Design of filtration plant

Words Count: 1855 (excluding Background , tables with calculation description and References)

Background:

You are a member of the team charged with designing a new green field brewery.
Your responsibility is to implement a plan which will provide suitable filtration plant for the brewery.
The annual output of the brewery is 3 million hl. It is anticipated that the brewery will produce 2 beer
qualities, both pilsner-type lagers. Beer 1 is brewed at high gravity (16 oP) and requires dilution to 8.76oP for
packaging. Beer 2 is also brewed at high gravity (12 oP) and requires dilution to 8.76oP for packaging. The
predicted split between the two beer qualities is 70:30 (beer 1: beer 2) and this is expected to be relatively
constant throughout the year. Total sales demand is expected to peak in November/ December and June /
July. Both beers will be packaged into keg and bottle with a predicted split of 60:40 in favour of the keg
products.
Fermentation and conditioning will be performed using two tank farms of cylindroconical design each with
capacities of 2000 hl.
Your preference is to install a cross flow filtration system. Your colleagues would prefer a more traditional
powder filter approach. Your essay assignment is to prepare a discussion document which will convince
your colleagues that your choice is correct. The document should include detailed plans as to what type of
conditioning and filtration plant you would envisage as meeting the needs of the brewery. Your answer
should contain details of the sizing and production capability of the plant together with a description of any
necessary ancillary equipment. Where necessary include details of your calculations.
Beer production

It is assumed that beer 1 sales accounts for the 70% of annual production this means that 2100000 hl/year at
sales gravity are produced for beer 1.
Considering that beer 1 is brewed at 16°P and is diluted to 8.76 °P prior to packaging a dilution factor of
1.8265 (16°P/8.76°P) can be calculated. It turns out that in terms of high gravity product an annual volume of
1149740 hl of beer 1 must be diluted (annual production @sales gravity/dilution factor).
If we suppose an overall loss of 6% from brewhouse to finished product it turns out that 1223128 hl/year of
beer 1 must have to be produced (beer 1 @ high gravity annually diluted / 0.94).
Similar considerations lead to the conclusion that 698917 hl of beer 2 must be produced to account for the
given annual production of beer 2.
This means that the brewhouse production ratio and so the fermentation ratio is 63.6% of beer 1 and 36.4%
of beer 2.

% extract
% of total loss from
production brew final hl/year @ brehouse brewhouse high
hl/year @ final @ sales gravity gravity diltion high to finished production gravity
gravity gravity (°P) (°P) factor gravity product hl/year ratio
Total
production 3.000.000 1806722 6% 1922045
Beer 1 2100000 70 16 8.76 1.8265 1149740 1223128 63.6%
Beer 2 900000 30 12 8.76 1.3699 656982 698917 36.4%

Cellar Design

Since the total sales demand is expected to peak in November/December and June/July, if we assume that
during the peak months there is the 40% of total sales (10%/month) while the resulting 60% is evenly
distributed in the rest of the year, the following situation results:

beer volume to be
% sales produced Beer1 Beer2
month demand (hl @ high gravity) (hl @ high gravity) (hl @ high gravity)
Jan 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Feb 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Mar 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Apr 7.5 144153 91735 52419
May 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Jun 10 192204 122313 69892
Jul 10 192204 122313 69892
Aug 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Sep 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Oct 7.5 144153 91735 52419
Nov 10 192204 122313 69892
Dec 10 192204 122313 69892
total 100 1922045 1223128 698917
Considering that both beer 1 and 2 are lagers, let’s assume that fermentation and maturation are made in the
fermenter while cold conditioning is made in the conditioning vessel. Productivity per fermenter (fermentable
volume per fermenter per month) can be maximized transferring beer to the conditioning tanks soon after
dyacetil has fallen below the threshold limit and chilling it during transfer by a paraflow. In this way it is
possible to make a fermenter turn more in a month with a net increase in the fermentable volume per tank
per month, the result is that less fermenters are needed to fulfil the sales demand.
The number of fermentation vessel needed must be calculated on the peak season demand when more beer
should be made available.
The relevant calculations are reported in the table below:

Notes
Actual filling volume 2000 hl
14 days for both
Occupancy in fermentation Including filling, emptying and CIP
brands
Days in a month/occupancy in
Fermentable volume per tank per month
4286 hl fermentation * fermentation volume =
(fermenter monthly production)
30/14*2000
Brand 1 to be fermented in peak season 122313 hl
Brand 2 to be fermented in peak season 69982 hl
(hl to be fermented of brand 1)/ (fermenter
Fermentation vessels needed to beer 1 28.5
monthly production) = 122313/4286
(hl to be fermented of brand 2)/ (fermenter
Fermentation vessels needed to beer 2 16.3
monthly production) = 69892/4286
Total number of fermenters needed 45

In order to define the number of conditioning vessels needed let’s consider that for both brands 60% of
production is packaged in keg while the 40% left is bottled. In this situation 2 hypotheses can be made:

Hypothesis 1
Given that the beer in keg has generally a very high rotational index on the market a shorter shelf life can be
guaranteed and this means that also the stabilization period can be shorter. In this case let’s suppose that for
drought beer we have a storage vessel occupancy of 5 days (4 days of storage plus 1 day for filling emptying
and CIP) while for bottled beer there is an occupancy of 7 days (6 days of storage plus 1 day for filling,
emptying and CIP).

Hypothesis 2
No difference between keg and bottle production is made in terms of storage time and in both cases a
storage time of 5 days is considered. After storage a further stabilization with silica is provided for bottle
production.

The tables below summarize the results obtained with both hypotheses.
 Hypothesis 1
Notes
Actual filling volume 2000 hl
5 days for
Occupancy in storage (beer in keg) Including filling, emptying and CIP
both brands
7 days for
Occupancy in storage (beer in bottle) Including filling, emptying and CIP
both brands
Storage volume per tank per month keg
Days in a month/occupancy in fermentation *
(storage vessel monthly production for 12000 hl
fermentation volume = 30/5*2000
drought beer)
Storage volume per tank per month bottle
(storage vessel monthly production for
bottled beer)
Brand 1 to be packaged in kegs in peak
season
Brand 2 to be packaged in kegs in peak
season
Brand 1 to be packaged in bottles in peak
season
Brand 2 to be packaged in bottles in peak
season
Storage vessels needed to beer 1 (keg
production)
Storage vessels needed to beer 1 (bottle
production)
Storage vessels needed to beer 2 (keg
production)
Storage vessels needed to beer 2 (bottle
production)
Storage vessels needed to keg production 10
Storage vessels needed to bottle
9
production
Total number of storage vessels needed 19
Days in a month/occupancy in fermentation *
8571 hl
fermentation volume = 30/14*2000
60% of Beer 1 fermented in peak season:
73388 hl
122313 * 0.60
60% of Beer 2 fermented in peak season:
41989 hl
69982 * 0.60
40% of Beer 1 fermented in peak season:
48925 hl
122313 * 0.40
40% of Beer 2 fermented in peak season:
27993 hl
69982 * 0.40
Beer1 keg production in peak
6.1 season/storage vessel monthly production
for drought beer: 73388/12000
Beer1 bottle production in peak
5.7 season/storage vessel monthly production
for bottled beer: 48925/8571
Beer2 keg production in peak
3.5 season/storage vessel monthly production
for drought beer: 41989/12000
Beer2 bottle production in peak
3.3 season/storage vessel monthly production
for bottled beer: 27993/8571

Hypothesis 2
Notes
Actual filling volume 2000 hl
5 days for
Occupancy in storage Including filling, emptying and CIP
both brands
Storage volume per tank per month Days in a month/occupancy in fermentation *
12000 hl
(storage vessel monthly production) fermentation volume = 30/5*2000
Brand 1 to be conditioned in peak season 122313 hl
Brand 2 to be conditioned in peak season 69982 hl
Beer 1 to be conditioned in peak
Storage vessels needed to account for
10.2 season/storage vessel monthly production:
beer 1 production
122313/12000
Beer 2 to be conditioned in peak
Storage vessels needed to account for
5.8 season/storage vessel monthly production:
beer 2 production
69982/12000
Total number of storage vessels needed 16

As can be easily seen from the tables above hypothesis 2 lead to 16 storage vessel instead of 19 of
hypothesis 1 with consequent capital saving. Anyway in the operational cost to be considered in this case
there should also be considered a major cost due to silica disposal and the need to handle silica with its
safety consequences

Beer Filtration – A comparison between old and new technologies

“The goal of beer filtration is to remove all of the unwanted things and leave all of the good things.
This is trivial to state but not trivial to achieve.” (Brantley, 2005)
The goal reported in the statement above can be achieved by using two different technologies: dead end
filtration and cross flow filtration.
In static or dead end filtration the product feed direction is identical to the filtration direction, in other words
the incoming product and the filtrate flow in the same direction and are separated by a porous membrane
that in case of beer filtration is generally constituted by diatomaceous hearth (DE)
By contrast in crossflow filtration the flow of the infeed product and that of the outcoming filtrate (permeate)
are perpendicular. In particular the flow of the beer to be clarified is tangential to the filter surface and the
pressure across the filter itself is the driving force that allow molecules smaller than the membrane pores to
pass through the filter thus constituting the filtrate while what is left behind the filter represents the retentate.
As filtration progresses some material accumulates on the filter in a process called fouling. This decreases
pore sizes and consequently increases transmembrane pressure leading to a decrease filtration flow. This
phenomenon ends up in a complete blockage of the filter in a dead end filtration and determines the need to
stop the system and “substitute” the clogged filter with a new one with consequential losses of time and
overall flexibility.
In crossflow filtration on the other end there is a sort of self cleaning effect that delays membrane fouling and
guarantees a pretty constant filtrate flux thus contributing to prolong membrane service life.

a) b)

Fig.1 –Representation of filtration systems: a)

dead-end filtration; b) crossflow
filtration (Brantley, 2005)

The following parameter influence to the overall performance of crossflow filtration:

- composition of the product to be filtered

- tangential flow
- transmembrane pressure
- temperature
- properties and structure of the membrane including pore size and material

Beer filtration – A multifaceted problem

In order to be taken into consideration a filtration system should be able to cope with quality, economical,
safety and environmental request at the same time. The different goals it has to achieve can be summarized
as reported below (Snyder & Gaub, 2005).

An effective and efficient filtration system should be able to:

• Assure that the beer maintain the intended flavour profile and character.
• Guarantee the desired clarity and freshness.
• Achieve colloidal and microbiological beer stability.
• Minimize product loss.
• Have minimal impact on environment.
• Be operated under safe conditions.
• Be economically viable.
• Generate process confidence and repeatability.

Crossflow advantages over DE filtration -

Despite the fact that the idea of a crossflow filtration is not new, only recentely several historical
manufacturer of filtration equipment have introduced crossflow filters in their portfolio thanks to new
membranes and new technology developed which make this process economically viable.
Norit (www.norit.com) has been amongst the first in developing a production scale crossflow filtration plant.
In fact a 100-hL/h full-scale plant was put in production by Norit in 1998 at the Heineken Brewery in
Zoeterwoude, The Netherlands and the system has been presented at the subsequent Drinktec/Interbrau
edition hold in Munich and has been commercially available since then as proven technology (Schuurman et
al., 2003). From that moment on Norit have provided various companies with the crossflow filtration
technology with satisfactory results (Kemperink et al. 2006).
Pall Corporation (http://www.pall.com/) supplies plants based on both technologies under the name
respectively of Ecoflux® Candle Filters and PROFi Membrane System The first installation of a PROFi
system is dated 1995 and is still in use (Snyder & Gaub, 2005).
Another manufacturer, Sartorius AG (http://www.sartorius.com/), produces a crossflow filtration system with
the name Sartoflow® .
The main advantages brought by a crossflow system are reported in the table below

Advantages brought by
crossflow filtration
Quality
Cost reduction
Notes
 No major differences in chemical composition of filtrate with
respect to DE filtration (Van Hoof et al., 2000), (Modrok et al., 2006)
 No potential Fe ions bleeding leading to poor flavour stability
 No use of filter aids like DE that must be disposed of
 Reduced beer losses
 Reduced energy consumption mainly due to low crossflow
velocity
 Low water and chemicals consumption due to small dead
volumes
 Reduced labour costs due to full automation
 No pre and post runs to be accounted for (no additional tanks)

 Modular systems that allow a part of the plant to be under CIP

while the other still in production (24/7 production regimes)
 Easy brand change management
 Continuous filtration request less BBT capacity required
Flexibility
 System commercially available able to deliver 20 – 500 hl/h of
filtered beer
 Compatible with further stabilization steps (silica gels and/or
PVPP treatments)
Health and safety  No handling of hazardous materials (DE)
 No filter aids to dispose
 Reduced water consumption and waste stream
 Reduced chemical consumption
Susteinability
 Low energy consumption
 Low CO2 footprint
 Low water footprin
Table 1 – Advantages of crossflow filtration
(http://www.pall.com/pdf/FBPROFIEN.pdf, accessed 23-12-2009 and http://www.norit-bmf.com/benefits/
accessed 23-12-2009)

According to Pall Corporation the economical benefits of a crossflow filtration system are summarized as
reported in the table below.

http://www.pall.com/pdf/Pall_in_the_Brewery_DE_Free_Clarification.pdf (accessed 27-12-2009)

Similarily W. Höflinger and J. Graf from the University of Vienna (Höflinger & Graf, 2006) have demonstrated
that a crossflow system has substantially the same operating costs of a kieselguhr filter also considering that
can operate continuously while in terms of water, energy and labour needs the costs associated with the
crossflow process examinated (PROFi process, from Pall corporation) are up to 50% and more below those
of a “classical” DE Filtration.

Filtration plant design

Considering what has been said above it seems that the most convenient filtration approach should include a
crossflow system.
It has been shown that hypothesis 2 leads to the need of having 16 conditioning tanks instead of 19 that
come out from hypothesis 1. The former case is based on the assumption that, irrespective of the final
package (keg or bottle), beer conditioning is always completed in 5 days. This means that to account for the
different package type and in particular for need of the bottled beer to have a much longer shelf life than
drought beer a further stabilization should be considered prior to filtration. The ideal situation would be to
have silica gel and PVPP stabilization with on-line dosage prior to the filter for bottled beer and only on-line
dosage of PVPP to stabilize drought beer.
Then in order to remove the precipitate a highly efficient centrifuge would serve the scope and would
“prepare” the beer for the final crossflow filtration.This together with dilution to sales gravity and correction of
carbonation after filtration would maximize filter productivity.

The table below reports the calculation of filter capability that must be installed to fulfil the needs of the
brewery.

Notes
Production organization 24/7 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (3 shifts)
Shifts available in a week 21 3 shifts a day * 7 days
1 shift for maintenance and 1 shift for
Shifts available in a week for production 19
cleaning out of 21
Hours of production in a week 152 No. of shifts * 8 hours/shift
No. days in a month (average) 30
No. of weeks in a month 4.3 30/7
No. of production hours in a month 653.6 4.3 weeks/month * 152 hours/week
Hl to be filtered in a month (peak season) 192294
Average filter productivity requested in hl to be filtered in a month/hh of production
294
peak season (hl/hh) available in a month
Subdivided in 4 modules of 100 hl/hh each
so that in every moment 3 modules (for a
Filter capability to be installed (hl/hh) 400
total capability of 300hl/hh) are on production
while the fourth is under CIP)
The scheme below represents graphically the filtration plant and all the relevant equipment that would fulfil the scope of the brewery. Obviously the plant sould
also be provided with a CIP system (not reported in the scheme below).

PVPP preparation
vessel

Crossflow Filter Carbonator

Storage
Centrifuge Pressure tank (4 modules) and BBT
vessel
blender

Silica preparation
vessel
References

Brantley, J.D. (2005) “Beer Filtration: Membrane Morphology and Fluid Dynamics”, MBAA Technical
Quarterly, 42(4), 342-345
Höflinger, W. and Graf, J. (2006) “Economics of beer filtration without kieselguhr”, Brauwelt International, 3,
149-156
Kemperink, J., Schuurman, R., Meijer, D. et al. (2006) “Norit kieselguhr-free membrane fltration: an update”
http://www.ibdasiapac.com.au/asia-pacific-activities/convention-proceedings/2006/
Papers%20&%20Presentations/Kemperink%20Jan%20Paper.pdf (accessed 23-12-2009)
Modrok, A., Weber, D. et al (2006).. “Crossflow filtration of beer— the true alternative to diatomaceous earth
filtration”, MBAA Technical Quarterly, 43(3), 194-198
Schuurman, R., Broens, L. and Mepschen, A. (2003) “Membrane Beer Filtration—An Alternative Way of
Beer Filtration”, MBAA Technical Quarterly, 40(3), 189-192
Snyder, J. and Gaub, R (2005) “PROFi Process for Diatomaceous Earth Replacement”, MBAA Technical
Quarterly, 42(1), 65-69
Van Hoof, S.C.J.M, Noordman, T. et al. (2000) “Membrane filtration for bright beer, an alternative to
kieselguhr”, MBAA Technical Quarterly, 37(2), 273-276