Effect of Temperature on
Starch Decomposition to
Optimize Mash Tun Operation
for the Design of a Brewery
Brittany Beacham
Ray Filosa
Mark Williams
1
Outline
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Overall Process
Motivation and Design Goals
Component Balances
Equipment and Raw Material Costs
Product Distribution
Labor
Energy Requirements
Mash Tun Optimization
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
Kinetic Model
Brewing Schedule Optimization
Environmental Concerns
Profitability Analysis
Conclusions
2
Overall Process
Steam Generator
City
Water
Instant Water Heater
Grain Mill
Mash Tun
Boiling
Kettle
Silo
Grain Truck
Screw Auger
Cooling Unit
Keg Filler
CO2 Tank
Brightening
Tank
Bottler/labeler
Filter
Fermentation
Tank
Heat Exchanger
In House Kegs
Figure 1. Process Flow Sheet
3
Motivation
Brewery Specifications
o
13,000 barrels a year
o
Considered a microbrewery
o
Brew 4 times a week, 192 times per year
Brewery Location
Storrs, CT
o High consumer demand
o Unlimited market present
o Local distribution opportunities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CTMap-doton-Storrs.png
4
Design Goals
Optimization of Brewing Process Through:
 Mash Temperature Optimization
̵
Experimentally tested mash temperatures of 55°C, 63°C, and 70°C using HPLC
̵
Developed a kinetic model with experimental data in order to find desired sugar
profiles for each temperature to create high quality product
̵
Determine the effect of sugar profiles on body, and taste
 Weekly Batch Schedule
̵
Examined two different methods for brewing four batches a week to
reduce energy costs per year.
 Closed Mass and Energy Balances
 Profitability Analysis on the entire process
5
Silo & Milling
Screw Auger 2
1
Mass Balance
In
http://defendingveggies.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
Figure 2. Grain Mill
Out
Energy Required – 34.86 kW / Batch
2705 lb Grain
2705 lb Grain
Operation Cost – $3.55 / Batch
Assumptions:
• No losses during milling
6
Mashing
Instant Water Heater
City Water
Grain
To Boil Kettle
Assumptions:
•
•
•
Adiabatic mash tun
No wort losses
Spent grain contained 80%
wt/water
http://www.brewplants.com/mMashTun.html
Figure 3. Mash Tun
Mass Balance
Water
Temperatures: The Brewer’s Handbook
Grain Needed:
Brewing
Science and
Practice
In
Out
Infusion𝑆𝐺 − 1 ∗ 1000 = 𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡
Wort 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦
(Sweet)
𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡
𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠
9308
2705
Water (lbs)
𝐺𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑
Milled Grain
(lbs)
∗
0.4 ∗ 𝑘𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 ∗ 𝑇𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
16453 Water (lbs)
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐻2 𝑂 + 0.4
∗
𝑘𝑔
−
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
75°C
𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠
= 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝐿𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝐻2 𝑂
1950
Absorbed
Mash Material
(lbs) 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 Strike Water Temperature:
= 𝑇𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒
(𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
%) ∗ (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠) = 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
Sparging
Spent Grain
9308
Check
Mash Temperature: 70°C
2164 Water (lbs)
𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
= 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
755 Un-Absorbed
Mash𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑
Material (lbs)
𝐶𝐺𝐷𝐵/𝐹𝐺𝐷𝐵
∗
46
∗
𝐵𝐻𝑌
0
Water (lbs)
7
Wort Boiling
City Water
From Mash
Wort
http://www.brewplants.com/mBrewKettle.html
Figure 4. Wort Boiler Kettle
Mass Balance
In
Wort (Sweet)
16453 Water (lbs)
1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)
60.9
Check
Hopping
Hops (lbs)
Out
Wort (Bittered)
15417 Water (lbs)
1950 Absorbed Mash Material (lbs)
9.1
Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)
51.8
48.8
Trub
Un-Absorbed Hop Material (lbs)
Water
987
Evaporated
Water (lbs)
Assumptions:
• Adiabatic steam kettle
• Hot break mass negligible
• No wort losses
• 4% evaporative water losses per hour
• 15% hops are soluble
• Trub contains 80% wt/water
0
8
Wort Boiling
Steam Requirements for Boil Kettle

Energy to Boil
𝑄 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝐵𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐻2 𝑂 = 𝑚𝐻2 𝑂 ∗ ℎ𝑣
𝑄 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 447.8 𝑘𝑔 𝐻2 𝑂 ∗ 2257

𝑘𝐽
= 1,010,684.6 𝑘𝐽
𝑘𝑔
http://www.parkerboiler.com/
Figure 5. Steam Boiler
Energy of Evaporation
𝑄 = 𝑚 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ Δ𝑇
𝑄=
16453 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑘𝐽
∗ 4.2055
∗
2.204𝑙𝑏 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾
𝑘𝑔
100°C + 273°C − 70°C + 273°C
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑬𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 𝑹𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒅 = 𝟏, 𝟎𝟏𝟎, 𝟔𝟖𝟓 𝒌𝑱 + 𝟗𝟒𝟏, 𝟖𝟐𝟗 𝒌𝑱 ∗

= 941,829 𝑘𝐽
𝟎. 𝟗𝟒𝟖 𝑩𝑻𝑼
= 𝟏, 𝟖𝟓𝟗, 𝟓𝟗𝟏 𝑩𝑻𝑼
𝒌𝑱
Total Steam Needed
@ 100 PSI and 600°F - 𝐻 = 1329.3
𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑙𝑏
𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ = 1,859,591 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗
𝑙𝑏
= 𝟏𝟑𝟗𝟐. 𝟏𝟓 𝒍𝒃
1329.3 𝐵𝑇𝑈
9
Wort Boiling
 Natural Gas Needed to Feed to Boiler
Boiler Runs at 84% Efficiency
1,859,591 𝐵𝑇𝑈
= 2,203,084 𝐵𝑇𝑈
0.84
Natural Gas Contains
1000 𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑓𝑡 3
http://www.parkerboiler.com/
𝑓𝑡 3
𝑓𝑡 3 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑎𝑠
2,203,084 𝐵𝑇𝑈 ∗
= 2,203.08
1000 𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ
Table 1. Natural Gas Costs
Item
Provider
Amount
(Batch)
Unit Price
Price (Batch)
Price (Year)
Natural Gas
DOE Connecticut
2203.08 ft3
$0.0095 / ft3
$20.84
$4,001.50
10
Wort Cooling & Aeration
Heated Water
Hot Wort
Oxygen
𝑞=
Cooled Wort
𝑚
𝐶 Δ𝑇
𝑡 𝑝
Cooled Water
Heat Exchanger
Energy Balance
Temperatures (°F)
Mass Flow Rates (kg/s)
httType equation
here.
In
Out
In-Out
www.agcengineering.com/c_downloads/Pro3-SH%20Spec.pdf
Wort
212
70
12.6
Chiller Water
32
182
13.3
Mass Balance
In
Wort (Warm/Un-aired)
15417 Water (lbs)
1959 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)
0.127
Check
Out
Wort (Cool/Aerated)
15417 Water (lbs)
1959 Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)
0.127 Oxygen (lbs)
Oxygen
Oxygen (lbs)
0
http://www.agcengineering.com/c_downloads/Pro3-SH%20Spec.pdf
Figure 6. Heat Exchanger
11
Fermentation
Coolant from Chiller
Wort from Heat Exchanger
Beer
Used Coolant back to Chiller
http://www.toreuse.com/every-sti-fermenting-tank/
Yeast
Mass Balance
In
Unfermented Wort
15417 Water (lbs)
1959 Total Dissolved Material (lbs)
16.1
Check
Pre-Fermentation
Yeast (lbs)
15370
711
490
680
Out
Green Beer
Water (lbs)
Ethanol (lbs)
Total Dissolved Solids (lbs)
CO2 (lbs)
78.21
63
Post-Fermentation
Yeast (lbs)
Water Absorbed (lbs)
Figure 7. Fermentation Tank
Assumptions:
• Yeast attenuation of 75%
• Mass of extract as glucose
0
12
Fermentation
Glycol/Water Cooling Unit
𝐶6 𝐻12 𝑂6 → 2𝐶2 𝐻5 𝑂𝐻 + 2𝐶𝑂2
𝐻°𝑓 = ∑𝐻°𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠 − ∑𝐻°𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝑘𝑗
𝐻°𝑓 = −73.4
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑘𝑗
453.59 𝑔
𝑚𝑜𝑙
73.4
∗ 1950 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗
∗
∗ 75% = −270,269.5 𝑘𝑗
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑙𝑏𝑠
180.16 𝑔
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 = Δ73 °𝐶
Energy Balance
Temperatures (°F)
Mass Flow Rates (kg/s)
In
Out
In-Out
Wort 201.4
70
Chiller Water
32
32
13.3
13
Total Equipment Costs
Table 2: Equipment Costs
Item
Manufacturer
Price
Silo
Brock Grain Systems
$10,000.00
Auger 1
N/A
$7,000.00
Auger 2
N/A
$7,000.00
Pleasant Hill Grain Company
$7,100.00
JET
$499.00
Mash Pump
AAA Metal Fabrication
$2,471.00
Brew Pump
AAA Metal Fabrication
$4,276.00
DE Filter
Della Toffola
$73,633.86
Mash Tun
AAA Metal Fabrication
$42,336.00
Boil Kettle
AAA Metal Fabrication
$33,048.00
Heat Exchanger
AAA Metal Fabrication
$15,000.00
Fermentation Tank (8)
AAA Metal Fabrication
$268,096.00
Brightening Tank (8)
AAA Metal Fabrication
$242,232.00
Refridgeration Room
Foster Coolers
$5,199.00
Bottling Machine
Ager Tank & Equipment
$51,635.00
Labeling Machine
Ager Tank & Equipment
$19,800.00
Kegging Machine
Ager Tank & Equipment
$18,900.00
Hot Water Heater
Hubble
$5,000.00
Glycol Chillers
$24,000.00
Steam Boiler
AAA Metal Fabrication
$113,890.00
Piping
AAA Metal Fabrication
$33,238.00
Mill
Grain Vacuum
Glycol-Water Chiller
Total Equipment Cost
$984,354
14
Raw Material Costs
Table 3#: Raw Material Costs
Item
2-Row Barley
Caramel Malt
Carapils Malt
Manufacturer
Canada Malting
Company
Thomas Faucet and
Sons
Malteries FrancoBelges
Amount (Batch)
Unit Price
Price (Batch)
Shipping Price (Year)
Price (Year)
2387 lbs
$0.35 / lb
$835.45
Included
$160,406.40
159 lbs
$0.013 / lb
$2.07
$1,344.00
$1,740.86
159 lbs
$0.012 / lb
$1.91
$1,344.00
$1,710.34
Diatomaceous Earth
Country Malt
50 lbs
$0.72 / lb
$36.00
$480.00
$7,392.00
Saaz Hops
Country Malt
24.4 lbs
$7.26 / lb
$177.14
Included
$34,011.65
Casecade Hops
Country Malt
36.6 lbs
$6.17 / lb
$225.82
Included
$43,357.82
White Labs
34.5 lbs
$132.64 / lb
$25.42
Included
$4,576.08
British Ale Yeast
(WLP005)
Total Yearly Raw Material Cost
$263,470
http://countrymaltgroup.com/
Figure 8. Great Malt Group
15
Product Distribution
Distributed Product (99%)
Table 4: Distribution of product
Distributed (99%) Number/Batch Number/Month
Unit Price
Monthly Sales
Yearly Sales
Kegs
63.0
1006
$85.00 / keg
$85,510.00
$1,026,120.00
Bottles (24 Pack)
430
6880
$18.00 / 24 Pack
$123,840.00
$1,486,080.00
Unit Price
Monthly Sales
Yearly Sales
In House Product (1%)
Table 5: Distribution of in house product
In House (1%)
$107,136
Number/Batch Number/Month
Kegs
1
16
$4.50 / pint
$8,928.00
$107,136.00
Bottles
20
320
N/A
N/A
N/A
Distributed Kegs
$1,026,120
Distributed Bottles
Total Monthly Sales - $218,278.00
$1,486,080
In House Sales
Figure 9. Product Distribution
Total Yearly Sales - $2,619,336.00
16
Labor Costs
Table 6: Yearly Salaries
Position
Figure 10. Labor Distribution Tree
Yearly Salary
Proprietor
$100,000
Secretary
$30,000
Head Brewer
$55,000
Cleaner
$30,000
Brewers Assistant
$30,000
Inventory/Distribution Specialist
$35,000
Total Yearly Labor Cost
$280,000
17
Energy Requirement
Table 7: Brewery’s Energy Requirements
Energy Required
(Batch)
Energy Required
(Year)
Energy Cost (Batch)
Energy Cost (Year)
Auger 1
0.196 kW
37.632 kW
$0.0200
$3.83
Auger 2
0.196 kW
37.632 kW
$0.0200
$3.83
Mill
34.856 kW
6692.352 kW
$3.5511
$681.82
Grain Vacuum
1.13 kW
216.96 kW
$0.1151
$22.10
Brewing Pump
3.51 kW
673.92 kW
$0.3576
$68.66
Mash Pump
0.097 kW
18.624 kW
$0.0099
$1.90
DE Filter
20.74 kW
3982.08 kW
$2.1130
$405.69
Mash Tun
2.24 kW
430.08 kW
$0.23
$43.82
Refrigeration Room
1.864 kW
134.208 kW
$0.19
$13.67
Bottling Machine
4.32 kW
829.44 kW
$0.4401
$84.50
Labeling Machine
0.054 kW
10.368 kW
$0.0055
$1.06
Kegging Machine
3.3 kW
633.6 kW
$0.34
$64.55
Hot Water Heater
40.63 kW
7800.96 kW
$4.14
$794.76
660 kW
237600 kW
$67.24
$24,206.69
Component
Glycol-Water
Chiller
CL&P supplies
electricity at
$0.10188/kW
Total Energy Cost (Batch)
$ 78.77
Total Energy Cost (Year)
$ 26,637
18
Mash Tun Optimization

Starch decomposition during mashing produces fermentable
and un-fermentable sugars
o

Malted barley starches - amylose and amylopectin
Enzymes
o
Alpha Amylase: 60˚C – 70˚C, not selective for cleaving
o
o
Beta Amylase: 55˚C– 65˚C, produces maltose
o

Figure 11. MAltose
Dryer beer, more alcoholic, malt flavor
Sugars define the taste profile and overall quality of end
product
o
o

Thicker, less alcohol, more sugar flavors
http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu/fst605/
lectures/lect14.html
Yeast can ferment mono-, di-, and tri-saccharides
Higher order sugars contribute to flavor and body
Analyze starch decomposition to optimize mashing temperature
19
Mash Tun Optimization
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
High Performance Liquid Chromatography

Column separates molecules based on molecular
size and hydrophobic interaction

Two types of HPLC
o
o

Reverse Phase – nonpolar stationary phase and less
hydrophobic mobile phase
Normal Phase – polar stationary phase and more
hydrophobic mobile phase
Detection
o
Refractive Index - measure the bending of a ray of
light passing through two mediums
Angle of refraction
UV-Vis
Fluorescence
o
o
o
Figure 12. HPLC Chromatogram
20
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
o
Experimental Procedure:
o
Brewed at 3 mashing temperatures - 55˚C, 63˚C, 70˚C
o
Sampled mash every 5 minutes for 60 minute duration
o
Quenched reaction with 0.1M NH3OH and placed in ice bath
Figure 13. Experimental Setup
Figure 14. Sampling!
21
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
o
Experimental Procedure:
o
Centrifuged samples
o
o
o
Spinning at 1500-2000 rpm for 30 minutes
Supernatant transferred to vials
Brought pH to 6.8 with NaOH
Figure 15. Centrifuge
Figure 16. Transferring Supernatant
Figure 17. pH system
22
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
o
Experimental Procedure:
o
Diluted samples 100x with mobile phase (75% Acetonitrile)
o
Filtered through 0.45µm syringe filters into HPLC vials
o
Standard solutions prepared before injecting samples
Figure 17. Dilution
Figure 18. Transferring to HPLC vials
23
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
o
Experimental Procedure:
Item
Table 8: Method
Description/Operating Conditions
Akzo Nobel Kromasil 100 Å, 5 μm, NH2, 4.6 ×
Column
250 mm
Mobile Phase
75% Acetonitrile
Time Program
Isocratic Method
Time (minutes)
Flow Rate
0.01
Operation
55.01
Controller Start
1.00 mL/min
Controller Stop
Detection
Refractive Index
Sample Dilution
100x
Sample pH
~
Autosampler Temperature
25 °C
Column Oven Temperature
35 °C
Run Time
55 minutes
6.8
Figure 19. HPLC Column
24
Experimental Results
Results: Standard Solutions
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 2500 ppm
65
Area
65
55
50
50
45
45
40
40
Maltotetraose
mVolts
30
25
20
3246
9654
2086
15
3248
17261
28162
3654
16352
797
3029
778
483
390
1085
242
4546
9230
929
2856
10092
Maltose
8050
3929
3276
2284
15
10
35
253127
20
279009
223768
25
330348
264969
30
Maltotriose
55
Sucrose
60
Fructose
Dextrose
60
35
mVolts
o
10
5
5
0
0
-5
-5
-10
-10
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
55.0
57.5
60.0
Minutes
25
Experimental Results
Results: Calibration Curve
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 500 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 1000 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Suger Standard 1500 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 2000 ppm
Analog - Analog Board 2
Sugar Standard Solution 2500 ppm
55
55
50
50
45
45
2500 ppm
40
40
35
35
2000 ppm
30
mVolts
30
mVolts
o
25
25
1500 ppm
20
20
1000 ppm
15
15
10
10
500 ppm
5
5
0
0
-5
-5
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
55.0
57.5
Minutes
26
Experimental Results
o
Results:
Table 9: Calibration Curve Summary
Calibration Expressions for Sugars
Sugar
y variable
x variable Calibration Line Equation
Fructose
Peak Area ppm
y = 105.68x + 19327
Dextrose
Peak Area ppm
y = 83.379x + 477.5
Sucrose
Peak Area ppm
y = 121.37x + 15671
Maltose
Peak Area ppm
y = 108.34x - 8671.2
Maltotriose
Peak Area ppm
y = 103.84x - 12110
Maltotetraose
Peak Area ppm
y = 26.747x - 5833.2
Figure 19. Representative Calibration Curve
27
Experimental Results
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=15
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=20
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=30
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=35
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=40
Maltotetraose
60
Sucrose
Fructose
Dextrose
65
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=10
Maltotriose
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=5
Maltose
Results: T = 70˚C Data
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=50
60
t = 60 min
t = 55 min
50
55
50
45
t = 50 min
45
40
t = 45 min
40
t = 40 min
30
35
mVolts
35
mVolts
Analog - Analog Board 2
70C t=45
65
55
mVolts
o
30
t = 35 min
25
25
t = 30 min
20
20
15
t = 20 min
10
t = 15 min
t = 10 min
5
0
t = 5 min
-5
15
10
5
0
-5
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
Minutes
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
Minutes
28
Experimental Results
Results: T = 70˚C Data
T = 70 C Sugar Profile
3.00E+05
2.50E+05
2.00E+05
ppm
o
1.50E+05
1.00E+05
5.00E+04
0.00E+00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (Min)
Maltose
Maltotetraose
Dextrose
Maltotriose
Sucrose
29
Experimental Results
Results: T = 63˚C Data
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=15
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=20
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=25
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=30
Maltotetraose
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=10
Maltotriose
110
Sucrose
120
Maltose
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=5
Fructose
Dextrose
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=0
Analog - Analog Board 2
63C t=35
Analog - Analog Board
63C t=45
120
t = 60 min
t = 50 min
t = 45 min
t = 40 min
100
90
110
100
90
80
t = 30 min
mVolts
t = 35 min
mVolts
o
80
t = 25 min
70
70
t = 20 min
t = 15 min
60
t = 10 min
t = 5 min
t = 0 min
50
40
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
60
50
40
55.0
Minutes
30
Experimental Results
Results: T = 63˚C Data
T = 63 C Sugar Profile
4.5E+05
4.0E+05
3.5E+05
ppm
o
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
0
10
Dextrose
20
Maltose
30
Time (Minutes)
40
Maltotriose
50
60
Maltotetraose
31
Experimental Results
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=20
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=25
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=30
120
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=35
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=5
Maltotetraose
110
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=15
Maltotriose
115
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=10
Sucrose
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=0
Fructose
Dextrose
120
Maltose
Results: T = 55˚C Data
110
t = 60 min
t = 55 min
t = 50 min
100
105
100
95
95
t = 40 min
90
90
t = 35 min
t = 30 min
t = 25 min
t = 20 min
t = 15 min
t = 10 min
t = 5 min
80
75
70
65
60
85
mVolts
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
55
t = 0 min
50
50
45
40
0.0
Analog - Analog Board 2
55C t=40
115
105
mVolts
o
45
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
40
55.0
Minutes
32
Experimental Results
Results: T = 55˚C Data
T = 55C Sugar Profile
3.5E+05
3.0E+05
2.5E+05
2.0E+05
ppm
o
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
5.0E+04
0.0E+00
0
Dextrose
10
20
Fructose
30
Time (Minutes)
Maltose
40
Sucrose
50
60
Maltotetraose
33
HPLC Analysis of Sugars
Results: Summary
Table 10: Sugar Concentrations
End point of Sugars and Sum (concentrations = grams/lit)
Fructose
Dextrose
Sucrose
Maltose
Malt-3
Malt-4
Sum
70 C
27.04
65.43
20.56
220.51
46.18
120.22
499.93
1039.92
660.21
63 C
6.32
161.51
5.90
419.60
39.35
106.04
738.72
1035.92
403.24
55 C
32.44
132.44
2.60
289.62
9.82
46.36
513.28
1037.92
571.00
𝑆𝐺𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 70𝐹 =
o
𝜌𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡
𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
The 70°C samples have less maltose than the 63°C and 55°C samples
o
o
Total Conc. Total HOS
Lower alcohol content
Higher concentration of maltotetraose and higher order sugars in the
70°C sample
o
Fuller bodied beer with deeper flavor profile
34
Sampling!
35
Kinetic Model
Starch
Higher Order Sugars
[S]
→ 1800/B [HOS]
k8
k8
k4
[HOS] →
k4
H/4
[4]
[HOS] →
k3
H/3
[3]
k3
[HOS] →
k2
H/2
[2]
k2
[HOS] →
k1
H/1
[1]
k1
MaltoTetraose
MaltoTriose
Maltose
/Sucrose
Glucose
/Fructose
Figure 20. Starch Decomposition
36
Kinetic Model
Assumptions:
o
Amylose and Amylopectin were lumped together -> Starch
o
Starch was assigned to be 1800 glucose units
o To write reaction stoichiometric equations
o
Decomposition of higher order sugars (HOS) yielded:
o
o
o
o
o
Glucose/Fructose
Maltose/Sucrose
Maltotriose
Maltotetraose
o To compare against sugars measured in H.P.L.C.
1st order kinetics
37
Kinetic Model
o
Reaction Rates:
𝑟8 = 𝑘8 [𝑆]
𝑟4 = 𝑘4 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑟3 = 𝑘3 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑟2 = 𝑘2 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑟1 = 𝑘1 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
o Rate Laws:
𝑑𝑆
= −𝑘8 𝑆
𝑑𝑡
𝑑 𝐻𝑂𝑆
1800
𝐻
𝐻
𝐻
=
𝑘8 𝑆 − 𝑘4 𝐻𝑂𝑆 − 𝑘3 𝐻𝑂𝑆 − 𝑘2 𝐻𝑂𝑆 − 𝐻𝑘1 [𝐻𝑂𝑆]
𝑑𝑡
𝐵
4
3
2
𝑑4
𝐻
= 𝑘4 𝐻𝑂𝑆
𝑑𝑡
4
𝑑3
𝐻
= 𝑘3 𝐻𝑂𝑆
𝑑𝑡
3
𝑑2
𝐻
= 𝑘2 𝐻𝑂𝑆
𝑑𝑡
2
𝑑1
= 𝐻𝑘1 𝐻𝑂𝑆
𝑑𝑡
38
Kinetic Model
o
Results:
Wort Carbohydrate P rofile
63 Celsius
Concentration molL
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Time Seconds
39
Kinetic Model
o
Results: 63°C Data Experimental vs. Theoretical
1.4000
Modeled
Concentration: mol/lit
1.2000
Experimental
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
Glucose/Fructose
Maltose/Sucrose
Malto-triose
Sugars
Malto-tetraose
40
Brewing Schedule Optimization
Two Weekly Brewing Schedule Options
• Brewing 1950 gallon batches 4 times a week
Reasons for Optimization
• To optimize energy required to heat strike water for mashing for
each batch
• To Save in electricity cost used for mashing per year
41
Brewing Schedule Optimization
Hubble Instant Hot Water Heater Used
Option 1 – Brew twice a day, two times a week
• Require 4 hours to heat water for each batch
• Require two instant hot water heaters
Total Energy Requirement Per Week - 813 kw
Option 2 – Brew once a day, four times a week
• Require 12 hours overnight to heat water for each batch
• Require one instant hot water heaters
Total Energy Requirement Per Week - 136.7 kw
42
Brewing Schedule Optimization
900
• Option 2 provides an
83% reduction in
required energy to mash
per week.
800
Required Energy (kW)
700
600
500
• This brewery used
option 2 in order to save
on yearly energy costs
400
300
200
100
0
Option 1
Option 2
Figure 21. Brewing Schedule Energy Comparison
43
Environmental Concerns
o
Solid Waste
o
Yeast
o
o
Diatomaceous Earth
o
o
o
Reused 180 times, then steralized and sent to farmers
Toxic and carcinogenic in dry form, but nonhazardous when wet
No federal or state regulations for disposal – can be
discharged or sent to landfill
Liquid Waste
o
Waste Water
o
o
o
http://www.ghorganics.com/Diato
maceousEarth.html
Figure 21. Diatomaceous Earth
CT DEP – General Permit for Miscellaneous Discharges of Sewer Compatible
(MISC) Wastewater
BOD5 level, pH, turbidity
Cleaning Supplies
o
Biodegradable, environmentally friendly cleaners
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Sust
ainability/About/Partners.asp
Figure 22. DEP Logo
44
Spent Grains
Uses
• Compost used as a growing medium
• Baked Goods
• Dog Biscuits
• Conversion to Ethanol
In This Brewery
Spent grains donated to local farmers
http://beeractivist.com/2007/04/15/grains-of-possibility-ways-to-use-spent-brewing-grains/
Figure 23. Spent Grains
-
Most cost effective method for disposal
-
Farmer gains grains for free
45
Profitability Analysis
Total Capital Investment
Table 11: Brewery’s Total Capital Investment
Item
Cost (Year)
Variable Costs
Utility Costs
Table 12: Brewery’s Total Utility Cost
Item
Cost (Year)
Electricity
$26,782.00
Raw Materials
$984,354.00
Manufactured Gas
$6,273.43
Purchased Equipment Installation
$29,530.62
Water Usage
$2,649.83
Instrumentation & Controls
$19,687.08
Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal
$1,908.00
Buildings
$590,612.40
Natural Gas
$1,739.51
$9,843.54
Yard Improvements
Fixed Costs
Engineering and Supervision
$98,435.40
Construction Expenses
$78,748.32
Legal Expenses
$9,843.54
Contractor’s Fee
$19,687.08
Contingency
$78,748.32
Working Capital
$738,265.50
Total Utility Cost - $39,353
Total Capital Investment (TCI)
$2,657,756
Profitability Analysis
Annual Total Production Cost
Table 13: Brewery’s Annual TPC
Item
Cost (Year)
Variable Costs
 Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return
chosen to be 20%
Raw Materials
$263,470.00
Operating Labor
$393,061.20
Operation Supervision
$58,959.18
Payback Period
Utilities
$39,352.77
2.5 years
Cleaning Supplies
$3,235.00
Bottles and Labels
$2,800.00
Return on Investment
21.2 % per year
Fixed Charges
Property Taxes
$39,434.01
Financing
$157,736.03
Insurance
$19,717.00
Plant Overhead
$226,010.19
Product Sales
$2,619,336.00
Total Net Profit Over First 10 Years
$ 5,790,000
47
Profitability Analysis
Economic Justification for 70˚C
70˚C
55˚C
Table 14: 55˚C Mash Temperature Specs
Item
Distributed Kegs
Distributed Bottles (24 Pack)
In House Kegs
Unit Price
Product Sales
(Year)
$65
$784,680
$13.00
$1,073,280
$2.50 / pint
$59,520
Total Sales
Item
Hot Water Heater
Table 15: 70˚C Mash Temperature Specs
Item
Distributed Kegs
Distributed Bottles (24 Pack)
In House Kegs
Cost (Year)
27.08 kW
$529.79
Product Sales
(Year)
$85
$1,026,120
$18.00
$1,486,080
$4.50 / pint
$107,136
Total Sales
$1,917,480
Energy Required
(Batch)
Unit Price
Item
Hot Water Heater
$2,619,336
Energy Required
(Batch)
Cost (Year)
40.63 kW
$794.76
48
Profitability Analysis
Total Net Profit Over 10 Years
Payback Period Comparison
7
6
6
Profit ($ Millions)
7
Years
5
4
3
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
10 Year Total Net Profit
Pay Back Period
55°C
55°C 70°C
Figure 24: 55˚C vs. 70˚C Payback Period
70°C
Figure 25: 55˚C vs. 70˚C Total Net Profit Over 10 Years
Table 16: 55˚C vs. 70˚C Profitability Results
Temperature
Payback Period
10 Year Net Profit
Rate of Return
55˚C
6 years
$1,330,000
4.9 % / year
70˚C
2.5 years
$5,790,000
21.2% / year
49
Profitability Analysis
Net 10 Year Profit and Pay Back Period
8
Years
Payback Period (Years)
35
6
Profit
30
4
25
20
2
15
0
10
-2
5
0
Net Profit over 10 Years ($ Millions)
40
 To break even over
a 10 year period this
brewery would need
to operate at 65% of
products sold
 Implies a payback
period of about 13
years
-4
45
50
55
60
65 70 75 80 85
% Products Sold
90
95 100
Figure 26: Brewery’s % Products Sold vs. Payback Period & Net 10 Year Profit
50
Conclusions
o Final Decision: Go
o Low payback period
o 70C Mash temperature yielded optimum flavor profile
o This brewery could become a cultural symbol of UConn
51
Acknowledgements
o Dr. Abhay Vaze – Chemistry Department
o Dr. William Mustain
o Dr. Daniel Burkey
52
Questions?
53
References
Ultraviolet and Visible Absorption Spectroscopy (UV-Vis). (2000). Retrieved from The Chemistry Hypermedia Project:
http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/spec/uv-vis/uv-vis.html
ALAR Engineering Corporation. (2010). Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Retrieved April 2011, from ALARWater Pollution Control
Systems: http://www.alarcorp.com/applications/biological-oxygen-demand-bod
Baker, J. (2008). Material Safety Data Sheet: Diatomaceous Earth.
Boilers, P. (n.d.). Steam Boiler Manual.
Briggs, D. E., Boulton, C. A., Brookes, P. A., & Stevens, R. (2004). Brewing Science and Practice. Woodhead Publishing.
Britannica, E. (2011). Refractive Index.
Budweiser, H. (2011, March). Distribution Specifications. (R. J. Jr., Interviewer)
Container, K. (2011). Bottle Quote. Diana Boyle.
Coolers, F. (n.d.). Refridgeration Room Quote.
Equipment, B. P. (n.d.). Ampco AC-216 Centrifugal Pump.
Equipment, I. (n.d.). RVS HELICOIDAL IMPELLER PUMP .
Fabrication, A. M. (2011, April). Brewery Quote.
Fix, G. (1989). Principles of Brewing Science. Brewers Publications.
Golden Harvest Organics LLC. (n.d.). Diatomaceous Earth. Retrieved April 2011, from Golden Harvest Organization:
http://www.ghorganics.com/DiatomaceousEarth.html
Goldhammer, T. (2008). The Brewer's Handbook. Apex.
Grain, P. H. (n.d.). Specifications, Table A. Hampton, Nebraska .
Harris, T. (2011, March). Long Trail Brewery. (M. Williams, Interviewer)
Heater, H. H. (n.d.).
Hemad Zareiforoush, M. H. (n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains.
Journal of Agricultural Science.
Lehloenya KV, S. D. (2008). Effects of feeding yeast and propionibacteria to dairy cows on milk yield and components, and
reproduction*. Pub Med, 190-202.
Max S. Peters, K. D. (2003). Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill higher Education.
Northern Brewer. (2011). Star San. Retrieved from Northern Brewer: http://www.northernbrewer.com/brewing/star-san.html
54
References
O'Brien, C. (2007). Grains of Possibility: Ways to Use Spent Brewing Grains. Retrieved from American Brewer:
http://beeractivist.com/2007/04/15/grains-of-possibility-ways-to-use-spent-brewing-grains/
Palmer, J. J. (2006). How To Brew . Brewers Publications.
Priest, F. G., & Stewart, G. G. (2006). Handbook of Brewing. Taylor & Francis.
Regulation, C. (1989). Title 40: Protection of Environment. Retrieved April 2011, from eCFR: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr;sid=d7773ee6b09450c54ab24e0f8726bd32;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A22.0.1.1.3.8;idno=40;cc=ecfr
Russell, I. (2003). Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing. Academic Press.
(n.d.). Screw Conveyors Power and Throughput Analysis during Horizontal Handling of Paddy Grains.
Steed, A., Steed, A., & Steed, A. (1992). Filters and Filtration. National Rural Water Association.
Swadesh, J. (2001). HPLC: practical and industrial applications. CRC Press.
Tank, A. (n.d.). Bottle Labeler and Keg Quote.
Toffola, D. (n.d.). DE Filter Quote.
UV-Vis Absorption Spectroscopy. (n.d.). Retrieved from Sheffield Hallam University:
http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/uvvisab1.htm
Williams, J. L. (2011, April). Natural Gas Futures Close. Retrieved from Natural Gas Futures Prices - NYMEX:
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/gasprice.html
Yates, M. (2011, April 5). Tour of Hooker Brewery. (B. Beacham, Interviewer)
55
Overall Process – Aspen Model
56
Appendix – Aspen Data
Beer Pr o d u ctio n Mo d elin g
Str eam I D
Temp eratu r e F
Pr essu re
p sia
Vap o r Fr ac
Mo le Flo w lb m o l/h r
Mass Flo w lb /h r
Vo lu me Flo wcu ft/h r
En th alp y
Mass Flo w
WA TER
Gcal/h r
lb /h r
COLD -H 2 O EXTRA CT1 EXTRA CT2 EXTRA CT3 GRI ST
H2 O VAPO RHO PS
HTR1 - H2 O HTR2 - H2 O MA SH- H2 OMI LLGRN SPENTG RN SPRG- H2 O W ORT- BIT W ORT- SWT
7 0 .0
1 4 5 .4
8 0 8 4 .2
1 4 0 .0
1 5 1 .3
2 1 2 .0
7 7 .0
7 0 .0
7 0 .0
1 5 2 .6
7 7 .0
1 4 0 .0
1 5 0 .0
2 1 2 .0
1 4 0 .0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 4 .5 0 2
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 4 .5 0 2
1 .0 0 0
0 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .9 6 2
4 3 .0 5 8
2 2 .1 5 5
4 3 .6 8 4
4 3 .6 8 4
2 2 .1 5 5
7 7 5 .7 0 8
5 0 0 .5 6 3
8 8 8 .4 1 7
8 8 8 .4 1 7
5 0 0 .5 6 3
1 2 .4 5 4 1 3 9 7 1 3 .6 7 3 4 .0 0 5 2 9 E+6 4 .0 0 5 2 9 E+6 1 3 9 7 1 3 .6 7 3
- 1 .3 3 4
7 7 5 .7 0 8
STARCH
STARCH- S
STARCH- I
DRYG RAI N
HOPS
Mass Frac
WA TER
7 7 5 .7 0 8
7 7 5 .7 0 8
0 .0 0 0
2 1 .5 2 9
3 8 7 .8 5 4
6 .2 2 7
0 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
2 1 .5 2 9
2 1 .5 2 9
3 8 7 .8 5 4
3 8 7 .8 5 4
6 .2 2 7 1 4 1 4 5 7 .8 4 8
- 0 .6 4 6
- 0 .0 6 0
- 0 .0 0 4
- 0 .6 6 7
- 0 .6 6 7
- 0 .5 6 1
3 8 7 .8 5 4
4 1 .4 9 4
3 8 7 .8 5 4
3 8 7 .8 5 4
3 8 7 .8 5 4
8 1 .2 6 3
3 1 .4 4 6
8 1 .2 6 3
3 1 .4 4 6
8 1 .2 6 3
0 .0 0 0
0 .6 2 6
1 1 2 .7 0 8
1 .5 3 8
5 .4 0 4
1 2 5 .6 6 3
- 0 .0 8 5
9 4 .2 1 8
1 .0 0 0
2 1 .5 2 9
3 8 7 .8 5 4
1 4 0 8 5 7 .1 4 8
0 .0 0 0
3 5 .9 7 6
7 2 1 .2 5 9
1 2 .0 6 5
- 0 .5 6 1
- 1 .1 3 8
3 8 7 .8 5 4
6 3 9 .9 9 7
6 8 1 .4 9 1
8 1 .2 6 3
8 1 .2 6 3
0 .8 8 7
0 .8 9 3
0 .1 1 3
0 .1 0 7
3 5 .5 2 5
3 7 .8 2 8
0 .4 5 1
0 .4 5 1
3 8 .2 8 0
7 6 2 .7 5 4
1 1 2 .7 0 8
tr ace
3 1 .4 4 6
3 1 .4 4 6
2 .5 3 8
1 .0 0 0
0 .7 7 5
0 .8 7 3
0 .8 7 3
0 .7 7 5
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
0 .2 2 5
0 .1 6 2
0 .0 6 3
0 .0 9 1
0 .0 3 5
0 .0 9 1
0 .7 5 0
1 .0 0 0
1 .0 0 0
2 PPB
0 .0 3 5
0 .2 5 0
1 .0 0 0
lb m o l/h r
WA TER
4 3 .0 5 8
2 1 .5 2 9
4 3 .0 5 8
4 3 .0 5 8
STARCH
STARCH- S
STARCH- I
DRYG RAI N
HOPS
0 .0 0 0
0 .1 4 1
2 .5 3 8
0 .0 4 1
1 1 2 .7 0 8
STARCH
STARCH- S
STARCH- I
DRYG RAI N
HOPS
Mo le Flo w
3 8 7 .8 5 4
1 .0 0 0
2 .3 0 3
4 1 .4 9 4
1 1 4 4 .7 7 9
2 1 .5 2 9
2 .3 0 3
2 1 .5 2 9
0 .6 2 6
0 .4 5 1
0 .1 7 5
0 .4 5 1
0 .1 7 5
0 .4 5 1
2 1 .5 2 9
2 1 .5 2 9
5 .2 3 0
2 1 .5 2 9
0 .6 2 6
tr ace
0 .1 7 5
0 .1 7 5
0 .1 4 1
57