8 views

Uploaded by Ceci Soto

- ViscTutor
- Fluids Lab - Teacher Version
- Viscosity y
- Fedele - (2011) - Viscosity Water Based SWCNH and TiO2
- 1.870261
- dynisco_viscosensor_brochure_final.pdf
- _110A_Series.pdf
- Lab1
- AR PaintMeasurement
- 4
- Brief Microfluidic CFD Simulation Explanation
- Fluid
- an+evaluation+of+information+system+success-+a+user+perspective[1]
- Physics Lab VIVA VOICE
- Cracking Due to Plastic and Autogenous Shrinkage on SCC
- 05a BIO4600 BioMEMS Microfluidics
- 225-Lee
- BR67 User Manual 2-2015 V19
- Fall Off Test Requirments
- Fm Lec 2 by Sir Junaid

You are on page 1of 12

**in tube ﬂow at high temperatures
**

Krittalak Chakrabandhu

1

, Rakesh K. Singh

*

Department of Food Science, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1160, USA

Received 3 April 2001; received in revised form 27 January 2004; accepted 24 February 2004

Abstract

The eﬀects of particle concentration and carrier ﬂuid temperature on rheological behavior of model food suspensions consisting

of 1.5% CMC solution and green peas (15–30% v/v) were investigated using a tube viscometer. The ﬂow behavior of the suspensions

was represented by the power law model. The suspension consistency coeﬃcient (m

Ã

) increased with particle concentration and

decreased with temperature, whereas the opposite trends were observed for the suspension ﬂow behavior index (n

Ã

). Among various

theoretical, semi-empirical, and empirical equations tested for suspension apparent viscosity (l

Ã

) estimation, the third order

expansion of Einstein equation, which was derived via the hydrodynamic approach, provided the best estimates for l

Ã

. Of equations

tested for m

Ã

estimation, those in which n

Ã

was included oﬀered better estimates of experimental values, with an empirical equation

obtained based on the Einstein equation and the incorporation of n

Ã

term providing the best m

Ã

estimation. These ﬁndings suggest

that, for concentrated coarse suspensions subjected to conditions presented here, the dependence between m

Ã

and n

Ã

is of importance

and should be considered in order to achieve a better m

Ã

estimation. Besides, better representations for power law parameters of such

suspensions may be obtained based on a theoretical expression derived for l

Ã

via the hydrodynamic approach. The study presented

here provides a much-needed insight toward the ﬂow behavior of concentrated coarse food suspensions at high temperature,

information of which is vital for various food processes.

Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Non-Newtonian ﬂuids; Rheological properties; Coarse suspension; Particulate foods

1. Introduction

Designing an aseptic process requires information

about ﬂow properties of the foods. Flow properties have

signiﬁcant eﬀects on the residence time distribution and

heat transfer of the particulate food system as reported

by several researchers (Awuah, Ramaswamy, Simpson,

& Smith, 1996; Ramaswamy, Awuah, & Simpson, 1996;

Sandeep & Zuritz, 1994). A number of studies have been

done on rheological behavior of ﬂuid foods and many

are summarized by Holdsworth (1971). However, only a

few studies on rheological behavior of coarse food sus-

pensions can be found in the literature, especially with

the carrier ﬂuids that exhibit non-Newtonian behavior

(Bhamidipati & Singh, 1990; Martinez-Padilla, Cornejo-

Romero, Cruz-Cruz, Jaquez-Huacuja, & Barbosa-Ca-

novas, 1999; Pordesimo, Zuritz, & Sharma, 1994).

Due to the larger particle size, only few types of

viscometers can be used in characterizing the ﬂow

behavior of coarse suspensions. These include tube

viscometers (Bhamidipati & Singh, 1990), wide-gap

parallel plate viscometer (Pordesimo et al., 1994), wide-

gap rotational viscometer (Martinez-Padilla et al.,

1999). The above-mentioned equipments are although

functional, diﬃculties still exist especially in the studies

for dense suspensions. Some of the diﬃculties could be

caused by the interference to the equipment parts by the

large particles as reported by Martinez-Padilla et al.

(1999), centrifugal eﬀects in the parallel plate viscometer

as pointed out by Pordesimo et al. (1994), or simply

large amount of materials and ﬂoor space required to

run the tests using the tube viscometer. This leads to the

scarcity of the knowledge on the ﬂow behavior of coarse

food suspensions. More insight on the ﬂow behavior of

Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

*

Corresponding author. Address: Department of Food Science and

Technology, University of Georgia, Food Science Building, Athens

30602, USA. Tel.: +1-706-542-2286; fax: +1-706-542-1050.

E-mail address: rsingh@arches.uga.edu (R.K. Singh).

1

Current address: Death Receptor Laboratory, Institute of Signal-

ing, Developmental Biology and Cancer Research, CNRS UMR 6543,

33 Ave. de Valombrose 06189, Nice, France.

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.02.039

coarse food suspensions particularly in the conditions

applicable to aseptic processing is clearly desirable. The

objectives of this study were (1) to characterize the ﬂow

behavior of model food suspensions consisting of non-

Newtonian carrier ﬂuid and high concentration of large

particulates at high temperatures, (2) to investigate the

eﬀect of particle concentration and temperature on ﬂow

behavior of non-Newtonian coarse suspensions, and (3)

to investigate the applicability of several mathematical

expressions in explaining the eﬀect of particle concen-

tration on the ﬂow behavior of coarse suspensions.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Food system

Green peas were used as model particulate phase

because of their commercial availability and their

applications in real food in the market. Frozen green

peas were purchased from Purdue University food store.

Green peas were thawed and drained prior to each

experimental run.

An aqueous solution (1.5% w/v) of sodium carboxy-

methylcellulose (CMC) (TIC Gum, Inc., Belcamp, MD)

was selected as the carrier ﬂuid. The CMC solution was

prepared by slowly adding the desired amount of CMC

powder into a mixing tank ﬁlled with water continu-

ously agitated by a mechanical mixer. The mixture was

agitated for approximately 45 min then left overnight

(12–15 h) for the CMC to dissolve. Prior to the experi-

mental run, the CMC solution was mixed with green

peas to attain the speciﬁed particle volume fractions

(15–30%v/v). Due to the delicate texture of green peas,

the CMC-pea suspension was made in several small

batches of 0.0379 m

3

to achieve the desired particle

concontration. The suspension was mixed manually to

ensure the uniform distribution of green peas in the

suspension and then delivered into the pump feeder

during the experimental run. The physical properties of

the food materials are summarized in Table 1.

2.2. Experimental setup

The rheological characterization of the ﬂuid food,

with or without particulates in aseptic processing con-

ditions was performed using an in-line tube viscometer.

The schematic diagram of the experimental setup is

shown in Fig. 1. The system consisted of a 150 l feed

tank, a moving pocket type pump (Moyno

â

Product

Progressive cavity pump, Robbins and Myers, Inc.,

Springﬁeld, OH), a helical double tube heat exchanger

(46.3 m long, 0.032 m I.D.) as a heater, a helical double

tube heat exchanger (33.5 m long, 0.032 m I.D.) as a

cooler (Stork, Amsterdam, Netherlands), an electro-

magnetic ﬂow meter (Promag 33, Endress and Hauser

Inc. Greenwood, IN), an insulated straight stainless steel

tube (0.022 m I.D.), a diﬀerential pressure transducer

(Rosemount Model 3051 Smart Pressure Transmitter,

Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN), resistance tem-

perature devices (RTD’s), and a programmable logic

controller (PLC, 5-15, Allen-Bradley Co., Inc. Milwau-

kee, WI) for control and data acquisition. The tube

viscometer (2.89 m long) is located in the straight tube

Nomenclature

D tube diameter, m

L length, m

L

e

entrance length, m

m ﬂuid consistency coeﬃcient, Pa s

n

m

Ã

suspension consistency coeﬃcient, Pa s

n

n ﬂuid ﬂow behavior index

n

Ã

suspension ﬂow behavior index

P pressure, Pa

Q volumetric ﬂow rate, m

3

/s

Q

ws

volumetric ﬂow rate without slip, m

3

/s

Q

m

measured volumetric ﬂow rate, m

3

/s

r tube radius, m

Re Reynolds number

T temperature, °C

Greek characters

b slip coeﬃcient, mPa

À1

s

À1

/ particle volume fraction

/

m

maximum particle volume fraction

_ c shear rate, s

À1

_ c

w

wall shear rate, s

À1

l

Ã

suspension apparent viscosity, Pa s

l

f

ﬂuid apparent viscosity, Pa s

l

r

relative viscosity (l

Ã

=l

f

)

s shear stress, Pa

s

w

wall shear stress, Pa

Table 1

Physical properties of model food system

Property Value

Green peas

Average diameter (m) 0.0084 ±0.0025

Density (kg/m

3

) 1026 ±9.770

CMC solution (1.5% w/v)

Density (kg/m

3

) 1022 ±5.000

118 K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128

section of the system. The entrance length (L

e

) of 3.44 m

(L

e

> 100 I.D.) was used to avoid the entrance eﬀect.

The entrance length was veriﬁed against the equation

given by Kays (1966).

L

e

D

¼

Re

20

ð1Þ

2.3. Experimental run

Water was pumped through the system until the

system reached the desired temperature. Then the test

food suspension was delivered to the positive displace-

ment pump. Once the ﬂow and temperature stabilized,

the data of ﬂow rate and pressure drop were collected

with the data acquisition system. The suspension was

not reused after heating due to the change in rheological

properties of CMC solution being heated at high tem-

perature. The experimental parameters are summarized

in Table 2.

2.4. Wall shear stress and wall shear rate calculations for

tube viscometry

The relationship between shear rate and shear stress

was obtained from the measurement of pressure gradi-

ent and volumetric ﬂow rate based on the following

assumptions: (a) steady ﬂow, (b) time independent ﬂuid

properties, (c) ﬂuid velocity has no radial or tangential

components, (d) no slip condition at pipe wall, (e)

incompressible ﬂuid, and (f) isothermal ﬂow. Wall shear

stress was calculated from:

s

w

¼

rDP

2L

ð2Þ

Shear rate was calculated using Rabinowitsch–Mooney

equation

_ c

w

¼

3Q

pr

3

þs

w

dðQ=pr

3

Þ

ds

w

ð3Þ

The derivative term in Eq. (3) was obtained by taking

the derivative of a function from curve ﬁtting the plot of

Q

pr

3

vs. s

w

.

When a tube viscometer is used to study the ﬂow

behavior of dense coarse suspension, wall eﬀects would

be present. The slip at wall occurs when ﬂuid, having

lower viscosity than the bulk suspension, forms a thin

lubricating layer at the wall of the tube. Since the Ra-

binowitsch-Mooney equation was derived based on the

assumption of no slip at wall, the eﬀect of the slippage

must be corrected in order to use the equation to obtain

the true shear rate. The classical method for slip cor-

rection can be found in the literature (Mooney, 1931;

Jastrzebski, 1967; Steﬀe, 1996). The correction is done

by introducing a term to account for the added ﬂow due

to wall slippage to the overall ﬂow rate. This results in

the following equation:

Q

m

s

w

pr

3

¼

Q

ws

s

w

pr

3

þ

b

r

ð4Þ

Generally, the eﬀective slip coeﬃcient, b, is evaluated

using tubes of diﬀerent radii. However, to determine the

slip coeﬃcient by varying the tube radius would require

large amount of food materials in this study. Recog-

nizing the similar eﬀect of varying tube radius and

varying particle concentration on the wall shear stress,

an alternative procedure based on the utilization of

variable particle concentration was used to determine

the slip coeﬃcient. The procedure has been described by

Chakrabandhu (2000). The slip coeﬃcient was then used

for ﬂow rate correction. The corrected volumetric ﬂow

rate was subsequently used to calculate the true wall

shear rate.

Table 2

Experimental parameters for study of rheological properties of coarse

food suspensions

Parameter Value

Carrier ﬂuid temperature (°C) 85, 110, 135

Particle concentration (% v/v) 0, 15, 20, 25, 30

Volumetric ﬂow rate (m

3

/s) 1.26·10

À4

–3.15 · 10

À4

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup for the study of coarse suspension ﬂow behavior at high temperature.

K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128 119

2.5. Flow behavior characterization of coarse food

suspensions

Once the true shear rate was calculated, ﬂow behavior

parameters of the suspension were computed. As several

studies have reported that the ﬂow behavior of suspen-

sions follows power law pattern, the power law para-

meters of the coarse suspension were investigated. The

suspension consistency coeﬃcient (m

Ã

) and ﬂow behav-

ior index (n

Ã

) were estimated by ﬁtting the experimental

data in the power law model (Eq. (5)) using linear

regression (SAS, 1989).

ln s ¼ ln m

Ã

þn

Ã

ln _ c ð5Þ

The suspension apparent viscosity (l

Ã

) was then calcu-

lated from

l

Ã

¼ m

Ã

_ c

n

Ã

À1

ð6Þ

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for

the eﬀects of particle concentration and suspension

temperature on the consistency coeﬃcient and ﬂow

behavior index of suspensions.

2.6. Mathematical representation of apparent viscosity for

coarse suspensions

Selected theoretical expressions from the literature

developed from various approaches, i.e. hydrodynamic

approach (Einstein, 1905; Ting & Luebbers, 1957), en-

ergy approach (Frankel & Acrivos, 1967) as well as

semi-empirical (Mooney, 1951; Thomas, 1965) expres-

sions were considered for the prediction of the apparent

viscosity of suspensions that contain high concentra-

tions of coarse particulates. A statistical test (v

2

-test)

was performed to determine the goodness of ﬁt of the

mathematical expressions to the experimental results.

The v

2

value is expressed as:

v

2

¼

n

i¼1

ðY

measured

ÀY

predicted

Þ

2

Y

predicted

_ _

ð7Þ

The null hypothesis of no signiﬁcant diﬀerences between

the predicted and experimental results is rejected if the

calculated v

2

value is larger than the tabulated critical

value (c) depending on the conﬁdence level (a) and de-

gree of freedom (df). The expressions tested are listed

below.

Einstein’s equation

l

r

¼

l

Ã

l

f

¼ 1 þ2:5/ ð8Þ

Second-order expanded Einstein’s equation

l

r

¼ 1 þ2:5/ þ10:05/

2

ð9Þ

The second-order coeﬃcient of 10.05 arrived after con-

sidering the hydrodynamic interaction of spheres and

the eﬀect of double formation due to collisions (Thomas,

1965).Third-order expanded Einstein’s equation

l

r

¼ 1 þ2:5/ þ10:05/

2

þa/

3

ð10Þ

Thomas’s equation

l

r

¼ 1 þ2:5/ þ10:05/

2

þae

b/

ð11Þ

Instead of expanding the power series to the third order,

Thomas proposed that the fourth term which represents

the particle interaction to be an exponential term as

suggested by Eyring, Henderson, Stover, and Eyring

(1964). The empirical constants, a and b, in Eq. (11)

were given by Thomas as 0.00273 and 16.6, respectively.

Mooney’s equation:

log l

r

¼

2:5/

1 Àk/

ð12Þ

where k is an empirically determined parameter sug-

gested by Mooney to be in the range of 1.35–1.91. Since

k is a parameter related to the packing geometry, several

numerical values that represent theoretical packing

geometries along with some that have been presented in

the literature were used to investigate the ﬁt of the

Mooney equation to the experimental data from this

study. The values and their signiﬁcance are summarized

in Table 3. The value of k was also empirically deter-

mined to obtain the best ﬁt to the experimental data.

Frankel–Acrivos’s equation

l

r

¼ b

ð/=/

m

Þ

1=3

1 Àð/=/

m

Þ

1=3

_ _

ð13Þ

The Frankel–Acrivos equation was derived based on the

assumption that the particle shell is spherical and b takes

the value of 9/8. Instead, if a cubical particle shell was

assumed, b would take the value of 3p=16. In the veri-

ﬁcation of their equation, Frankel and Acrivos used the

/

m

value of 0.625 which was obtained by Thomas (1965)

from available data in the literature. In this study, the

values of b and /

m

were varied (Table 4). The /

m

value

was also empirically determined to obtain the best ﬁt to

the experimental data.

Table 3

Values of k tested for best ﬁt of Mooney’s equation to experimental

data

k Value Signiﬁcance

1.350 Lower bound for k suggested by Mooney

1.910 Upper bound for k suggested by Mooney

0.340 Maximum volume fraction for completely tetrahe-

dral packing

0.524 Maximum volume fraction for completely cubical

packing

0.625 Maximum volume fraction used by Thomas (1965)

and Frankel and Acrivos (1967)

120 K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128

Ting–Luebber’s equation

l

r

¼

/

m

/

m

À/

ð14Þ

In the same manner as the tests for other expressions

mentioned above, the values of /

m

in the Ting–Lueb-

ber’s equation was also varied (0.34 and 0.524) and an

empirical value of /

m

was also determined to obtain the

best ﬁt for the equation.

2.7. Mathematical representation of power law para-

meters for coarse suspensions

Compared to the expressions for apparent viscosity

of suspension, smaller number of mathematical expres-

sions relating the power law parameters to the solid

fraction exist. In this study, the following equations

proposed by Jarzebski (1981) were tested for the ﬁt to

experimental results.

Modiﬁed Frankel–Acrivos’s equation

m

Ã

m

¼

9

8

ð/=/

m

Þ

1=3

1 Àð/=/

m

Þ

1=3

_ _

n

ð15Þ

m

Ã

m

¼

3p

16

ð/=/

m

Þ

1=3

1 Àð/=/

m

Þ

1=3

_ _

n

ð16Þ

Modiﬁed Mooney’s equation:

ln

m

Ã

m

¼

2:5/

1 Àk/

_ _

n

ð17Þ

Empirical equations of simple forms listed in Table 5

were also ﬁtted to the experimental data to describe the

dependence of power law parameters on the particle

volume fraction in the conditions covered in this study.

Due to the fact that the consistency coeﬃcient and the

ﬂow behavior index together represent the ﬂow curve of

suspensions, it was considered that a better prediction of

consistency coeﬃcient could be obtained if the descrip-

tive equation also contained the ﬂow behavior index

term or vice versa. Also, most of the previously de-

scribed mathematical expressions, which have been

shown in the literature to describe well the l

Ã

and m

Ã

values, contain the particle fraction terms in the form of

the volume fraction-to-maximum volume fraction ratio

(/=/

m

) or those similar to the what given in the Einstein

equation. Therefore the following equations were also

investigated:

m

Ã

m

¼ a

/

/

m

_ _

b

n

Ã

n

_ _

c

ð18Þ

m

Ã

m

¼ að1 þ2:5/Þ

b

n

Ã

n

_ _

c

ð19Þ

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Eﬀects of particle concentration and temperature on

power law parameters of coarse suspensions

From the known value of slip velocity, the corrected

volumetric ﬂow rate was computed and used in calcu-

lation of the true shear rate according to the Rabi-

nowitsch–Mooney’s equation. The ﬂow curves were

plotted for suspensions at 85, 110, and 135 °C in Figs. 2–

4. The suspensions exhibited power law behavior. Flow

behavior parameters of the suspensions were determined

according to the power law model. An analysis of var-

iance (ANOVA) was performed for the eﬀects of particle

concentration and temperature on the consistency

coeﬃcient (m

Ã

) and ﬂow behavior index (n

Ã

) of suspen-

sions. The power law parameters of the suspensions are

summarized in Table 6.

Table 5

List of empirical equations of simple forms used to describe the

dependence of power law parameters on the particle volume fraction

Power law

parameter

described

Basis of empirical equation

Volume fraction to

maximum volume

fraction ratio

Einstein equation

Consistency

coeﬃcient

m

Ã

m

¼ a

/

/

m

_ _

b

m

Ã

m

¼ að1 þ2:5/Þ

b

m

Ã

m

¼ a

/

/

m

_ _

b

n

c m

Ã

m

¼ að1 þ2:5/Þ

b

n

c

Flow Behavior

Index

n

Ã

n

¼ a

/

/

m

_ _

b

n

Ã

n

¼ að1 þ2:5/Þ

b

a, b and c are empirical constants.

Fig. 2. Shear stress–shear rate relationships for suspensions at 85 °C

and various particle concentrations.

Table 4

Constants tested for best ﬁt of Frankel–Acrivos equation to experi-

mental data

Parameter Values

B 9/8, 3p=16

/

m

0.340, 0.524, 0.625

K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128 121

Particle concentration and temperature showed sig-

niﬁcant eﬀects on the consistency coeﬃcient and the ﬂow

behavior index (P < 0:0001). In general, the consistency

coeﬃcient increased with particle concentration and

decreased with temperature as shown in Fig. 5. For all

experimental temperatures, as the particle concentration

was increased from 0% to 15%, the consistency coeﬃ-

cient increased signiﬁcantly (a ¼ 0:05). However, the

suspension at 85 °C, which possessed highest carrier

ﬂuid viscosity, exhibited a much higher rate of increase

in consistency coeﬃcient than what was observed for the

suspensions at higher temperatures. As the particle

concentration level increased from 15% to 20% and

25%, although slight increase in consistency coeﬃcient

was observed for suspensions at 110 and 135 °C, no

signiﬁcant change in the consistency coeﬃcient was

observed at 95% conﬁdence level for all experimental

temperatures. As the particle concentration level in-

creased from 25% to 30%, the consistency coeﬃcient

increased signiﬁcantly (a ¼ 0:05) for suspensions at

85 °C and 110 °C whereas no signiﬁcant change in the

consistency coeﬃcient was observed at 135 °C. For all

particle concentrations, suspensions at 85 °C showed

signiﬁcantly higher consistency coeﬃcient than those at

higher temperatures. When comparing the suspensions

at 110 °C and 135 °C at the same level of particle con-

centration, however, the diﬀerence between the suspen-

Fig. 5. Eﬀects of particle concentration and temperature on the con-

sistency coeﬃcient of coarse suspension.

Table 6

Power law parameters for CMC solution with and without particulates

Temperature (°C) Particle concentration (%v/v) Consistency coeﬃcient, m (Pa s

n

) Flow behavior index, n Shear rate, _ c (1/s)

85 0 5.1 ±0.47

aÃ

0.510 ±017

aÃ

159–374

15 26 ±4.1

b

0.30 ±0.016

b

44.6–125

20 23 ±4.0

b

0.35 ±0.038

b

35.7–115

25 26 ±1.7

b

0.32 ±0.023

c

69.1–248

30 39 ±8.7

c

0.25 ±0.050

d

33.0–118

110 0 1.6 ±0.21

d

0.58 ±0.020

e

115–372

15 2.1 ±0.62

e

0.58 ±0.082

e

73.4–205

20 1.8 ±0.09

e

0.62 ±0.008

e

114–190

25 3.0 ±0.35

e

0.56 ±0.019

f

71.8–126

30 7.9 ±0.88

f

0.36 ±0.017

g

151–247

135 0 0.35 ±0.085

g

0.75 ±0.047

h

125–209

15 1.4 ±0.11

e;h

0.55 ±0.017

e;i

108–266

20 2.0 ±0.71

e;h

0.51 ±0.081

e;i

99.1–263

25 1.5 ±0.29

h

0.59 ±0.056

f;i

82.8–158

30 1.5 ±0.10

h

0.56 ±0.014

i

155–229

*

Values having same superscripts (a–i) are not signiﬁcantly diﬀerent at a ¼ 0:05.

Fig. 4. Shear stress–shear rate relationships for suspensions at 135 °C

and various particle concentrations.

Fig. 3. Shear stress–shear rate relationships for suspensions at 110 °C

and various particle concentrations.

122 K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128

sions at these temperatures was not as discernable. Al-

though the suspensions at 110 °C generally had higher

consistency coeﬃcient than those at 135 °C, as can be

seen at 25% and 30% particle concentration levels

(P < 0:01), the diﬀerence was insigniﬁcant at the particle

concentration levels of 15% and 20%.

The ﬂow behavior indices indicate shear-thinning

behavior for all suspensions (n < 1). The eﬀects of par-

ticle concentration and temperature on ﬂow behavior

index of coarse suspensions were in opposite trends of

the eﬀects on the consistency coeﬃcients. That is, in

general, the ﬂow behavior index decreased with an in-

crease in particle concentration and increased with

temperature as shown in Fig. 6. As for the eﬀect of

temperature, even though the diﬀerence between the

ﬂow behavior indices of the suspensions at 110 and 135

°C was not evident at the particle concentration levels of

20–25%, the diﬀerence at 30% particle concentration

level was very noticeable. As the particle concentration

was increased from 0% to 15% the ﬂow behavior index

decreased signiﬁcantly (a ¼ 0:05) for suspensions at 85

°C and 135 °C. At 110 °C, however, the ﬂow behavior

index did not exhibit a signiﬁcant diﬀerence as the par-

ticle concentration increased from 0% to 15%. When the

particle concentration was increased from 15% to 20%,

no signiﬁcant changes in the ﬂow behavior index was

observed at all temperature tested. As the particle con-

centration was increased from 20% to 25% and 30%, an

evidently decreasing trend (a ¼ 0:05) could be observed

for suspensions at 85 °C and 110 °C. The suspensions at

135 °C, however, did not exhibit any signiﬁcant changes

as the particle concentration increased.

It should be noted that for mixtures containing high

concentration of coarse particulates (i.e., 15–30%), as

the viscosity of the carrier ﬂuid increased, the inﬂuence

of particle concentration was more pronounced. Also, as

the particle concentration increased, the inﬂuence of the

carrier ﬂuid viscosity was more pronounced. This indi-

cates a signiﬁcant interaction (P < 0:005) between par-

ticle concentration and temperature (which reﬂects the

eﬀect of carrier ﬂuid viscosity) on the power law

parameters of coarse suspensions. Also, the eﬀect of the

interaction between these variables was more observable

on the consistency coeﬃcient than on the ﬂow behavior

index.

The eﬀect of temperature on the consistency coeﬃ-

cient of CMC solution containing no particulates (m)

can described satisfactorily by an Arrhenius-type equa-

tion

m ¼ Ae

Ea=RT

R

2

¼ 0:986 ð20Þ

where the pre-exponential constant (A) and the activa-

tion energy are 0.0000014 mPa s

n

and 66 kJ/(g mol),

respectively.

For the ﬂow behavior index (n) of the CMC solution,

the eﬀect of temperature, can be described well by an

exponential equation,

n ¼ 0:2138 expð0:0092TÞ R

2

¼ 0:996 ð21Þ

Exponential function have been used successfully to

express the eﬀect of temperature on CMC solution in the

temperature range below 70 °C (Bhamidipati & Singh,

1990).

3.2. Mathematical expressions for apparent viscosity of

coarse suspensions

Variations of Einstein, Mooney, Frankel–Acrivos,

and Ting–Luebber expressions, as well as the expression

presented by Thomas (1965) were tested for the good-

ness of ﬁt to the experimental data. The results are

summarized in Table 7. It was found that most expres-

sions tested adequately represented the apparent vis-

cosity for the entire range of particle fraction covered in

this study. The original Einstein equation (Eq. (8)) ex-

plained the suspension’s apparent viscosity quite well for

the entire range of /. As a matter of fact, the Einstein’s

equation was the best in explaining the suspension

apparent viscosity at the higher temperature range (110

and 135 °C), i.e., for the lower levels of ﬂuid apparent

viscosity. Expanding the Einstein’s equation to second-

order (Eq. (9)) improved the prediction of suspension

apparent viscosity at the lower temperature level (85

°C), i.e., higher ﬂuid apparent viscosity. However, it did

not appear to improve the prediction for the entire range

of particle fraction. When the Einstein’s equation was

expanded to the third-order, with the second order

coeﬃcient of 10.05 and the best-ﬁt third-order coeﬃcient

(a ¼ 20:84), i.e.,

l

r

¼ 1 þ2:5/ þ10:05/

2

þ20:84/

3

ð22Þ

the prediction for the entire range of l

r

improved

markedly when compared to the prediction by the ori-

ginal Einstein’s equation. Thomas (1965) noted that

the fourth term in the expanded Einstein’s equation

Fig. 6. Eﬀects of particle concentration and temperature on the ﬂow

behavior index of coarse suspension.

K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128 123

Table 7

Summary of goodness of ﬁt test values (v

2

) for apparent viscosity expressions of coarse suspensions

Equation Variation v

2

value

0:15 < / < 0:30 (df ¼37, c ¼ 24.08) 0:15 < / < 0:20 (df ¼17, c ¼8.68) 0:25 < / < 0:30 (df ¼19, c ¼10.12)

T (°C) T (°C) T (°C)

85 110 135 85 110 135 85 110 135

Einstein – 14.82 0.55

a

1.16

a

6.46 0.26

a

0.38 8.37 0.36

a

0.78

a

Expanded

(2nd order)

2.44 8.20 6.15 1.79 2.25 0.62 0.65 6.50 5.52

Expanded

(3rd order),

a ¼ 20:84

b

6.21 3.05 1.83 3.08 1.30 0.26 3.14 2.05 1.58

Mooney k ¼ 1:35 3.94 16.51 14.20 1.48 2.64 0.81 2.45 14.55 13.39

k ¼ 1:91 19.20 42.72 40.17 0.67 4.44 1.98 18.53 39.44 38.19

k ¼ 0:340 5.26 4.00 2.91 3.54 1.08 0.19 1.72 3.19 2.72

k ¼ 0:524 4.27 5.13 3.80 3.16 1.27 0.22 1.11 4.18 3.58

k ¼ 0:625 3.79 5.89 4.43 2.95 1.39 0.26 0.85 4.85 4.18

k ¼ 0:078

b

6.87 2.81 2.04 4.08 0.86 0.17 2.78 2.17 1.87

Thomas – 2.34

a

12.23 9.86 1.37 2.73 0.87 0.97 10.16 8.99

Frankel and

Acrivos

b ¼ 9=8,

/

m

¼ 0:340

288.15 346.16 352.86 25.96 46.08 41.46 262.19 310.53 311.41

b ¼ 9=8,

/

m

¼ 0:524

23.59 52.70 49.48 1.80 11.93 8.18 21.78 43.54 41.30

b ¼ 9=8,

/

m

¼ 0:625

7.73 28.07 24.84 0.40

a

6.33 3.41 7.33 23.28 21.43

b ¼ 3p=16,

/

m

¼ 0:524

9.31 7.46 7.44 8.85 0.53 0.76 0.46

a

7.04 6.68

b ¼ 3p=16,

/

m

¼ 0:625

19.08 2.61 5.27 14.87 1.08 3.18 4.21 1.53 2.09

b ¼ 9=8,

/

m

¼ 1:01

b

8.82 2.89 2.76 6.72 0.39 0.33 2.11 2.63 2.44

b ¼ 3p=16,

/

m

¼ 0:55

b

11.54 5.38 6.00 10.79 0.52 1.22 0.75 4.91 4.78

Ting and

Luebber

/

m

¼ 0:340 42.66 73.32 70.86 0.47 6.00 3.16 42.19 68.85 67.69

/

m

¼ 0:524 6.67 3.53 3.04 4.95 0.60 0.17

a

1.72 3.10 2.87

/

m

¼ 0:539

b

7.61 2.88 2.60 5.35 0.50 0.20 2.27 2.53 2.40

a

Smallest v

2

in the range of / and temperature.

b

Best ﬁt value.

1

2

4

K

.

C

h

a

k

r

a

b

a

n

d

h

u

,

R

.

K

.

S

i

n

g

h

/

J

o

u

r

n

a

l

o

f

F

o

o

d

E

n

g

i

n

e

e

r

i

n

g

6

6

(

2

0

0

5

)

1

1

7

–

1

2

8

represents the existence of particle interaction. The

improvement in prediction brought by including the

third order term to the expanded Einstein’s equation

conﬁrms the signiﬁcance of particle interaction. Essen-

tially, this equation provided the closest estimate con-

sidering the entire range of experimental variables in this

study (v

2

¼ 11:10 for all conditions combined).

The Thomas’s equation (a ¼ 0:00273, b ¼ 16:6), an-

other modiﬁcation of the Einstein’s equation, suﬃ-

ciently represented the suspension’s apparent viscosity

in the lower range of particle fraction (0:15 < / < 0:20).

However, it did not represent the apparent viscosity at

all temperature levels in the higher particle fraction

range (0:25 < / < 0:30).

It has been reported in the literature (Dabak & Yucel,

1987) that prediction for suspension’s viscosity im-

proved when the maximum volume fraction was incor-

porated in the mathematical expressions. As for the

Mooney’s equation, it was found that using maximum

volume fraction as the k value, indeed, provided better

predictions than assuming k in the range proposed by

Mooney. The prediction improved as the k value de-

creased from 0.625 to 0.340. The best-ﬁt k value

(k ¼ 0:078) for the experimental data, however, was

lower than maximum volume fraction reported in the

literature. This best-ﬁt Mooney equation provided the

second closest estimation considering the entire range of

experimental variables in this study (v

2

¼ 11:71 for all

conditions combined).

It should also be noted that when the k values pro-

posed by Mooney were used, the equation adequately

represented the suspension’s viscosity in the particle

fraction range of 0.15–0.20 but failed to represent the

suspension’s viscosity for the higher particle fraction

range (0:25 < / < 0:30). This predictive behavior is

similar to that of the Thomas’s equation. The observa-

tion that the Thomas’s and Mooney’s equations exhibit

similar predictive behavior has been reported previously

by Metzner (1985).

The Frankel–Acrivos’s equation is one of the

expressions containing the maximum volume fraction

that has been reported to provide a good estimation for

apparent viscosity for rigid solid in polymer melts at

high solids concentration levels (Metzner, 1985). Using

maximum volume fraction values frequently cited in the

literature, it was found that the equation adequately

represented the entire range of experimental results only

when the particle shell was assumed cubical (b ¼ 3p=16)

instead of spherical (b ¼ 9=8) often assumed in the lit-

erature. When the particle shell was assumed cubical, a

slightly better prediction was obtained when the /

m

for

cubic packing was used, compared to the /

m

value

proposed by Thomas (1965). The best-ﬁt /

m

for the

equation took the value of 0.549 which is very close to

the maximum volume fraction for the cubical packing

pattern (/

m

¼ 0:524).

When spherical particle shell was assumed, using the

maximum volume fraction presented by Thomas

(/

m

¼ 0:625), the Frankel–Acrivos’s equation provided

good prediction in the lower range of volume fraction

(0:15 < / < 0:20) but over predicted the relative

apparent viscosity in the higher volume fraction range

(0:25 < / < 0:30). When considered the best-ﬁt /

m

va-

lue in the Frankel–Acrivos’s equation, with spherical

particle shell assumption, the /

m

took the value of 1.

Although it is physically impossible for the maximum

particle packing volume fraction to be unity in the

experiment, this ﬁnding indicated that the experimental

results for this study could also be expressed by a re-

duced form of the theoretical Frankel–Acrivos’s equa-

tion

l

r

¼

9

8

/

1=3

1 À/

1=3

_ _

ð23Þ

The Ting–Luebber’s equation (Eq. (14)) is also one of

the equations that includes the maximum volume frac-

tion. It was found that assuming tetrahedral particle

packing pattern (/

m

¼ 0:340), the equation provided

satisfactory estimations for the experimental results in

the particle fraction range of 0.15–0.20. However, sim-

ilar to the Thomas’s equation and the Mooney’s equa-

tion (1:35 < k < 1:91), the Ting and Luebber’s equation

failed to represent the suspension viscosity for the higher

particle fraction range (0:25 < / < 0:30). On the other

hand, when cubical packing was assumed (/

m

¼ 0:524),

the equation satisfactorily depicted the experimental

results in the entire range of experimental variables.

Similar to the ﬁndings of the Frankel-Acrivos’s equa-

tion, the best-ﬁt maximum volume fraction value for the

Ting–Luebber’s equation (/

m

¼ 0:539) was also close to

that of the cubic packing. This strengthens the impli-

cation that the particle packing pattern in this study may

be approximated as a cubic packing. Fig. 7 illustrates

the ﬁt of some mathematical expressions to the experi-

mental apparent viscosity data.

3.3. Mathematical expressions for power law parameters

of coarse suspensions

In the equations being statistically tested, the /

m

of

0.524 was used following the results from the apparent

viscosity expression section that cubic packing pattern

was a close approximation for the packing pattern in

this study. Goodness of ﬁt test (v

2

) was performed for

the Jarzebski’s modiﬁcation to the Frankel–Acrivos’s

and Mooney’s equations (Jarzebski, 1981) for suspen-

sion’s power law parameters (Eqs. (15)–(17)). It was

found that the equations did not satisfactorily describe

the experimental data (v

2

> 4:575, 95% conﬁdence).

Linear regression procedure was used to ﬁt the experi-

mental data to empirical equations listed in Table 5. The

K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128 125

regression coeﬃcients indicated that the equations that

contain only the volume fraction terms could not satis-

factorily predict the consistency coeﬃcient or the ﬂow

behavior index of the suspensions (0:22 < R

2

< 0:47).

Including the ﬂow behavior index of the carrier ﬂuid in

the equations for consistency coeﬃcient improved the

prediction only slightly (0:30 < R

2

< 0:48).

The ﬁndings from the goodness of ﬁt test on the

equations proposed by Jarzebski, and the regression

tests on the empirical equations clearly indicate that the

assumption made by Jarzebski that the addition of

particles to the carrier ﬂuid aﬀects only the consistency

coeﬃcient of the suspension does not apply to the

experimental data in this study due to the high particle

concentration. Considering the experimental data, it can

be seen that the addition of particles to the carrier ﬂuid

signiﬁcantly modiﬁed the consistency coeﬃcient as well

as the ﬂow behavior index. Also, the consistency coef-

ﬁcient and the ﬂow behavior index are related due to the

fact that they are obtained from the same regression

equation. They together are representatives of the ﬂow

curves. Thus attempts to ﬁt each parameter separately

without considering the close relation between the two

parameters may be the reason why all the correlations

did not depict the experimental results. In fact, a ques-

tion has been raised in the literature about analyzing

each of the power law parameters separately (Scott

Blair, 1971). According to this observation, linear

regression procedure was used to ﬁt the experimental

data to empirical equations (Eqs. (18) and (19)). Each

equation contains both the consistency coeﬃcient and

the ﬂow behavior index of the suspension. The following

equations were obtained.

m

Ã

m

¼ 2:20

/

/

m

_ _

0:29

n

Ã

n

_ _

À2:17

R

2

¼ 0:87 ð24Þ

m

Ã

m

¼ 1:05ð1 þ2:5/Þ

1:10

n

Ã

n

_ _

À2:14

R

2

¼ 0:90 ð25Þ

The prediction of the consistency coeﬃcient was mark-

edly improved when the ﬂow behavior index of the

suspension was included in the correlation. This suggests

that for concentrated coarse suspensions subjected to

conditions presented in this study, the relationship be-

tween m

Ã

and n

Ã

is of importance and should be con-

sidered in order to achieve a better m

Ã

estimation. The ﬁt

of Eqs. (24) and (25) to the experimental data is shown

in Fig. 8. Even though both Eqs. (24) and (25) estimated

the experimental results well, Eq. (25) provided a slightly

better prediction according to the regression coeﬃcient.

Considering the constants in both equations, it can be

Fig. 8. Plot of experimental and predicted relative consistency coeﬃ-

cient (m

Ã

=m

f

) for coarse suspension [(}) Eq. (24); (·) Eq. (25); (––)

Experimental].

Fig. 7. Plots of experimental and predicted values of relative apparent

viscosity for suspension at diﬀerent temperatures. [(}) Eq. (8); (M)

Eq. (10); (Ã) Eq. (12) (k ¼ 0:078), (·) Eq. (13) (b ¼ 3p=16, /

m

¼ 0:549),

(

Ã

) Eq. (13) (b ¼ 9=8, /

m

¼ 1:01), (–) Eq. (13) (b ¼ 9=8, /

m

¼ 0:625);

(s) Eq. (14); (–+–) Experimental].

126 K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128

seen that the exponentials of the relative ﬂow behavior

index in both Eqs. (24) and (25) are very close to each

other in magnitude. Another interesting observation is

that in Eq. (25), which contains the familiar terms from

the Einstein’s equation, the right hand side of the

equation is approximately the right hand side of the

Einstein’s equation multiplied by the square of the in-

verse of the relative ﬂow behavior index of the suspen-

sion, i.e.,

m

Ã

m

¼ ð1 þ2:5/Þ

n

Ã

n

_ _

À2

ð26Þ

This striking similarity implicate that while the Einstein

equation, which was originally derived via the hydro-

dynamic approach to represent the apparent viscosity of

suspension with Newtonian carrier ﬂuid, it may be slight

modiﬁed with the information of the ﬂow behavior

index of carrier ﬂuid and suspension, such that it pro-

vides a satisfactory representation for the consistency

coeﬃcient of suspensions whose carrier ﬂuids are non-

Newtonian.

While Eqs. (24)–(26) provide an important implica-

tion that for concentrated coarse food suspension sub-

jected to such conditions used in this study, the

consistency coeﬃcient and the ﬂow behavior index are

strongly related, in general practice, they alone do not

oﬀer convenience for prediction of the parameters since

both the suspension consistency coeﬃcient and the ﬂow

behavior index are unknown and need to be predicted in

most cases. It appears to be more practical if the power

law parameters were computed using these equations

along with the information on the suspension apparent

viscosity of which several expressions, particularly the

third-order Einstein equation, were found to provide

satisfactory estimation.

4. Conclusions

Knowledge of ﬂow behavior of food suspensions is

critical for many food processes. For those involving

tube ﬂow at high temperatures such as aseptic process-

ing of particulate foods, such essential information is

scarce, particularly for concentrated coarse suspensions

subjected to aseptic processing conditions, which include

ultra-high temperature and high pressure. The shortage

in the much-needed information is due partly to the lack

of viscometers applicable to such material and process-

ing conditions. With the goal to alleviate the situation,

the study described herein was carried out. A tube vis-

cometer, designed with care to meet all theoretical

requirements, was used to characterize the ﬂow behavior

of a model food suspension consisting of a non-New-

tonian carrier ﬂuid and high concentration of large

particles at high temperature. An approach based on the

Rabinowitch–Mooney equations (Chakrabandhu, 2000)

was used to correct slippage at tube wall, allowing the

subsequent computation of wall shear rate and power

law parameters of the suspensions. It was found that the

consistency coeﬃcient of the suspension (m

Ã

) increased

with particle concentration and decreased with temper-

ature. The suspension ﬂow behavior index (n

Ã

) indicated

shear-thinning behavior for the entire range of study. In

general, the n

Ã

decreased with particle concentration and

increased with temperature. Signiﬁcant eﬀect of inter-

action between particle concentration and temperature

(and thus carrier ﬂuid viscosity) on power law parame-

ters of coarse suspension was observed, with the eﬀect

more evident on m

Ã

than n

Ã

.

To obtain mathematical representations and more

insight to the ﬂow behavior of such concentrated coarse

food suspensions, apparent viscosity and power law

parameters estimated using theoretical, semi-empirical,

and empirical expressions were compared to the exper-

imental values. In general, v

2

test showed that most of

the classical theoretical, semi-empirical, and empirical

equations tested oﬀered good overall estimations of

suspension apparent viscosity. Of these equations, those

derived based on the hydrodynamic approach provided

more satisfactory estimations, with the third order

expansion of Einstein equation oﬀering the best esti-

mates when compared to the experimental values for the

entire range of particle fraction and temperature used in

this study.

For the mathematical representations of power law

parameters of the coarse suspensions, it was found that

predictive expressions describing m

Ã

only as a function

of particle fraction and ﬂow behavior index of carrier

ﬂuid (n) did not satisfactorily describe the experimental

data. Empirical expressions showed that a successful

estimation of the consistency coeﬃcient of coarse sus-

pension required the knowledge of the ﬂow behavior

index of suspension. These ﬁndings imply that, for

concentrated coarse suspensions in tube ﬂow at high

temperature as presented in this study, the relationship

between m

Ã

and n

Ã

is of importance and should be

considered in order to achieve a better m

Ã

estimation.

Among the equations obtained from literature as well as

those developed in this study for estimation of m

Ã

an

empirical equation describing m

Ã

as a function of par-

ticle concentration and relative suspension ﬂow behav-

ior index (n

Ã

=n), which was developed in this study,

provided the best estimates for m

Ã

This equation con-

tains a striking similarity to the Einstein equation and

suggests that slight modiﬁcation of the Einstein equa-

tion, which was originally derived via the hydrodynamic

approach to represent the apparent viscosity of sus-

pensions with Newtonian carrier ﬂuids, could provide a

satisfactory estimation for the consistency coeﬃcient of

suspensions whose carrier ﬂuids are non-Newtonian,

at least for the conditions presented in this study. The

K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128 127

results presented here, including mathematical repre-

sentations of suspension ﬂow behavior parameters,

provide a much-needed insight toward ﬂow behavior of

concentrated coarse food suspensions in tube ﬂow at

high temperature, information of which is vital for

various food processes.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the generosity of TIC

Gums Inc. (Belcamp, MD) for supplying carboxy-

methylcellulose used in the research.

References

Awuah, G. B., Ramaswamy, H. S., Simpson, B. K., & Smith, J. P.

(1996). Fluid-to-particle convective heat transfer coeﬃcient as

evaluated in an aseptic processing holding tube simulator. Journal

of Food Process Engineering, 19, 241–267.

Bhamidipati, S., & Singh, R. K. (1990). Flow behavior of tomato sauce

with or without particulates in tube ﬂow. Journal of Food Process

Engineering, 12, 275–293.

Chakrabandhu, K. (2000). Aseptic processing of particulate foods:

computational models and experimental studies. Phd thesis.

Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN, USA.

Dabak, T., Yucel, O. (1987). Prediction of viscosity and characteriza-

tion of particle size distribution of highly concentrated slurries. In

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on slurry tech-

nology, March 16–18, 1986, Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Einstein, A. (1905). Eine neue bestimmun der molekul-dimnesionen.

Ann. Physik 19, 289–306, 34, 591–597. [English translation in

Einstein, A. (1956). Investigations on the theory of Brownian

movements. Trans. A.D Cowper. (Ed). with Notes R. Furth. Dover

Publications].

Eyring, H., Henderson, D., Stover, B. J., & Eyring, E. M. (1964).

Statistical Mechanics and Dynamics. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Frankel, N. A., & Acrivos, A. (1967). On the viscosity of a

concentrated suspension of solid spheres. Chemical Engineering

Science, 22, 847–853.

Holdsworth, S. D. (1971). Applicability of rheological models to the

interpretation of ﬂow and processing behaviour of ﬂuid food

products. Journal of Texture Studies, 2, 393–418.

Jarzebski, G. J. (1981). On the eﬀective viscosity of pseudoplastic

suspensions. Rheologica Acta, 20, 281–287.

Jastrzebski, Z. D. (1967). Entrance eﬀects and wall eﬀects in an

extrusion rheometer during the ﬂow of concentrated suspensions.

Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 6, 445–454.

Kays, W. M. (1966). Convective heat and mass transfer. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Martinez-Padilla, L. P., Cornejo-Romero, L., Cruz-Cruz, C. M.,

Jaquez-Huacuja, C. C., & Barbosa-Canovas, G. V. (1999). Rhe-

ological characterization of a model food suspension containing

discs using three diﬀerent geometries. Journal of Food Process

Engineering, 22, 55–79.

Metzner, A. B. (1985). Rheology of suspensions in polymeric liquids.

Journal of Rheology, 29, 739–775.

Mooney, M. (1931). Explicit formulas for slip and ﬂuidity. Journal of

Rheology, 2(2), 210–222.

Mooney, M. (1951). The viscosity of a concentrated suspension of

spherical particles. Journal of Colloid Science, 6, 162–170.

Pordesimo, L. O., Zuritz, C. A., & Sharma, M. G. (1994). Flow

behavior of coarse solid–liquid food mixtures. Journal of Food

Engineering, 21, 495–511.

Ramaswamy, H. S., Awuah, G. B., & Simpson, B. K. (1996). Inﬂuence

of particle characteristics on ﬂuid-to-particle heat transfer coeﬃ-

cient in a pilot scale holding tube simulator. Food Research

International, 29, 291–300.

Sandeep, K. P., & Zuritz, C. A. (1994). Residence time distribution of

multiple particles in non-Newtonian holding tube ﬂow: statistical

analysis. Journal of Food Science, 59, 1314–1317.

SAS (1989). SAS/STAT User’s Guide (6.03). New York: SAS Institute,

Inc. Cary.

Scott Blair, G. W. (1971). On power law equations relating stress to

shear rate in rheology. Journal of Texture Studies, 3, 431–

436.

Steﬀe, J. F. (1996). Rheological methods in food process engineering

(2nd Ed.). MI: Freeman Press.

Thomas, D. G. (1965). Transport characteristics of suspensions. Part

VIII. A note on the viscosity of Newtonian suspensions of uniform

spherical particles. Journal of Colloid Science, 20, 267–277.

Ting, A. P., & Luebbers, R. H. (1957). Viscosity of suspensions of

spherical and other isodimensional particles in liquids. AIChE

Journal, 3, 111–116.

128 K. Chakrabandhu, R.K. Singh / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 117–128

- ViscTutorUploaded bycoleiro
- Fluids Lab - Teacher VersionUploaded byTeachLABScI
- Viscosity yUploaded byErcan Öztürk
- Fedele - (2011) - Viscosity Water Based SWCNH and TiO2Uploaded bypratikmitra30
- 1.870261Uploaded byAvijit Karmakar
- dynisco_viscosensor_brochure_final.pdfUploaded bystiernan_312065237
- _110A_Series.pdfUploaded byAki Toy
- Lab1Uploaded byاسد علی
- AR PaintMeasurementUploaded byCublktigress
- 4Uploaded byYassine Kamel
- Brief Microfluidic CFD Simulation ExplanationUploaded byLuthviyah Choirotul Muhimmah
- FluidUploaded bynaefmubarak
- an+evaluation+of+information+system+success-+a+user+perspective[1]Uploaded byMatthew Mohan
- Physics Lab VIVA VOICEUploaded byNoble Sharma
- Cracking Due to Plastic and Autogenous Shrinkage on SCCUploaded byMee Noi
- 05a BIO4600 BioMEMS MicrofluidicsUploaded byMd Ehtashamul Haque
- 225-LeeUploaded byAwas Ada Udin
- BR67 User Manual 2-2015 V19Uploaded byMuhaimin
- Fall Off Test RequirmentsUploaded byminawassef
- Fm Lec 2 by Sir JunaidUploaded byNust Razi
- 819Uploaded byShrikant Tekade

- Refrigeracion y CongelacionUploaded byCeci Soto
- CamaronUploaded byCeci Soto
- CamaronUploaded byCeci Soto
- DscUploaded byCeci Soto
- Cleland EarleUploaded byJorge Andrés Ortega Andrade
- FENOMENOS DE TRANSPORTEUploaded byLuis Lv
- Viscosimetr a-2Uploaded byCeci Soto
- FENOMENO DE CONGELAMIENTO DE ALIMENTOSUploaded bydtrinidad
- tema5RUAUploaded bySerafina Cesareo Gomez

- Windows Workflow TutorialUploaded bydonepudi_4u
- The Theatre of the AbsurdUploaded byguruskool
- tai pie Tower PPTUploaded byAnuja Baheerathan
- Emotional IntelligenceUploaded byLaima Kyburiene
- Dockyard Review,The Journal of the Advanced Starship Desing Bureau,Volume 4, Issue 9-January 2380Uploaded byMartin Leonardo Pablotsky
- awa2Uploaded byAbhishek2009GWU
- Integrity Verification Architecture (IVA) Based Security Framework for Windows Operating SystemUploaded byanuarls
- 12_Marca de AguaUploaded byCarlos Alberto Sanchez Martinez
- c8bb49eacde49c20376fdf6f0e35a896-applicationpdf.pdfUploaded byUpayan
- Buechley DIS 10 Lilypad Arduino GenderUploaded byboco2735
- Introduction to Process Simulation (Aspen Hysys) OMESOL by D Richards (1)Uploaded byphantanthanh
- Basic 2 d Design TutorialUploaded bySatrioPambudi
- 1 5 Study of Reflex Arcreflex arcUploaded bypeterth11
- Ns4000 4100 Ecdis User Manual Eng PrintUploaded byRommel Roldan
- Applications of High Temperature SuperconductorsUploaded byOctavia Lungu
- How to Use GoAnimateUploaded byyourvirtuallever
- A Case of PTSD Presenting With Psychotic SymptomatologyUploaded byNi Nyoman Sri Adnyani
- Carlos Tovar B.pdfUploaded byAnonymous lkeu1JFI
- alan watts paperUploaded byapi-235959128
- Past ExamUploaded bySactio Swastioyono
- Quiz BAUploaded byKathlaine Mae Oba
- Luminex xMAP TechnologyUploaded byEMD Millipore Bioscience
- daily 5 parent introduction letterUploaded byapi-263052087
- CPB 20104 Mass Transfer 2 UniKL MICET Experiment 2: Tray Dryer full lab reportUploaded bySiti Hajar Mohamed
- SAM_Project_description.pdfUploaded byVishal Sharma
- PID ControlUploaded byapi-3778950
- Engagement as a Function of HRD in NGOsUploaded byKoras Sawai
- Practice Quiz Diffraction 1Uploaded bypauljkt1
- Larsen Sweets BrochureUploaded bythangarajmanoj
- Technical Article the Flame PathsUploaded byVijay Kumar