation tank must be kept at about 69 ± 3°F (VanDyke, 2012) but this exact
temperature varies based on the type of yeast, such as lager yeast which ferment better at lower
temperatures. (Boulton & Quain, 2001), (Gibson & Prendergast, 2003).The second key factor is
13
applicable to the carbon dioxide capture and compression part of the process. This key factor is that the
pressure must be maintained at or near atmospheric. (Barry VanDyke) The exact maximum pressure is
19.7 psia to prevent a significant increase in dissolved CO2. This is important because if the pressure of
the gasses gets high enough in the fermentation tank it may cause the inactivation of the yeast strains
(Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as the carbon dioxide dissolves into the water in the fermentation vessel
forming carbonic acid. This is undesired because it drops the pH of the overall beer and ceases the
alcoholic fermentation (VanDyke, 2012) of the beer by killing the yeast ruining the entire batch. (Boulton
& Quain, 2001).
5.3.1 Fermentation Models
Taking into account the two key factors the team researched kinetic models that would allow for
the modeling of both ethanol and carbon dioxide production as a function of the amount and type of yeast
that is suspended in the wort and the amount of sugar dissolved into the sweet wort. The results of this
search were that the team found two models. The first model was from a paper by de Andres-Toro et. Al
(de Andres-Toro, Giron-Sierra, Lopez-Orozco, Fernandez-Conde, Peinado, & Garcia-Ochoa, 1998) that
contained very detailed kinetics models, but lacked compatibility with the SuperPro Designer simulation
software that was available to the team and the second was from Parcunev et. Al which was compatible
with the version of SuperPro Designer that was available to the team, but had slightly less comprehensive
kinetic models for the overall fermentation. (Parcunev, et al., 2012). When deciding which of these
models to use, there were two competing tensions—using the most complete model and what can the
SuperPro Designer simulation tool handle--. The conflict arose from the fact that if SuperPro cannot be
utilized to perform the overall brewery including the kinetic models then the team would have to perform
the calculations on the reaction by hand. This is undesirable as it allows for more consistency errors
between the parts of the brewery as SuperPro can easily handle the sizing, cost analysis, and temperature
effects on a system. Thus it was a major advantage to utilize a model compatible with SuperPro as a
significant amount of time could be wasted in finding errors in additional potentially avoidable
differential equations. On the other hand since the version of SuperPro that was available to the team was
14
a very outdated version, the team’s version of SuperPro cannot handle the most descriptive kinetic models
for fermentation. This meant that the team had to consider the importance of utilizing the most descriptive
models and compare it to the greatly simplified use of any model compatible with SuperPro. In the end,
the team decided that some model quality could be sacrificed in order to utilize the SuperPro simulation
software. This led the team to utilize the paper by Parcunev et.Al. Despite the trade off, the model
proposed in the Parcunev et.Al paper was quite good as it still allowed for model calibration to both top
and bottom fermenting yeast. Where top-fermenting yeasts are yeasts that rise to the surface during
fermentation, creating a very thick, rich yeast head and bottom-fermenting yeast are yeasts that form less
surface foam as they tend to settle out to the bottom of the fermenter as fermentation nears completion.
This flexibility in the model allows the overall design of the brewery to be adjusted for most of the
commercially produced beers as almost all yeast strains can be broadly categorized into either top or
bottom fermenting yeast.
5.3.2 Downfalls of the Chosen Model
Although the model by Parcunev et.Al is a very descriptive model and was utilized as the basis
for the fermentation kinetics in SuperPro, it had one inherent issue. This issue was that model does not
account for cell growth or death in the beer or allow for alcohol inhibition of the fermentation process
unlike the de Andres-Toro et.Al model. This meant that the Parcunev et.Al could potentially suffer from
great inaccuracies that would propagate if the team’s model was ever used to actual build a brewery.
These inaccuracies would primarily manifest themselves in the form of improperly sized fermentation
tanks and heat exchangers and further downstream processing. Fortunately the Parcunev et.Al paper was
made to provide “a practical method for determination of the basic physicochemical parameters of beer”
(Parcunev, et al., 2012) which means that the paper explains how to calibrate the model presented to real
data. As a result, the team decided that an experimental program would be performed on a working model
brewery so that data could be collected and used to calibrate the model to reality. The brewery that was
used as a working model brewery was Harmony Brewery. The reason that Harmony Brewery was chosen
to be the model brewery for testing and calibration of the Parcunev et.Al model was that Harmony
15
Brewing Company, the company that operates Harmony Brewery, is the potential customer for the carbon
dioxide capture and compression system. This meant that the team was able to design the CO2 capture and
compression system in conjunction with the design of the overall brewery so no additional work would be
needed to begin making recommendations to Harmony about the possibility of implementing the system.
5.3.3 Calibration of the Model
To calibrate the Parcunev model for fermentation kinetics, several assumptions had to be made.
The first assumption is that all of the yeast put into the SuperPro reactor was active. The second
assumption is that the rate of yeast growth and death is approximately constant even with rising alcohol
concentration creating a pseudo-steady state. Both of these assumptions are known to be simplifying since
it has been documented in the paper by deAndres-Toro that an inoculum (or starting amount of yeast) is
experimentally determined to be about 50% dead cells, 48% inactive (lag) cells, and 2% active cells and
that the amount of active yeast cells is dependent on the concentration of ethanol as well as sugar. (de
Andres-Toro, Giron-Sierra, Lopez-Orozco, Fernandez-Conde, Peinado, & Garcia-Ochoa, 1998) However
despite these known issues, the team decided that, for most of the fermentation process, it was reasonably
accurate to say that the amount of active yeast cells was constant and that the assumption that the
inoculum was only active yeast could be easily modified to give the actual amount of yeast cells that
would need to be added to the fermentation tank so it did not justify the extra work of adding an
additional differential equation to characterize the inter-conversion of yeast between its various life
stages.
After making the required simplifying assumptions, the team began working on calibrating the
base Parcunev model. The Parcunev model consists of three differential equations. These equations are:
( )
( )
(equation 1)
( )
( )
(equation 2)
(equation 3)
16
Where X(t) was the concentration of yeast, P(t) is the ethanol concentration, S(t) was the sugar
concentration, Yx/s and YP/s were yield coefficients; µ(t) and q(t) were specific growth and product rates.
(Parcunev, et al., 2012) However, Equation 3 was not used as it was decided that it was implicit in the
mass coefficient equation used to build the model with a rate governed by equations 1 and 2. The mass
coefficient reaction is:
2.0665 g extract  1.000 g ethanol + 0.9565 g of CO2 + 0.11g of yeast cells
(equation 4)
Where the extract is in terms of real extract—the amount of sugar in the wort that is converted into
ethanol—that provides a correction to the hydrometer readings based off of the differing densities of
water to give actual alcohol content. While equations 1-3 form the basis of the model, the parameters used
to tune the model are part of the equations that characterize µ(t) and q(t). The equations for µ and q are:
(equation 5)
(equation 6)
where µmax is the maximum specific growth rate, qpmax is the maximum specific product accumulation
rate, S is the concentration of glucose, Kxs is the Michaelis-Menton constant which is used for a Monod
equation for growth rate and Ksp is the Michaelis-Menton constant which is used for a Monod equation
for the specific product accumulation rate. The major advantage of this model is that Michaelis-Menton
kinetics terms are quickly determined from simple experiments and are easily modeled in simulators such
as SuperPro. As a result of equations 5 and 6 being in the form of a Monod equation, it is easy to identify
the major tuning parameters as µmax, qpmax, Kxs, and Ksp. This was determined to be an acceptable number
of tunable parameters which justifies the use of the Parcunev model for the overall design of the brewery.
Thus, using equations 1,2,4,5 and 6, the data complied during the experimental analysis of Harmony
Brewing company the models base values of as µmax=0.157 1/day, qpmax=3.39 g/(g*day), Kxs=200g/dm3,
and Ksp=200g/dm3 for 9% original extract utilizing Saccharomyces cerevisiae S-33 (a strain of brewer’s
yeast) top fermenting yeast at 20oC were evaluated for accuracy when compared with reality.
17
After the Parcunev et.Al model was calibrated, the team moved on to look at the next step of the
process which occurs after the beer has finished fermenting, typically 10 days (VanDyke, 2012). At this
point the green beer (non-aged beer) is filtered with a simple mesh to remove the dead yeast colonies
before moving being moved to a conditioning vessel.
5.4 Beer Conditioning
Following the primarily fermentation, the “green” or immature beer is far from finished because
it contains suspended particles and lacks sufficient carbonation. The immature beer is also physically
unstable and possibly vulnerable to microbial damage (Goldammer,2008). The component processes of
conditioning include clarification, maturation and stabilization that address these issues.
(Goldammer,2008)
The maturation occurs in cold storage and may varies depending on the type of beer brewed.
For ales, this is where the beer is kept for 2-3 weeks in 250 gallons tanks, whereas lagers require 3-4
weeks. Since in the overall brewery design ales are being made, the cold storage fully attenuates the green
beer and makes it free from yeast (Goldammer,2008). The cold storage was modeled by a cooler in the
Super Pro Designer simulation and the temperature of the immature beer was dropped to 4 degrees
Celsius. At the conditioning temperature, the wort was near freezing which encouraged settling of the
yeast, and caused proteins to coagulate and settle out with the yeast. Phenolic compounds which cause
unpleasant flavors also became insoluble in the cold beer, and the beer's flavor became smoother. During
this time, pressure was maintained on the tanks between 12 to 15 psi (Goldammer, Beer Conditioning
from The Brewer's Handbook, 2008) by applying carbon dioxide gas so that carbonation occured to
prevent the beer from going flat.
After the maturation process the green beer was ready for the clarification process which is
running green beer through a whirlpool effect to isolate the solids (yeast) and remove them. Through this
process the yeast count in beer after the centrifuge was controlled to a level of
(Goldammer,2008) at best.
18
5.5 Beer Filtration
Filtration is typically necessary to improve the look of the beer. The filter used here was a sheet
(pad) filter. This filter was designed to be a pre-made filter that only allows particles small enough to pass
through. The sheet filter was specified as to be 3 to 4mm thick and made of ordinary cellulose fibers
impregnated with activated carbon. The activated carbon added aided in creating a positive charge which
enhanced the retention of particles and microorganisms. The sheet filter was designed to have a flow rate
(
of
).
In our design, this sheet pad was fitted in a tank as plate and the conditioned beer was slowly let
through the top of the filtration tank and the clear beer is collected at the bottom of the tank ready for
bottling.
5.6 Beer Carbonation
The carbonation of beer is a necessary part of the brewing industry. This is due to a number of
factors. Perhaps one of the most prominent factors is that beer is naturally carbonated to some extent so
that when it is poured it forms a layer of foam called the head. In German culture, which many take to be
the de facto authority on beer, the size of the head of the beer is taken to be indicative of the quality of the
beer and thus it is necessary that the beer have sufficient carbonation to develop a reasonable head when
poured. The carbonation serves a secondary, but more practical purpose as well. This is that the
carbonation of the beer allows it to be stored for longer periods of time. The reason for this is that if the
beer is allowed to interact with oxygen it will begin to oxidize. This causes a significant degradation in
the quality of the beer as many oxidized esters give a bad taste to the beer. Thus, a beer carbonation step
was required for good shelf life as well as for the acceptance of the beer as a quality beer.
5.6.1 Traditional methods
Traditionally beer is carbonated by the addition of yeast to the beer in the conditioning vessel.
How this is done is described in the above beer conditioning section.
19
5.6.2 Modern Methods
The modern approach that has gained favor in recent years is of utilizing CO2 directly to
carbonate the beer. This method has roots in a more advanced understanding of the overall fermentation
process and thus better control of the final alcohol content of the beer. Before scientific data was
compiled, the reason CO2 was not typically added directly into the beer after it was bottled was that the
beer would not always be at the desired final alcohol concentration. The addition of yeast allowed for a
smaller secondary fermentation that would allow for a final adjustment of the alcohol content of the beer
itself while also carbonating the system. The CO2 used for carbonation comes in high pressure tanks, 750
psi, of food grade quality, which means that it is a glass-lined steel pressure vessel. The purchased carbon
dioxide is from companies that extract gasses from the air and separate the gasses cryogenically,
liquefying the CO2 and separating it from O2 in a large scale-process that is profitable. However since
cryogenic separation is a costly and energy intensive process, team iBrew wanted to avoid utilizing it if
possible for the recycle of brewery off gasses as Harmony is a microbrewery and does not generate
enough revenue to cover the capital costs or the operating costs as such a system requires high gas flow
rates. This is verified by the smallest brewery implementing a cryogenic carbon dioxide recycle system is
Alaskan Brewing Company that brews 150,000 barrels of beer/year. (Berlinger, 2013) Thus the team
decided to design a novel system.
5.6.3 CO2 Capture and Compression System
The carbon dioxide provided by the capture and compression system can be used in several ways
in the brewery, but the two main ways are that it can be used in place of the yeast in the beer conditioning
step and/ or it can be used in driving out the oxygen from the bottles, barrels, and kegs before the beer is
added in. The main advantage of this system is that, particularly in larger breweries, the implementation
of a carbon dioxide capture and compression system can greatly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that
is purchased for use in the bottling process. The additional, and perhaps in the long term greater,
advantage, is from the decreased pollution of the atmosphere by the additional carbon dioxide release
20
which is one of the key factors for the team approaching this project. This is emphasized by the fact that
microbreweries in the United States release an estimated 4,510 metric tons of CO2 which corresponds to
0.0011% of the energy CO2 emissions from coal (Administration, 2012). Harmony Brewery, one of the
smaller scales, utilizes 600lbs of CO2 per month while producing about 460lbs per month in worst case
model or excess of 600 lbs with the best case model by fermentation.
1 three-stage Reciprocal Compressor
with Heat Exchange
2 Activated Carbon Vertical Tanks (in Parallel)
Fermentation Gas
Impure Gas Release
Water Stripper
/Air Lock
Pressurized Tank
1 Batch of Compressed CO2
at 750 psi (1/50 volume)
Holding Tank
1 Batch of CO2
at 1atm
Figure 2: Purification and Recycle Diagram
The purification and recycle system can be split into four main parts.
5.6.3.1 Airlock
The first step was decided to be the airlock. This step was the most critical as it removes sulfides
and other polar contaminants by absorption and prevents oxygen from leaking back into the fermentation.
The removal of sulfides and other polar compounds was verified by comparison of GC/MS spectra
directly from the fermentation, which had the compounds, with spectra from the air in the fermentation
room, which did not have the compounds. The oxygen entering back into the fermentation tank was also
21
undesirable as the introduction of oxygen into the fermentation vessel causes more of the sugar to be
utilized for yeast growth rather than for alcohol production. In addition to causing fermentation to slow or
even cease, the introduction of oxygen was also an issue for keeping the carbon dioxide produced by the
recycle system within the food grade specification of less than 30 ppm.
5.6.3.2 Compression System
The second step was decided to be the gas retention vessel/compression system. This step was
mostly designed to ensure that the final pressure of the carbon dioxide in the gas cylinder would be at 750
psi and that the compressor was not always on causing the water to be sucked out of the air lock vessel
which would cause damage to the compressor. The optimal set up for the compression system was
determined to be a single stage compression so that the compression ratio would not exceed a
compression ratio of 4 as suggested by Professor Wayne Wentzheimer. The additional reasoning behind
keeping the compression ratio at or below 4 was that it prevents the off gasses being compressed from
heating up much beyond 170 oC which would cause the compressors to weaken or melt as evidenced by
Seider and Seader’s recommendation to prevent the gas theoretical exit temperature from reaching 190
o
C. (Seider, Seader, Lewin, & Widagdo, 2009) To ensure that the compressed gasses did not exceed 170
o
C when going from one stage to another additional interstage heat exchangers were added using cooling
water entering at 20 oC and leaving at just under 49 oC based off of a rule of thumb (Guthrie, 1964).
Beyond the compression ratio design and the addition of interstage heat exchangers, it was also decided
that reciprocating compressors were used. This decision was based off of the low flow given to the
compressors, 6 ft^3/hr, and the necessity of utilizing oil free or hermetically sealed compressors so that
the lubricant used on the compressor did not inadvertently contaminated the compressed gas stream and
either increasing the size or decreasing the life the activated carbon bed. For actual purchasing purposes,
only one compressor was specified to be purchased. This is because Rix Industries has a compressor
available that operates a 3 stage compression set up with heat exchange built into its cylinders so there is
no outside equipment needed.
22
5.6.3.3 Drying and Purification
The third part is the carbon dioxide dryer and final purification step. The critical parts of this step
are the type of desiccant/purifying agent and the pressure drop across the bed. The team decided to use
activated carbon for the desiccant/purifying agent. The reason for this is that activated carbon allows for
simultaneous water and non-polar impurity removal and is well characterized and understood allowing for
better modeling, cheap purchase, and a number of various particle sizes on the market so that the pressure
drop can be fine-tuned. Further depth of this decision is outlined in section 7.4.1 Non-O2 Impurity
Removal.
5.6.3.4 Order of Steps
Overall, the order of the steps was chosen to maximize compressor life and effectiveness of the
separation processes. The reason that the air lock is first is that it allows for the water that condenses in
the line that vents the fermentation vessel as the off-gasses cool to drip into the water where the liquid
will not cause damage. This extends the life of the compressor considerably as the water droplets could be
carried into the compressor itself as the compressor pulls gasses in and cause corrosion and impact
damage. The gas collection vessel and the compressor are placed next so that the compressor will be
upstream for the activated carbon bed preventing small particulates of carbon from getting into the
lubricating oil commonly used in compressors and causing unnecessary wear on the compressor.
Furthermore, the placement of the compressor before the activated carbon allows for better flow through
the bed. The addition of the gas collection vessel is to ensure that a negative pressure does not develop
while the compressor is on so that water is not sucked out of the air lock and it allows for off-gasses from
multiple fermentation vessels to be collected into one central vessel reducing equipment costs and
allowing for more constant carbon dioxide production.
5.7 Bottling Process
The bottling process largely depends on the shipping medium that is preferred by the company.
The two major shipping methods are via bottle and keg. Although more recently, microbreweries are
selling beer in refillable growlers which are ~ 64 oz glass jugs, but the team decided against analyzing
23
growlers as part of the packaging options as the market they are emergent and are not a universal form of
packaging. The methods for adding the beer into each is overall similar, but each can introduce its own
challenges.
The major part of the bottling process for either kegs or bottles is that the container must be
washed out with either soap and water or another cleaning solution and then purged with carbon dioxide,
typically twice, to remove oxygen. The principle difference between bottling bottles over bottling kegs is
how they are cleaned and the amount of carbon dioxide that is needed.
For the kegs, typically the keg is dirty from a previous filling as kegs are generally reused many
times before they are disposed of. This means that kegs need additional, perhaps manual, washing before
they are ready to be introduced to the bottling line.
None of the additional cleaning is typically needed for bottles. This is because bottles are not
typically reused and as such the cleaning is more to remove the minor dirty and debris that has settled into
the bottles from the glass fabrication plant en route to the brewery.
6 Task Specifications and Schedule
All scheduling information is available in Appendix V, including task specification and a workbreakdown schedule.
7 Experiment
7.1 Design Method
Decision matrices were employed for a majority of our decisions. this semester. The shaded
column in the decision alternatives is used in this report to help visually illustrate the top design options.
24
7.2 Design Alternatives
In the construction of the analytical pipe for collection of samples and rate measurement, several
alternatives were considered. First were the materials of construction, and second was the method of
velocity measurement.
Table 2: Materials of Construction Design Matrix
Quality
Weight
Stainless Steel
Aluminum
Copper
Corrosive
Resistance
Ease of
Construction
Inexpensive
2
10
9
8
3
8
5
10
1
7
6
10
Weighted
Average
51
39
56
The design criteria for the materials of construction where purposely chosen to account for the
sensitivity of the system in which we were to run our experiment. We needed a material that would not be
corroded by the off gas of the fermentation process, be passive through the whole experiment and would
be FDA approved for use in the beverage industry. Also this material had to be inexpensive and be within
team budget. The material needed to be easy to work with to shorten the time required for construction of
the pipe.
Table 3: Velocity Measurement Design Matrix
Quality
Weight
Pitot Tube with
Manometer
Pitot Tube with Digital
Pressure Meter
Anemometer
Inexpensive
Direct Reading
Closed System
1
2
3
Weighted
Average
7
5
10
47
7
8
8
10
10
5
53
43
In order to determine the flow rate of the off gases from the fermentation process, several more
criteria were employed. We agreed that the device had to be relatively inexpensive as we were working
within a budget. The device also had to be easily made into a closed system to prevent reintroduction of
oxygen into the fermenter, and the readings had to be easy to obtain.
25
For the above mentioned reasons, the team chose copper as material of construction due to the
availability of parts. The team also chose a pitot tube for rate measurement because the difficulty involved
in making an airtight seal for an anemometer was deemed to be prohibitive. An electronic pressure sensor
was decided upon for the pitot tube due to ease of reading the measurements for Barry and his staff, and
size constraints of the room, since a manometer could be easily broken or take up too much room in the
cramped fermentation room at Harmony.
7.3 Testing
Using the sampling pipe, initial data for rate and composition were obtained on a regular brew at
Harmony Brewery along with a base line sample of the air in the room. From this first round of testing,
important preliminary data was obtained that was addressed before the second round of sampling.
First was that the relevant range of days were samples can be collected was found to be the first
four days. After five days of fermenting, the flow rate of the off gasses was too slow to fill the gas
collection bags.
A second critical piece of information gleaned from the initial data collection was that condensing
water fills the hosing from the pitot tube to the pressure meter, rendering the pressure readings out of
range of the meter. A small holding tank was implemented to collect condensed water and allow the
gaseous flow through the meter has been implemented as solution to this draining issue, and was been
successful in collecting condensing water.
Third, the GC/MS column, while excellent at detecting trace quantities of high molecular weight
impurities, is ill-equip to detect and separate all of the low molecular weight gasses that make up the
majority of the sample. However, no other column was available through the chemistry department
without great cost.
Finally, a second method of determination of reaction rate was proposed that utilized the main
chemical reaction of 1 mol Glucose + Yeast  2 mol Alcohol + 2 mol CO2. Because alcohol and carbon
dioxide are produced in equimolar quantities, alcohol content of the fermentation liquid was useful for
26
calculating the amount of CO2 produced over time. This method of rate data collection was crucial in
determining a theoretical flow rate of CO2 and confirmed the four day sampling time of gas collection.
Results of the GS/MS are depicted in Figure 3and Figure 4, showing ratios of compounds
detected with the column. Figure 3 shows the full spectrum, illustrating the large region where the light
gasses and the solvent, Methylene Chloride, did not separate, while Figure 4 shows the resolution of the
larger molecules which can be detected.
Air in Fermentation Room, 1:50pm, 11/16/12
Fermentation Gas, 1:50pm, 11/16/12
Figure 3: GC/MS output for Air and Gas Sample, full Spectrum
27
Air in Fermentation Room, 1:50pm, 11/16/12
Fermentation Gas, 1:50pm, 11/16/12
Figure 4: GC/MS output for Air and Gas Sample, Low count focus, identification in Table 4
Table 4: Identification of Impurities in Off-Gas Sampling
Time
1.5
2
4
6.0, 6.25, 6.5
7
7.5
8.5
Compound
Carbon Dixoide
Methylene Chloride
2,4-dimethyl-heptene
Siloxane
Pear Oil
Propyl Benzene
Ethyl Ester
Impurities can be identified as non-hazardous, with LD50s between 15,000 and 20,000 ppm, and
moderately toxic with LD50s between 2,000 and 7,000 ppm.
1. Non-Hazardous: (15000 ppm < LD50 < 20,000 ppm)
1. Isoamyl acetate (pear oil)
2. Propylene glycol
3. Siloxanes (from silicon sampling vials, not from fermentation)
28
2. Moderate toxicity (2,000 ppm < LD50 < 7,000 ppm)
1. 2,3-Butanediol, common in fermentation
2. N-propyl benzene
3. Isopropylbenzene
4. Bromobenzene, related to benzoic acid (preservative).
While all of the impurity compounds are present in levels less than 20ppm, hydrocarbon VOCs
are required for taste purposes (International Society of Beverage Technologists, 2001). The separations
design for removing these compounds from the carbon dioxide is outlined in the recommendation section
below.
7.4 Recommendations
7.4.1 Non-O2 Impurity Removal
There were several alternatives for the removal of the non-O2 impurities from the CO2. The three
options that the team considered were activated carbon, a molecular sieve, and a water stripper.
Molecular sieve was rejected. This is because a molecular sieve functions via size exclusion (it
allows the smaller molecules to enter the membrane’s pores while the larger molecules pass by). Since the
team wanted to maximize CO2 recovery, the size exclusion was not preferable as a large portion of the
CO2 would be lost with the larger molecular weight compounds because it would not have enough time to
diffuse into the molecular sieve while flowing through the pipe.
Both activated carbon adsorption and a water stripper have negligible CO2 loss since the CO2
could be recovered from the activated carbon or the water stream from the stripper by exposure to
ambient air or a nitrogen sweep gas, if necessary. The design decision was made that both the activated
carbon and the water stripper would be used, albeit with a simplified water stripper. The reason for this is
that the off-gasses from the fermentation tank contains both polar, (which adbsorb excellently into water
29
but adsorb poorly into activated carbon), and non-polar, (which bind well to activated carbon and poorly
to water), molecules.
7.4.1.1 Water Stripper
The simplification that was made to the water stripper was that instead of using a stripping
column the airlock, a 5-gallon bucket filled with iodized water, which is used to prevent oxygen from reentering the fermentation tank could serve as a single stage semi-batch stripper while still preventing
bacterial growth. This decision was also useful as the volume of water in a 5 gallon bucket at ambient
temperatures and pressures would not hold an appreciable amount of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, a
continuous flow of water is not needed due to the nature that the water in the 5-gallon bucket will not be
saturated with any of the water soluble components in the span of 4 days that the fermentation is
particularly active. This was confirmed by GC/MS analysis of air samples in the fermentation room that
did not contain any of the polar compounds present in the fermentation off-gas samples. There is also no
worry about the water becoming saturated over several batches of beer since the water is not reused in the
brewery, but is instead replaced with new iodized water when a new batch of beer is started in the
fermentation tank. This method of utilizing the airlock as a one-stage stripper was also preferable from an
economic and cultural appropriateness standpoint as the brewers are already familiar with how to ensure
the airlock is properly maintained and would require no additional training and no additional cost would
be incurred as the brewery already utilizes this airlock system. Thus, it was determined that a water
airlock followed by an activated carbon purification would be used to purify the CO2 stream of the non-O2
contaminates.
7.4.1.2 Activated Carbon Bed and Regeneration
Several varieties of activated carbon were considered using research from Vijan et. Al, and ChiCheng Leng et. Al and those with isotherm data and the highest capacity for benzene-type molecules were
selected (Vijan & Neagu, 2012) (Leng & pinto, 1996). This resulted in the choice of EcoPur System
SRL’s granular activated carbon over the Bead-Shaped Activated Carbon from Kureha Corporation. From
Langmuir isotherm data available on the EcoPur System SRL’s granular activated carbon (GAC), it was
30
determined that the total ideal bed volume of 2.06 ft3 for 8.75 hours of service or one month of noncontinuous operation. This has the built in assumption that all of the impurities could be modeled as
phenolics and that the phenolic content of the gas was 5.6*10-5 ft3/hr. Since the bed has to deal with a
variety of beers, the break through time is greater than the required 0.7 hours of operation per batch by a
factor of 0.2. The safety factor of 0.2 is important because it allows for the system to deal with the
unknown diffusivities of the gas mixture in the various types of beer being brewed that force the bed
volume to be based off of a plug flow through the bed with constant fluid velocity. The safety factor of
0.2 allowed for the plug flow through the bed simplification by incorporating the break through curve
typically estimated as being ~ 10% of the bed volume along with an additional ~10% to account for any
axial dispersion differences that could result at a low flow rate of 6 scfh. The break through curve or
mass transfer zone (MTZ) was estimated by taking data from Creek et. Al. and using the following
equation:
(equation 7)
Where
the length of our MTZ,
0.585) at flow rates of 60 and 600 gpm,
the ratio of mass transfer zones (a ratio of
the ratio of 60gpm to 600 gpm (1:10 ratio),
the ratio of the teams flow rate of 0.7481 gpm to 60 gpm ( ratio of 0.13), and
the length of the
600 gpm MTZ of 75 cm. The result of equation 7 is that the estimated MTZ for our bed was calculated to
be 5.7 cm which is ~ 10% of our total bed length. (Creek & Davidson)This method was further verified
by utilizing the data from Creek et. Al. comparing the 60 to 600 gpm MTZ ratio with the 600 to 6000
gpm MTZ ratio and finding that the MTZ ratios were reasonably similar, 0.59 to 0.64. Thus, the team
arrived at a 20% or 0.2 factor of safety. However, despite the 0.2 factor of safety, the overall bed size had
to be further increased. This was due to the difference between virgin activated carbon and regenerated
activated carbon. This was because team decided on using chemical reactivation of the activated carbon
bed over buying new virgin activated carbon whenever the old bed reached its breakthrough time as the
31
operating costs of purchasing new activated carbon each time. This decision was made as the increased
operating costs of buying new activated carbon or utilizing the more common temperature swing or
pressure swing adsorption made the project entirely infeasible. The downside of the decision to reactivate
the carbon is that after the first use the capacity of the bed decreases due to imperfect regeneration leaving
some of the active sites in the activated carbon still filled with contaminates. To account for the imperfect
regeneration, the team found a paper by Sun, Kang et. Al that stated that by using a hot reverse
osmosis/deionized water wash followed by a 4% NaOH solution followed by a hot RO/DI water rinse
gave a regeneration of 93.2% of the activated carbon utilized to purify off-gasses from a citric acid
fermentation. (Sun, Jiang, & Xu, 2009) The team only differed from the Sun, Kang et. Al paper in that the
4% NaOH solution was changed to a 2% NaOH solution based off of the data from Leng, Chi-Cheng et.
Al that found an increased regeneration with respect to phenolics when using the lower concentration of
NaOH. (Sun, Jiang, & Xu, 2009) (Leng & pinto, 1996) After defining the solutions to be used, the team
also defined the amount of RO/DI water and 2% NaOH solution to be used for each regeneration based
off of the procedure from Leng, Chi-Cheng et. Al. as it is more directly stated than the one in the Sun,
Kang et. Al paper, but is functionally the same. In this procedure, 0.25 g of GAC is washed with 100 mL
of RO/DI water followed by 20 mL of the NaOH solution followed by a 200 mL RO/DI water rinse that
gives a total bed wash of 33, 000 L of RO/DI water and 2,230 L of NaOH solution needed to wash a one
month’s supply of GAC, which is 27.85 kg of GAC.
7.4.2 Oxygen Removal
Oxygen is a substance that cannot be allowed in quantities above 30 ppm for beverage
carbonation purposes (International Society of Beverage Technologists, 2001). This is due to its oxidizing
effects within bottled beer, disturbing flavor and allowing bacteria to develop.
One disadvantage of the GC/MS is that it can only detect molecules that can form ions, which
does not include oxygen. Therefore, the amount of oxygen in the samples is undetectable, regardless of
the amount.
32
To model the oxygen in the system without direct measurement, the following assumptions were
made in the formation of a model:
1
The only oxygen in the off-gas system is from the air in the headspace of the fermentation tank,
which is sealed before the yeast start their growth cycle. This volume of air is 50 gallons.
2
The concentration of the carbon dioxide produce by the yeast is modeled by the ideal gas law at
room temperature and atmospheric pressure. This inlet concentration does not change.
3
The flow of gas into the headspace of the tank is equal the flow out of the tank. The concentration
and flow rate of the flow out of the drum is the model.
4
Flow starts at time 0 hr at 0 ft^3/hr, and ends by time 64 hr at 0 ft^3/hr. In between, the flow is
modeled as a function of time based off of the molar balance with alcoholic content using the
Miller correlation, (Miller, 1988), and the ideal gas law. Flow rate, Q = 0.00051*t3 - 0.06332*t2 +
1.96589*t, with an R² = 0.86592, shown in Figure 6.
This model was numerically analyzed using MatLab with the following results. See Figure 5 and Figure 6
for concentration and flow rate modeling results. We conclude:
1
The peak flow of CO2 is 18.08 ft3/hr at hour 20.
2
At a time of 8 hours, concentration of CO2 is at or above 99.9% purity, assuming perfect mixing
3
At a time of 30 hours, concentration of CO2 is at or above 99.986% purity, meeting 30ppm
standards for maximum oxygen presence.
4
At a time of 7 hours, concentration of CO2 is at 100% purity assuming a plug flow model.
33
Concentration Model for CO2 (mol/ft3)
1.18
1
Concentration (mol/ft^3)
1.178
1.176
1.174
1.172
1.17
1.168
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
time (hr)
Figure 5: Concentration Model for CO2 from Matlab. (1) Break point for Perfect Mixing of of CO2 and O2 at hour 30.
Flow Rate Model (ft3/hr)
25
y = 0.00051x3 - 0.06332x2 + 1.96589x
R² = 0.86592
flow rate (ft^3/hr)
20
1
2
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
time (hr)
Figure 6: Flow Rate Model for Off-gasses from Matlab. (1) Break point for plug flow of CO2 and O2 at hour 7. (2) Break
Point for Perfect Mixing of CO2 and O2 at hour 30.
34
Integration of flow rate from hour 7 to completion predicted 625 ft3 of oxygen free CO2 by using
the PFR model where CO2 directly pushes out the air in the 50 gallon headspace. Integration of flow rate
from hour 30 to completion predicted 214 ft3 of CO2 of required oxygen purity, using the perfect mixing
model.
The perfect mixing model represented a worst-case scenario where carbon dioxide that exits the
wort mixes perfectly in the headspace and a mixture of CO2 and air leaves the system. The plug flow
model represented a best case scenario where CO2 does not mix, but rather pushes out the headspace air
immediately. Reality is bracketed by these two cases.
7.4.3 Control Loop
Control loops are mechanisms that use measurements from a process to control desired properties
of a system to set-points. Several controllers could be used in the iBrew system to allow the valves to
operate based off of conditions of the system. For instance, if flow rate is monitored, the concentration of
CO2 can be inferred and when it reaches a desired set point, flow could be directed from release to the
atmosphere to flowing into the holding tank. A second loop could also use the flow rate measurement and
when it reaches a minimum flow, close the tank with a valve and turn on the compressor. This same
controller could monitor flow rate and turn off the compressor when the holding tank is empty, i.e. has
negative pressure. The control loop diagram for these processes are shown in Figure 7.
35
Figure 7: Control Loop Diagram
7.4.4 Recommended Investment in Identification Technology
Early on in the design process, in-line sensors were considered that could determine rate and
composition simultaneously, rather than the interval sampling method. One piece of equipment that was
considered was a portable photoacoustic IR spectrometer. The photoacoustic spectroscopy involves
irradiating intermittent light onto a sample and then detecting the periodic temperature fluctuations in the
sample as pressure fluctuation. Photoacoustic spectrometers are portable and would permit on site testing
(Shimadzu.com). The spectrometer would permit measurement without pretreatment and is very sensitive
and would measure concentration of gases in parts per billion or even in parts per trillion.
Since the cost was determined to be too prohibitive for the design project, the spectrometer
would cost upward of $2000 which was well outside of the team’s budget, analyzing the off-gasses the
team decided to use a fabricated device (Analytical pipe) consisting of a pitot tube and digital pressure
reader to calculate off gas flow rate and the also use the GC-MS machine in the Calvin College Chemistry
36
Department for determination of the composition. This method was chosen with the knowledge that
oxygen could not be determined from the GC/MS device and that an indirect model would have to suffice
for this contaminant.
The presence of oxygen, as shown in the section 7.4.2 Oxygen Removal, determines when the
collection can begin, at hour 7 or hour 30. This wide range makes the difference between collecting 44%
of Harmony Brewery’s needs, or 100%, and is thus the knowledge of when the stream is free of oxygen is
a key economic factor.
To determine absolutely when the system contains less than 30 ppm oxygen, an inline detection
device is required, and this knowledge can determine whether or not the implementation of a recycle
system is economically feasible. Thus for further project development, the team recommends the
purchase of equipment such as a portable photoacoustic IR spectrometer.
8 Business Plan
Economic analysis for the feasibility of an overall brewery was developed with the guidance of
the Engineering Business class. As a business, iBrew would have to purchase all of the equipment
necessary for the production and plan for a three year scale up of product to full capacity. The life of the
brewery is estimated to be 20 years, past which the major equipment should be upgraded and economics
of the venture reconsidered.
A study of the brewing market provides perspective on challenges to entering the market with a
product as established as beer. Along with an economic analysis for a 1000 bbl/year system to match with
Harmony Brewing Company’s capacity, a detailed investigation into methods of breaking in to the
brewing market will be done.
The overall brewery design used in this business plan is hypothetical and focuses on bottling and
kegging like a microbrewery rather than selling in-shop like a brewpub. This design was used to simplify
market research and to focus on the volume of beer.
37
8.1 Marketing Study
8.1.1 Competitor analysis
Competitor analysis implies identifying competition in terms of companies that fill the same
needs that we do. Our competitors are significant in our main product lines, though a few are dominant in
the market. Hence there will be a need to strongly differentiate ourselves from these other businesses.
However on a broader scale, our competition comes in several forms:
1. The most significant competition is that of Bell’s Brewing Incorporated and Founder Brewing
Company, which is smaller than Bell’s but arguably the Michigan craft beer market leader. Having
been on the market for a relatively long period of time added to the fact that they are top 50 beer
sales in 2011 (Brewers Association, 2012), they have a wide and established distribution network
that they utilize to their advantage.
2. Other manufacturers of traditional brews including smaller breweries and brewpubs will also
constitute our competitors. They often have access to the local and remote areas and knowledge of
these areas. These breweries are as below:














Schmohz Brewing
Brewery Vivant
Hideout Brewing
Harmony Brewery Company
New Holland Brewing
Frankenmuth Brewery
Arbor Brewing Company
Short’s Brewing Company
Atwater Brewery
Motor City Brewing Works Incorporated
Royal Oak Brewery
Dark Horse Brewery
Arcadia Ales
Grand Rapids Brewing Company
38
3. Potential competitors will find it hard matching iBrew as we have planned to provide the most
affordable beer at the highest possible quality to consumer. So even though the barrier to entry may
be low, our customer base would be defined.
8.1.2 Market Survey
Our brewery utilizes the naturally occurring byproduct of brewing, carbon dioxide, in our
brewing tasks thereby reducing carbon footprint of beer making can be reduced and overall waste
production. By recycling the carbon dioxide by product, operational costs are minimized as less money is
spent purchasing compressed carbon dioxide for bottling and tank purge. Knowing our brewery’s strength
and potential economic edge, it is now time to ascertain our position in the brewing market and our
potential target customers.
8.1.2.1 Target Market and Motivation
The target demographic for iBrew is Generation Y and the Millennial Generation. Both
generations are characterized by environmental consciousness and technological involvement. These
aspects would be highlighted by social media and technology integration in marketing. Customer
motivation to buy our product would not only be for the taste of a premium brew, but also for a beer taste
unaffected by a recycling process and a beer with a positive environmental impact.
8.1.2.2 Market Size and Trends
Microbreweries represent 0.69% of national beer production (Michigan Brewers Guild). A
microbrewery is defined as a brewery with a maximum annual production of 15,000 barrels with 75%
sold offsite. Microbreweries therefore compete regionally rather than nationally. In Michigan,
microbreweries account for 3.5% (Michigan Brewers Guild) of the total beer production of 6,315,663
(Beer Institute) and iBrew would represent 0.07% of USA’s microbrewery production.
The craft brewing industry has been a growing part of the modern market. Growth of the craft
brewing industry in 2011 was 13% by volume and 15% by retail dollars. (Brewers Association, 2012).
39
Although overall US beer market was down by 1% in 2011, craft beers are increasing in market share.
This is because there has been an increase in preference for environmentally friendly processes as well as
support for local products. Also affecting this increase will be a general consumer preference shift
towards beer with stronger flavored beer and more variety which are key aspects of the micro-brewery
movement. Thus, the overall market is most affected by large companies that are not doing as well.
Brewers Association provides numbers of microbreweries (and other styles of craft breweries) in 2010,
2011, and halfway through 2012.
Table 5: Growth of Craft Breweries Industry
Year
2010
2011
2012 (July)
Brewpubs
1053
1063
1072
Microbreweries
615
789
922
Regional Craft Breweries
81
88
81
8.1.2.3 Advertising and promotion
iBrew’s marketing ploy involves selling the idea that the customer is a “green” beer that will
positively impact on the environment. Also iBrew will like to communicate our school of thought that
small companies can do their part to care for the planet while providing products and services and making
profits. The benefits of environmental action by companies are not overlooked by customers, as seen in
the marketing efforts of many food and beverage industries including Anhuiser Busch. This very large
beer company highlights their environmental efforts in water and energy savings on their home page and
annually reports their efforts in compliance with international regulations (Anheuser Busch, 2013). As a
smaller brewery, iBrew would not only reduce carbon footprint from recycling carbon dioxide, but
support local business by purchasing ingredients from them. A greater emphasis will also be placed in
brewing premium beer of many varieties.
In order to get this message out to the potential customer, some substantial scale marketing
scheme would have to be embarked upon. Eight percent of revenue will be devoted to marketing, this
40
including salaries of marketing consultants and sales employees all in accordance to small business
marketing recommendations (Margenau, 2013).
8.1.2.4 Pricing
iBrew’s desired market image is that of a contender in the local craft beer market. Craft beers are
expected to have a higher price tag than the big name beers, but are also expected to have the high quality
and attention to detail associated with a small local business.
Against competitors, image will be a higher factor than price. The aim of iBrew is to be on the
level of competitors. A wholesale price of $3.00 would allow for stores to apply a 67% markup to sell at
$5.00, a competitive price with Brewery Vivant and Founders Brewing Company.
Table 6: Pricing per Volume of Product
Size
12 oz. bottle
12 oz. bottle
15.5 gal keg
Price
$3.00
$5.00
$70.00
Price per Volume ($/oz.)
0.25
0.42
0.04
Retail or Wholesale?
Wholesale
Retail
Wholesale
A bulk discount will be available where volumetric cost decreases as packaging size increases.
Kegs deposits ensure return of the high volume packaging for reuse, the savings of which can be passed
on to the consumers.
Gross profit margin percentage anticipated for the first three years where product capacity is
increasing is tabulated below:
Table 7: Gross Profit Margin during scale-up
Year
Gross Profit Margin (%)
1
8
41
2
30
3
41
8.1.2.5 Distribution Strategy
iBrew will sell 100% of its product as wholesale. The off-site distribution will be through stores
and restaurants. On site purchase of bottles and growlers would be available, most notably during tours.
Walking traffic will be limited due to location in the industrial district.
8.2 Cost Estimate
8.2.1 Development
Some costs of development of the CO2 compression and purification system were incurred during
the semester and paid for with the senior design budget, outlined on in the Project Management section.
Other costs will be specified for the implementation but not bought for the design project. These costs
include the cost of a compression system and adsorbents required with a replacement plan.
8.2.2 Production
For the design and production of a 1,000 barrel/year microbrewery, which is 0.07% of the US
market share for microbreweries, Table 8 shows the balance sheet and outlines the annual revenues and
expenses. The main source of revenue for the brewery is the total sales of beer which is comprised of the
sales of kegs and 12 oz. bottles. The additional sources of revenue come from the selling of spent grains
at $53.11/year. The three years are shown so as to model the increasing production of the brewery from
50 to 100% linearly over those three years. The salaries and wages line time comes from the cost of
employing 8 employees that is the industry standard for our brewery size (JV Northwest. Inc, 2009) and
employing a microbiologist to maintain yeast cultures. Two balance sheets are prepared with respect to
the model used to design the carbon dioxide recycle system. The best case model assumes that all the
carbon dioxide needs for the brewery is covered by the recycle but the worst case model only accounts for
44% savings in carbon dioxide needed by the brewery. No year beyond year three is shown in these
balance sheets despite an expected plant life of 20 years. This is because year three is representative of all
expenses and sources of revenue for all following years.
42
Table 8: Balance Sheet utilizing a 44 % savings on carbon dioxide purchase
total
iBrew Company
Balance Sheet
Annual Revenue
year 1
Market
$
949,400
Selling back spent grains $
53
$
949,453
Building
License
Alcohol Tax
Equipment
Installation
Yeast
Utilities
Materials
Bottling
Distributing
Marketing
Labor
Design
total
Revenue - Expenses
Annual Expenses
$
9,600
$
1,013
$
4,300
$
32,671
$
130,683
$
28
$
4,146
$
63,657
$
72,536
$
3,989
$
94,940
$
445,000
$
14,844
$
877,407
year 2
$ 1,424,100
$
80
$ 1,424,180
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Profit
$
72,046 $
43
9,600
1,013
6,450
32,671
130,683
39
6,219
95,485
108,804
3,989
142,410
445,000
14,844
997,208
year 3
$ 1,898,800
$
106
$ 1,898,906
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,600.00
1,013
8,600
32,671
130,683
49
8,293
127,314
145,072
3,989
189,880
445,000
14,844
1,117,008
426,972 $
781,898
Table 9: Balance Sheet utilizing a 100% savings on carbon dioxide purchase
iBrew Company
Balance Sheet
Annual Revenue
year 1
Market
$
949,400
Selling back spent grains $
53
total
$
949,453
Building
License
Alcohol Tax
Equipment
Installation
Yeast
Utilities
Materials
Bottling
Distributing
Marketing
Labor
Design
total
Revenue - Expenses
Annual Expenses
$
9,600
$
1,013
$
4,300
$
32,671
$
130,683
$
28
$
4,146
$
62,229
$
72,536
$
3,989
$
94,940
$
445,000
$
14,844
$
875,979
year 2
$ 1,424,100
$
80
$ 1,424,180
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Profit
$
73,474 $
9,600
1,013
6,450
32,671
130,683
39
6,219
93,343
108,804
3,989
142,410
445,000
14,844
995,066
year 3
$ 1,898,800
$
106
$ 1,898,906
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9,600
1,013
8,600
32,671
130,683
49
8,293
124,458
145,072
3,989
189,880
445,000
14,844
1,114,152
429,114 $
784,754
Expenses come in the form salaries and wages for the eight workers, three designers and a
microbiologist, the cost of materials including malt, hops, and yeast, the cost of utilities which includes
the ingredient of water, the alcohol tax, the 8% of revenue devoted to marketing, among others. The three
year plan shows the scale up of product and the reduction in debt as interest is paid off.
The following tables outline the equipment cost estimations:
44
Table 10: Overall Brewery Equipment Estimate Costs
Unit Name
V-101
V-103
V-102
NFD-101
V-105
HX-101
MX-102
HX-102
V-106
MX-101
PFF-101
V-107
FL-101
HX-103
FL-105
Description
Cost ($)
Fermentor
35,975.00
Volume = 1200 L
Mash Tun
9,850.00
Volume = 1200 L
wort kettle
2,795.00
Volume = 1200 L
Lauter Tun
4,000.00
Volume = 1200L
Whirlpool
5,130.00
Volume = 1200 L
Heat Exchanger
25,801.64
Area = 0.31 m^2
Mixer
3,500.00
Rated Throughput = 953.84 kg/h
Refrigeration Room
8,075.23
Area = 0.16 m^2
Conditioning Tanks
2,899.00
Volume = 1200 L
Diameter = 0.75 m
Mixer
3,500.00
Rated Throughput = 247.69 kg/h
Beer Filtration Tank
5,130.00
Sheet Pad (12''*24'', 3 a pack)
Filtered Beer tank
Volume = 1200 L
Keg Filler( see Bottle filler)
Heat Exchanger
Area = 0.01 m^2
Bottle Filler
Total Equipment Purchase Cost ($)
45
390.00
2,899.00
9,800.00
3,285.35
19,000.00
142,030.22
Table 11: Recycle System Equipment Estimate Costs
Equipment
Compressor
Adsorber
Storage Tank
RO/DI System
Total
Cost($)
Sources
5449 rix industries
8012.7 zorrotools, pipe
4267.99 plastic-mart.com
5695 uswatersystems.com
17729.69
The cost of equipment was determined based of quotes from various companies and can be seen in details
in the Appendix VI, but the heat exchangers were difficult to cost and therefore their prices were based on
the Guthrie price models in the Product and Process Design Principle text (Seider, Seader, Lewin, &
Widagdo, 2009).
In a microbrewery, equipment before the fermentation tanks is cleaned and reused for each new
brew; therefore only one unit is required. Starting with the fermentation tanks, multiple tanks can be used
to allow for reaction time and storage time. The model for iBrew is based off of Harmony’s five
fermentation and storage tanks.
9 Acknowledgements
The team would like to acknowledge the efforts of Barry VanDyke who has been invaluable in
getting the project to this stage and allowing the team to model his brewing process. Furthermore, the
team would also like to acknowledge Phil Jasperse, Bob Dekraker, Professor Wayne Wentzheimer and
Professor Jeremy VanAntwerp for their advice and assistance in directing the project. From the Calvin
College Chemistry Department, the team would like to acknowledge the analytical chemistry advice and
assistance given by Professor Kumar Sinniah and Professor David Benson.
46
10 Conclusion
Team iBrew of Calvin College’s 2013 senior class of engineers designed a microbrewery with a
carbon dioxide compression and purification system. The proposal was made to the college by local
brewer and alum, Barry VanDyke of Harmony Brewing Company, who wanted to reduce the overall
carbon dioxide used by his brewery. Because there is little data available concerning off-gas composition
of fermentation tanks, the team assembled an analytical pipe to measure gasses from Harmony’s tanks to
model the carbon dioxide production rate along with impurity concentration over time. The team also
used specific gravity data from the liquid to develop a rate model for alcohol and thus carbon dioxide
production. The feasibility of a compression and purification system for Harmony depends upon the
initial purity of the gasses along with space and economic constraints. A hypothetical microbrewery was
designed using Super Pro Designer software to evaluate the economies of scale of the batch system from
a theoretical basis rather than industry experience, and then confirmed with experimental data.
The total amount of pure carbon dioxide available per batch is 104 ft3 using a perfect mixing
model for headspace mixing, or 625 ft3 using a plug flow model for oxygen push-out. A system of two
absorber each containing 13.9 kg of granular activated carbon of 8x20 mesh. A replacement frequency of
all the activated carbon once every five months is recommended to remove non-oxygen impurities. A
compressor of 0.5 horsepower designed to operate up to 750 psi and worth $5449 would be purchased to
compress the carbon dioxide to 750 psi for later usage in the brewery. Of the 600lb of carbon dioxide
required per month at Harmony, 44% to 100% could be obtained from recycling (assuming pefect mixing
and plug flow, respectively), resulting in $72.80 to $290.50 monthly savings. The recycle system has a
return on interest for the best case scenario of 27% and a worst case scenario of -68% and can be paid
back with the savings between 6.72 to 26.8 years respectively.
The initial capital cost involved in building an entire brewery with a capacity of 1,000 bbl/yr,
equivalent to Harmony’s size, is approximately $170,000 and will have a break even period of 0.2 years
47
assuming full capacity production and sales in year one. The return on investment for the entire brewery
is calculated to be between 4500% and 5300%.
48
11 Resources
Wort Boiling: Homebrew Science. (2013, May 07).
Administration, U. E. (2012, August 1st). U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in early 2012 lowest since
1992. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from U.S. Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350#tabs_co2emissions-1
Alibaba.com. (n.d.). 10 HL Mash Tun Wort Kettle Unit. Retrieved 12 6, 2012, from Alibaba.com:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/453035797/CG_10HL_of_Mash_tun_for.html
Anheuser Busch. (2013). Our World, Our Responsibility. Retrieved 4 18, 2013, from Anheuser Busch:
http://anheuser-busch.com/index.php/our-responsibility/
Barchet, R. (1993, November). Hot Trub: Formation and Removal. Retrieved May 07, 2013, from
morebeer: http://morebeer.com/brewingtechniques/library/backissues/issue1.4/barchet.html
Beer Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.beerinstitute.org
Berlinger, J. (2013, 02 04). Alaskan Brewing Co. Powers Brewery With...Beer. Retrieved 05 08, 2013,
from Huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/alaskan-brewing-co-beerpower_n_2614794.html
Boulton, C., & Quain, D. (2001). Brewing yeast and fermenation. John Wiley and Sons.
Brew Your Own Magazine. (2000, December). Fining Your Beer: Techniques. Retrieved 4 18, 2013,
from Brew Your Own: http://byo.com/german-amber-lager/item/645-fining-your-beer-techniques
Brewers Association. (2012). Craft Brewing Statistics. Retrieved 11 11, 2012, from Brewers Association:
www.brewersassociation.org
Brewers Association. (2012, August). Craft Brewing Statistics. Retrieved 12 6, 2012, from Brewers
Association: http://www.brewersassociation.com/pages/business-tools
Brewers Association. (2012, April 17). Top 50 Breweries in 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/media/press-releases/show?title=brewers-associationreleases-top-50-breweries-in-2011
Cowart, V. (n.d.). Is 304 Stainless Steel Food Grade? Retrieved from eHow:
ehow.com/facts_5941209_304-stainless-steel-food-grade_.html
Creek, D., & Davidson, J. (n.d.). 4.0 Granular Activated Carbon. Retrieved 05 09, 2013, from nwriusa.org: www.nwri-usa.org/pdfs/TTChapter4GAC.pdf
de Andres-Toro, B., Giron-Sierra, J., Lopez-Orozco, J., Fernandez-Conde, C., Peinado, J., & GarciaOchoa, F. (1998). A kinetic model for beer production under industrial operational conditions.
Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 65-74.
49
Founders Brewing Company. (2012). Retrieved 11 11, 2012, from Founders Brewing:
www.foundersbrewing.com
Gibson, R., & Prendergast, M. (2003). The German Submarine War, 1914-1918. Annapolis, Maryland:
Naval Institute Press.
Goldammer, T. (2008, October 1). Beer Conditioning from The Brewer's Handbook. Retrieved 4 18,
2013, from Apex Publishers: http://www.beer-brewing.com/beerbrewing/beer_chapters/ch14_beer_conditioning.htm
Goldammer, T. (2008, October 1). Beer Filtration from The Brewer's Handbook. Retrieved 4 18, 2013,
from Apex Publishers: http://www.beer-brewing.com/beerbrewing/beer_chapters/ch15_beer_filtration.htm
Guthrie, K. (1964). Capital Cost Estimating. Chemical Engineering.
Intelligen, Inc. (n.d.). Downloads. Retrieved from Intelligen.com: www.intelligen.com
International Society of Beverage Technologists. (2001). ISBT Carbon Dioxide Guidelines.
JV Northwest. Inc. (n.d.).
JV Northwest. Inc. (2009). Brewery Performance Parameter and Simple Layout. Retrieved 12 6, 2012,
from JVNW: www.jvnw.com/industries/beetanks.html
Leng, C.-C., & pinto, N. G. (1996). An Investigation of the Mechanisms of Chemical Regeneration of
Activated Carbon. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2024-2031.
Margenau, S. C. (2013, January 22). How to set & determine what you marketing budget SHOULD be!
Retrieved 4 18, 2013, from Imageworks Studio: http://www.imageworksstudio.com/blog/howset-determine-what-you-marketing-budget-should-be/index.html
Michigan Brewers Guild. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.michiganbrewersguild.com
Miller, D. (1988). The Complete Handbook of Brewing.
Othmer, D. F. (1997). Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Parcunev, I., Naydenova, V., Kostov, G., Yanakiev, Y., Popova, Z., Kaneva, M., et al. (2012). Modeling
of Alcohol Fermentation in Brewing-Some Practical Approaches. European Conference on
Modelling and Simulation. Koblenz, Germany: Universitat Koblenze-Landau.
Seider, W. D., Seader, J., Lewin, D. R., & Widagdo, S. (2009). Product and Process Design Principles
Synthesis, Analysis, and Evalution. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shimadzu.com. (n.d.). ABC's of Photoacoustic Spectroscopy : SHIMADZU (Shimadzu Corporation).
Retrieved December 7, 2012, from Shimadzu:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoacoustic_spectroscopy
50
Sound Brewing Systems, Inc. (n.d.). Brewing Industry Standards. Retrieved December 6, 2012, from
SoundBrew.com: http://www.soundbrew.com/standards.html
Sun, K., Jiang, J.-c., & Xu, J.-m. (2009). Chemical Regeneration of Exhausted Granular Activated Carbon
Used in Citric Acid Fermentation Solution Decoloration. Iranian Journal of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering, 79-83.
VanDyke, B. (2012, October 10). (T. iBrew, Interviewer)
Victory Brewing Company. (2012). Victory Store. Retrieved 11 11, 2012, from Victory Beer:
www.victorybeer.com
Vijan, L. E., & Neagu, M. (2012). Adsorption Isotherms of Phenol and Aniline on Activated CArbon.
Revue Roumaine de Chimie, 85-93.
51
12 Appendices
Appendix I: Super Pro Designer PFD
Appendix II: Equipment Sheets, Overall
Appendix III: Equipment Sheets, Recycle
Appendix IV: Beersmith Recipe
Appendix V: Team Structure
Appendix VI: Equipment Quotes
52
Appendix I: Super Pro Designer PFD
Appendix I: 1
Appendix II: Equipment Sheets, Overall
Appendix II: 1
Tank
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Mash Tun
Item Name:
V-103
Item Number:
Combines malt and water, heats
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition: (kg)
Fat
Fibers
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Starch
Water
Glucose
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Inlet
Water
712.208
Malt-2
181.4393
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
712.208
0
3.647
14.5881
1.8235
0
0
20.0587
127.646
13.676
0
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Volume:
Materials of Construction:
Tank
1200 L
Stainless Steel 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 2
Date:04/29/2013
Outlet
Malt-1
55.8999
1.1236
4.4944
0.5618
0
0
6.1799
39.3266
4.2136
0
Mash
949.4575
4.7706
19.0825
2.3853
0
0
26.2386
16.6973
713.4006
166.9726
Tank
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition: (kg)
Fat
Fibers
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Starch
Water
Glucose
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Lauter Tun
NFD-101
Item Name:
Item Number:
Separates spent grains
Inlet
Sparge Water Mash
217.8402
949.4575
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
217.8402
0
4.7706
19.0825
2.3853
0
0
26.2386
16.6973
713.4006
166.9726
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Volume:
Materials of Construction:
Tank
1200 L
Stainless Steel 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 3
Date:04/29/2013
Spent Grains
48.3745
1.41312
18.8917
0
0
0
5.2477
3.3395
19.4644
0
Outlet
S-102 and S-104
1119.01
3.3394
0.1908
2.3853
0
0
20.9909
13.3578
911.7764
166.9726
Tank
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Wort kettle
Item Name:
V-102
Item Number:
Mixes Hops in, heats to make wort
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition: (kg)
Fat
Fibers
Glucose
Hops
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Starch
Water
Alpha Acids
Hot Trub
Spent Hops
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Inlet
S-102 and S-104
Hops
0
0
0
150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.3394
0.1908
166.9726
0
2.3853
0
0
20.9909
13.3578
911.7764
0
0
0
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Volume:
Materials of Construction:
Tank
1200 L
Stainless Steel 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 4
Date:04/29/2013
volatiles
0
0
0
0
0
1.147
0.3482
0
0
136.7665
0
0
0
Outlet
Hot Wort
3.3394
0.1908
166.9726
0
2.3853
0
0
10.4954
145.5
13.3578
775.0099
4.5
10.4954
145.5
Centrifuge
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Item Name:
Item Number:
Separates Trub
Whirlpool
V-105
Inlet
Hot Wort
991.021
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition:
Alpha Acids
Fat
Fibers
Glucose
Hot trub
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
T (C):
Pressure (kPa):
Date:04/29/2013
Trub
178.4268
4.5
3.3394
0.1908
166.9726
10.4954
2.3853
0
0
10.4954
145.5
13.3578
775.0099
94.9
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Centrifuge
Volume
1200 L
Materials of Construction:
Stainless Steel 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 5
0.135
0.3339
0.1908
5.0092
10.4954
0.0716
0
0
0.3149
138.225
0.4007
23.2503
Outlet
S-108
953.82
4.365
3.0055
0
161.9635
0
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Heat Exchanger
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Item Name:
Item
Number:
Cools Wort
Cooler
HX-101
Inlet
S-108
953.82
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition:
Alpha Acids
Fat
Fibers
Glucose
Hot trub
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
T hot in (C):
T hot out (C):
T cold in (C):
T cold out (C):
Pressure (kPa):
Date:04/29/2013
4.365
3.0055
0
161.9635
0
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
94.9
20
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Materials of Construction:
Shell Diameter
Heat Transfer Coefficient
Heat Transfer Area
Stainless Steel 316
0.31 m2
Comments:
Appendix II: 6
Outlet
S-109
953.82
4.365
3.0055
0
161.9635
0
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Mixer
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Aerator
Item Name:
MX-102
Item Number:
Integrates more oxygen into the feed to fermentation
Date:04/29/2013
Inlet
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition:
S-109
953.82
Alpha Acids
Fat
Fibers
Glucose
Hot trub
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
T (C):
Pressure (kPa):
4.365
3.0055
0
161.9635
0
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
20
101.3
Design Data:
Not a unit, just a process in transferring liquid
Comments:
Appendix II: 7
Outlet
S-110
Oxygen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0189
0
0
0
0
4.365
0
0
3.0055
161.9635
2.3137
0
0.0189
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Reactor
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Fermenter
Item Name:
V-101
Item Number:
Converts Sugar to Ethanol + CO2 with Yeast
14+ days
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition
:
Alpha Acids
Brewing Yeast
Carb. Dioxide
Ethyl Alcohol
Fat
Glucose
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Date:04/29/2013
Inlet
Yeast
S110
4.365
0
0
0
3.0055
161.9635
2.3137
0
0.0189
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Vent gas
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29.753
0
0
0
0
0.8446
0.2753
0
0
0
0
20
5192
Design
Data:
Type:
Pressurized Tank
Volume:
1200 L
Materials of Construction:
SS 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 8
Outlet
Green Beer
4.365
2.3677
3.3059
34.6038
3.0055
93.9331
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Heat Exchanger
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Item Name:
Item Number:
Cools Green Beer
Cooler
HX-102
Date:04/29/2013
Inlet
Green Beer
926.0669
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition:
Alpha Acids
Brewing Yeast
Carb. Dioxide
Ethyl Alcohol
Fat
Glucose
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
T hot in (C):
T hot out (C):
T cold in (C):
T cold out (C):
Pressure (kPa):
4.365
2.3677
3.3059
34.6038
3.0055
93.9331
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
20
4
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Materials of Construction:
Shell Diameter
Heat Transfer Coefficient
Heat Transfer Area
Stainless Steel
0.16 m2
Comments:
Appendix II: 9
Outlet
S-101
926.0669
4.365
2.3677
3.3059
34.6038
3.0055
93.9331
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Tank
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Item Name:
Item Number:
Allows beer to age
14+ days
Date:04/29/2013
Inlet
S-101
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition:
Alpha Acids
Brewing Yeast
Carb. Dioxide
Ethyl Alcohol
Fat
Glucose
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Conditioning
V-101
Outlet
Headspace Vent
S-105
S-103
1.0777
926.0669
926.0669
4.365
2.3677
3.3059
34.6038
3.0055
93.9331
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.821
0.251
0
0
0
0
15
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Volume:
Tank
1200 L
Diameter:
Materials of Construction:
0.75 m
Stainless Steel 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 10
4.365
2.3677
3.3059
34.6038
3.0055
93.9331
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
Filter
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Item Name:
Item Number:
Removes Yeast and Trub
14+ days
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition:
Alpha Acids
Brewing Yeast
Carb. Dioxide
Ethyl Alcohol
Fat
Glucose
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Filter
PFF-101
Date:04/29/2013
Inlet
S-105
926.0669
Outlet
Yeast and Trub
Beer
562.514
341.355
4.365
2.3677
3.3059
34.6038
3.0055
93.9331
2.3137
0
0
10.1806
7.275
12.9571
751.7597
0.0309
2.3677
0.0234
0.2453
0.0213
0.666
0.0164
0
0
0.0722
7.275
0.0919
5.3299
15
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Sheet Pad
Area
12” x 24”
Materials of Construction:
Stainless Steel 304
Comments:
Appendix II: 11
4.3341
0
3.2825
34.3585
2.9842
93.2671
2.2973
0
0
10.1084
0
12.8652
746.4297
Tank
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/batch):
Composition: (kg)
Alpha Acids
Brewing Yeast
Carb. Dioxide
Ethyl Alcohol
Fat
Glucose
Minerals
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Proteins
Spent Hops
Starch
Water
Temp (C):
P (kPa):
Filtered Beer Tank
V-107
Item Name:
Item Number:
Stores Filtered Beer
Inlet
Beer
926.0669
Vent – 2
1.0777
4.3341
0
3.2825
34.3585
2.9842
93.2671
2.2973
0
0
10.1084
0
12.8652
746.4297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8159
0.2477
0
0
0
0
15
101.3
Design Data:
Type:
Volume:
Materials of Construction:
Tank
1200 L
Stainless Steel 316
Comments:
Appendix II: 12
Date:04/29/2013
Outlet
S-114
363.9708
1.7336
0
1.313
13.7434
1.1937
37.3068
0.9189
0
0
4.0434
0
5.1461
298.5719
S-115
545.9561
2.6004
0
1.9695
20.6151
1.7905
55.9602
1.3784
0
0
6.065
0
7.7191
447.8578
Appendix III: Recycle Equipment Sheets
Appendix III: 1
R-Compressor
Microboost-115, RIX
Identification: Item Name:
RK-100
Item Number:
Compresses Carbon Dioxide stream to 750 psig for bottling
Function:
Operates for 6 hours, 5 days a week
Operation:
CarbonDioxide + aromatic
Materials
hydrocarbons
Handled:
Inlet
Stream ID:
C1
Quantity
0.1045
(kg/hr):
Composition:
CO2
T In (C):
T Out (C):
Pressure
In(kPa):
Pressure
Out(kPa):
Design Data:
Comments:
Date:05/08/2013
CarbonDioxide +
aromatic hydrocarbons
Outlet
C2
0.1045
CO2
20
40
101.3
5192
Type:
Reciprocating, oil-less, air cooled
Volumetric Flow:
Pressure Change:
4-16 scf/hr
5090.7 kPa
Power Required:
0.37 kW
http://compressors.rixindustries.com/item/commercial-compressors/microboost-highpressure-oxygen-compressors/microboost-115?#AdditionalInformation
$5449 by quote
Appendix III: 2
R-Vessel
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Item Name: Recycle Holding Tanks
RV-100,1,2,3,4,5
Item Number:
Holds pure CO2 for use in brewery
Hold for less than a month before usage
CarbonDioxide (pure)
Inlet
C3
0.1045
CO2
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/hr):
Composition:
Temperature (C):
Pressure (kPa):
Date:04/29/2013
CarbonDioxide (pure)
Outlet
0
CO2
40
5192
Design Data:
Type:
Volume:
Pressurized Tank
100lb
CO2
Height:
Diameter:
Materials of Construction:
Glass lined SS 314
Comments:
Appendix III: 3
R-Adsorber
Identification:
Function:
Operation:
Materials
Handled:
Date:04/29/2013
Item Name: Recycle Adsorber
RT-100, 101
Item Number:
Purify CO2 of non-polar components with activated carbon
6 hours, 5 days a week, two tanks in parallel so one can replenish
Carbon Dioxide +
Carbon Dioxide
aromatic hydrocarbons
Stream ID:
Quantity (kg/hr):
Composition:
C2
0.1045
CO2
T (C)
40
Pressure (kPa)
5192
C3
0.1045
CO2
Design Data:
Type:
Materials of Construction:
Tube, 3 ft length, 5 inch Diameter,
welded interior screen < 8x12 mesh
Stainless Steel 304
Mass of Activated Carbon:
Volume of Interior:
36.7 kg
3 gallons, 0.41 ft3
Appendix III: 4
Appendix IV: Beersmith Recipe
Appendix IV: 1
Appendix V: Team Structure
Appendix V: 1
Team Structure

Team Advisor:
o

Industrial Consultant:
o

Professor Wayne Wentzheimer, Calvin College
Randy Elenbaas, Vertellus Specialties Incorporated
Customer
o
Barry VanDyke, co-owner of Harmony Brewing Company
Team Meeting Style
1. With advisor, scheduled Wednesday 1:30pm, hour update:
a. what has been done in the past week
b. what should be accomplished in the next week
c. bringing focus to major goals
2. Work days: approximately three times a week, in computer lab or design station, focus on
collaborative writing and research.
3. Visits to Harmony: Bi-monthly, focused on keeping Barry informed on progress and project
restrictions
Appendix V: 2
Budget
The budget for this project was originally projected to be $424, however, only $113 were used.
See Table 12 for a list of expected and final costs.
Table 12: Predicted and Final Budget
Descritpion
copper pipe
pitot tube
pipe fittings
copper pipe (2)
pipe fittings (2)
mixed gas tank
drying agent
activated carbon
molecular sieve
Root beer keg
Predicted Cost
$
$
58.00
$
25.00
$
25.00
$
25.00
$
200.00
$
11.00
$
30.00
$
50.00
$
-
End Cost
$
$
58.00
$
25.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
30.00
Total
$
$
424.00
113.00
While the team originally planned to build two analytical pipes and a bench top model to test
purification methods, it was decided that concurrent testing of fermentation tanks was not worth the time
and expense of building another pipe, and that sufficient literature research and modeling could replace
the need for a bench-top adsorption test for off-gas purification.
Task Specifications and Schedule
The team developed a work break down schedule to help track our progress and to give us
deadlines and milestones to work with. A link to the work break down schedule may be found at
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2012-13-team3/documents/. A list of the major tasks for this
project may be seen in Table 13 below.
Table 13: Major Tasks Work Division
Task
Impurity Identification
Rate and Concentration Modeling
Super Pro Designer Modeling
Economic analysis
Appendix V: 3
Members Involved
Alissa, Nolan
Alissa
Lota, Nolan
All
Appendix VI: Equipment Quotes
Appendix VI: 1
Table 14: Major Equipment Specification and Sources
Appendix VI: 1