1. flowplates / dial-a-pipes
Flow plate with butterfly shut-off valves for brewery
• FLOW PLATE ARE DESIGNED AS PER CUSTOMER REQUIREMENT FROM 38MM TO 100 MM
CONNECTION
• 5MM THICK PALTE IS PROVIDED ALONG WITH SQUARE PIPE FOR HIGHER RIGIDITY
• MILK COOLECTION TRAY IS PROVIDED TO COLLECT MILK WHICH GETS WASTED WHILE
DIVERTING LINES
• FLOW PLATES ARE AVAILABLE IN SSG304 & SSG316 GRADE END CONNECTION UNIONS OR

2. TRICLOVER CLAMPS AS PER CUSTOMER
• IN SINGLE FLOW PLATE TWO SUPPLY LINES & DIVERT LINES CAN BE PROVIDED
APPLICATION
• CIP SYSTEMS ,DAIRIES ,FOOD BEVERAGES & PHARMACUTICAL
It is important to note that for equipment to be effectively cleaned by CIP, it must be ... by
either a flow plate (manual connection panel) or via an automatic valve bank. ... A large
brewery or dairy vessel could hold 100,000 L (for instance a bright ...
Hi there,
I'm trying to find out if there is any guidance - regarding when it is would be recommended NOT to
use a flowplate / dial-a-pipe type arrangement for routing flow.
I have a flowplate in a food factory that has 4" piping and line pressures of >8 bar during the
cleaning cycle (of 80 degC 2% caustic soda). It had been installed (before my time) using RJT
unions on the plate and fittings which - after a few near miss incidents of loss of containment with
people nearby - we have changed for DIN fittings that can take the higher pressure. In an ideal
world we'd install an automated routing valve block, the problem being that the cost of this - and
the associated works around automation, creating the space for the routing matrix, etc - is
relatively substantial and there is no real financial payback. One assessment would be that the
improved fittings, plus regular maintenance / renewal, should be enough - after all, if you already
had a bit of kit to withstand pressure X, why would you then spend even more money replacing it
with a fancier solution for a much higher cost if there were no additional benefits?
I guess it comes down to our interpretation of the risk involved in the constant (~12-15
operations/day) removing and resiting of the swingbend and the likelhood of it being connected
properly, but it would be nice to know if there was any specific guidance or justification from a safe
design perspective..... either to give a technical justification for installation of tehmixproof matrix or
to soundly bury the idea.
Grateful for any help!
Latexman (Chemical) 6 Nov 13 11:12
Personally, I do not understand what you mean by " flowplate / dial-a-pipe arrangement ". Maybe
it's local terminology and a sketch or picture would help us / me understand.
Good luck,
Latexman
Technically, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.
mcecasf (Chemical) 6 Nov 13 11:26
Hi Latexman,
Routing manifold for transferring fluids between different locations using a swing bend or flexible
hose
http://www.pipeline-products.co.uk/media/images/news/700/94240_flow_plate_0
Latexman (Chemical) 6 Nov 13 14:17

3. If the swingbends have to be manually installed each time, automated valves make little sense
except from a safety standpoint, because the operator has to be there anyway. Look to the plant's
history and the industry's history with these things and compare that to the acceptable risk the
company is willing to take on.
With food and hot 2% caustic, it seems that with proper PPE, operating discipline (proper fit up,
slowly open valves), secondary monitoring, etc. would be acceptable to the practices I see in the
chemical industry.
The justification for automation has generally fallen into the categories of productivity, reduced
cost (reduced staffing required), and improved quality.
I see exactly what you mean with your application; I don't see much justification.
Good luck,
Latexman
Technically, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.
LittleInch (Petroleum) 6 Nov 13 17:02
I'm sorry but the phrase "no real financial payback" compared to "a few near miss incidents" and
12 to 15 operations a day is close to criminal liability. How are you going to feel when someone is
blinded by being sprayed with this stuff because of this lethal set up. I've not seen such a high
potential for getting it wrong for a long time and it is recognised in the petro chem industry that
making and breaking connections is a key area for safety.
This is, IMHO, a recipe for disaster. If those valves we can see are the only isolation between a
human and some noxious chemical then this is a very bad solution.
I can't work out if you're trying to justify it or you have concerns yourself. If I was you I would
write a clear message to your superiors staying the safety concerns, take a print of the message
and keep it in your back pocket for when the safety authority come to call when someone is
seriously injured in this disaster waiting to happen.
My motto: Learn something new every day
Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way
Latexman (Chemical) 6 Nov 13 23:08
I inadvertantly left out another common justification for automation - safety.
Is there a PHA on this operation? Probably not, 2% caustic is not a listed PSM chemical. But, if
there is, take a look at the PHA on this operation. Has a LOPA or Quantitative Risk Analysis been
done? Do current operations meet corporate acceptable risk criteria or are there gaps? It should
not be difficult to get a somewhat non-subjective determination. If there is no PHA or LOPA or
QRA, can you get someone to do one for you accoding to corporate guidelines? It's about the only
way to take the personal bias out of the equation. Everyone is biased by their personal experiences
and feelings. I know I've been biased over the years
Good luck,
Latexman
Technically, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.

4. mcecasf (Chemical) 7 Nov 13 5:29
hi guys, thanks for taking the time to comment.
Latexman - the proposed solution would eliminate the plate altogether and use routing valves so
the person would not have to be anywhere near - and there would be no swingbends involved.
Specific PHA / PSM requirements (I had to google) are not relevant to the UK, but "suitable and
sufficient risk assessment" is relevant for our relatively small, relatively low hazard site - in most
instances we use HAZOP or basic "likelihood x severity = risk rating" type assessments. In some
ways if we hadn't done the initial work to uprate the unions on the flowplate I would have a better
time justifying the bigger works as I could definitevely say "the flowplate is not fit for purpose -
fittings are under rated for pressure - and there have been X incidents in Y months", whereas now
we have an arguably fit for purpose installation so a lower likelihood of failure so what justification
is there to change?
Littleinch - The issues that gave rise to this proposal were not from "flow going the wrong way" /
"the swingbend being in the wrong position" / "the wrong valve being opened"........ but rather
"the swingbend not being perfectly connected, and liquid spray from the union" / "the swingbend
blowing off under pressure". My view is that the best technical solution would be to do the work
and get rid of the flowplate, but I have to convince the powers that be that the £300k spend (when
all associated work, disruption, automation, etc is taken into account) is "reasonably practicable"
with respect to the real level of risk from the new, higher pressure rated setup. Hundreds of food,
dairy, brewery and smaller volume tertiary pharma sites happily use this kind of arrangement for
flow and CIP routing (possibly others too, but that is where my experience stops ;o). Often there is
a proximity sensor installed for each swingbend location, so that flow cannot be directed down a
route unless the swingbend is in the correct position - so there is control there to stop the operator
just opening a valve and getting soaked in something nasty. (Ours does not have a proxi sensor,
and in fact implementing such a control would be very difficult with this particular unit and this
thought may just given me a useful angle in my justification....). We have multiple plates like this,
but generally operating at lower temperature cleaning / less aggressive chemical and lower delivery
pressure - the specific one I am looking at operates at what would (to many of this sector) be
considered "high pressure" (8 bar is "high" if what you are used to is your high pressure steam
supply being 4 bar....).
Bearing this in mind, and picking up a thread of thought from your comments, does anyone know
of somewhere on the web I could get reference data for failure rates on making / breaking
different types of connections (ideally hygienic screwed connections)?
Thanks in anticipation!
T-smart Mixproof Butterfly Valves
Manual
Pneumatic

5. With the T-smart mixproof (or leakage-proof) butterfly valve, we are now supplying the
market with one more high quality valve for separating media. T-smart mixproof butterfly
valves are highly functional, mixproof, CIP/SIP-compatible, easy to maintain and reliably
safe in the production process.
Main features
Cost-effective leakage protection
"Single disc" valve concept
Hygienic design of the leakage cavities, easy to clean
Compact design (with intermediate flange)
Sealing material EPDM or FKM
Low switching loss (minimum leakage cavity volume)
Easy handling for maintenance and service
CIP/gas management (breweries)
T-smart mixproof butterfly valves for the separation of media are versatile and suitable for
various applications: in CIP systems, for flush-out processes, in water management, as CIP
return valve in a valve matrix, to name a few examples.
Application examples
in CIP systems
for flush-out processes
in water management
as CIP return vavle in valve matrix
Available in sizes 2" OD - 4" OD, with manual or pneumatic

6. Valve Matrix
Valve matrix
Animation of a valve matrix with five tanks and the advantages Alfa Laval mixproof valves is able to offer terms of flexibility and
process optimization.