Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

An approach to modeling the rheological properties of food materials

Ryszard Myhan, Ireneusz Białobrzewski, Marek Markowski ⇑
Department of Agri-Food Process Engineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Heweliusza 14, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study was to develop a mathematical model describing the rheological properties of food
Received 4 November 2011 materials, including the elastic modulus, consistency index, flow index and flow limit, that are not depen-
Received in revised form 18 January 2012 dent on the tests (creep and compression stress relaxation) used to establish those values. A rheological
Accepted 5 February 2012
model was designed as a parallel combination of spring, viscous and plastic elements. The model was ver-
Available online 16 February 2012
ified logically and empirically based on the results of creep tests and compression stress relaxation tests
performed on 10  10  10 mm cubes cut out from roasted turkey breast muscles. An analysis of the
Keywords:
model’s susceptibility to variations in rheological properties indicates that the model is sensitive to
Food materials
Rheological properties
changes in the values of the elastic modulus, flow limit and flow index, but it is less susceptible to
Creep and recovery changes in the consistency index. The model generates similar values of the rheological properties of
Stress relaxation the studied materials regardless of whether they had been determined based on the results of the creep
test or the compression stress relaxation test.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Burgers model is a unique concept that serially combines the

The rheological properties of solid food materials are vital indi-
cators of the foods’ usefulness for various applications. The results
of creep tests and compression stress relaxation tests support the
evaluation of the mechanical properties of food materials based
on the applied rheological model (Campus et al., 2010; Del Nobile
et al., 2007; Mohsenin, 1986). Creep and stress relaxation data pro-
vides valuable insights into the phenomena observed in food prod-
ucts, such as fruit ripening (Hassan et al., 2005), fruit firmness
(Blahovec, 1996), stress relaxation behavior (Campus et al., 2010;
Del Nobile et al., 2007; Peleg, 1980) and creep behavior of foods
(Van Bockstaele et al., 2011; Kuo et al., 2000; Peleg, 1980). Most
analyses of correlations between stress and strain in solids that
are subjected to and/or discharged from load rely on the following
ideal solid models: ideal elastic solid, ideal plastic solid, elastic–
plastic solid, and viscoelastic solid.
The phenomena observed in biological materials under load are
generally described using a phenomenological approach. The phys-
ics of the phenomena and interactions taking place in the material
at the single-molecule level is not studied, and the correlations
between stress and strain are described with the use of various rhe-
ological models, such as the Maxwell model or the Kelvin–Voight
model, where elasticity and viscosity are the only input parameters
(Steffe, 1996). Multi-parametric models are also developed by
connecting simple models in serial and parallel combinations. The
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 89 523 3413; fax: +48 89 523 4469.
E-mail address: marek@uwm.edu.pl (M. Markowski).
Maxwell and Kelvin-Voight models (Mohsenin and Mittal, 1977;
Mitchell and Blanshard, 1976). The generalized Maxwell model
has been applied to identify the rheological properties of food prod-
ucts such as buckthorn berries (Khazaei and Mann, 2004), cheese
(Del Nobile et al., 2007; Venugopal and Muthukumarappan, 2001;
Masi, 1989), potatoes (Blahovec, 2003), dough (Bhattacharya,
2010), noodles (Bellido and Hatcher, 2009) and starch pastes
(Akuzawa et al., 1995). The Kelvin-Voight model and the Burgers
model support determinations of the rheological properties of
sweets (Wang and Hirai, 2011, 2010), model food (Wang and Hirai,
2009), cheese (Kuo et al., 2000) and tofu (Cheng et al., 2005). The
Maxwell, Kelvin-Voight and Burgers models produce differential
equations with coefficients describing the mechanical properties
of the studied material. Those coefficients are estimated with the
use of strength testing machines. The equations obtained after an
estimation of coefficient values take on the form of empirical or
semi-empirical formulas whose parameters generally cannot be
interpreted based on the laws of physics.
The discussed approach supports the use of dissimilar rheolog-
ical models of solids for describing the creep (Kelvin-Voight model
or Burgers model) and the compression stress relaxation behavior
of foods (Maxwell model), and different sets of parameters describ-
ing the physical properties of the same material. The conditions of
natural experiments are also idealized by disregarding preliminary
compression in the process of sample preparation and the charac-
teristic features of measuring equipment. The greatest drawback of
the Maxwell model, the Kelvin-Voight model and the Burgers
model is that when they are applied in investigations of the same
material, each model generates completely different values of the

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.02.011
352 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359

Notation

E elastic modulus(Pa) rg flow limit(Pa)

F force exerted by cross-head(N) rg flow stress(Pa)
h initial height of sample(m) a, b, a, b equation coefficients
k flow consistency index(Pa sn mn)
n flow behavior index(-) Subscripts
v speed of cross-head(m s1) Exp natural experiment
s cross-sectional area of sample(m2) Sym simulation experiment
t time(s) bc beginning of compression
dc error of estimation(m) br beginning of recovery
e relative strain(-) bd beginning of relaxation
c displacement(m) ec end of compression
r external load(Pa) er end of recovery
rE elastic stress(Pa) ed end of relaxation

studied rheological properties (elasticity and viscosity), even when
the models do not differ with regard to the number of constituent
elements of the same type (elastic element, and viscous element).
Exemplary results of compressing a roasted turkey breast sam-
ple in a creep recovery test are presented in Fig. 1 (Białobrzewski
et al., 2007). An analysis of the obtained data points to two charac-
teristic periods during the test, which differ from the generally ac-
cepted assumptions. These are the initial stage of the compression
phase (Fig. 1b) and the stage of transition from compression to
recovery (Fig. 1c), where the registered rates of deformation are
higher than those observed in other phases. The inertia of the test-
ing machine does not support the maintenance of a constant com-
pressive force during loading, therefore compressive forces appear
in the recovery phase. The phenomena observed during a very short
transition phase between compression and recovery may be simi-
larly explained. Compressive forces most probably appear because
the recovery rate is higher than the return speed of the cross-head.
The Maxwell, Kelvin-Voight and Burgers mathematical models
describing changes in load and strain in creep and stress relaxation
tests are of great practical significance. Yet in many cases, those
models fail to explain the nature of the observed correlations be-
tween load, strain and test duration. For this reason, we attempted
to develop a mathematical model describing the rheological prop-
erties of the analyzed material, including the elastic modulus,
consistency index, flow index and flow limit, that are not
dependent on the tests (creep and compression stress relaxation
tests) used to establish those values.
2. Mathematical model
2.1. Assumptions
The model was designed on the assumption that it should de-
scribe the creep process and the stress relaxation process to a sat-
isfactory degree while accounting for the phase of compression
and recovery as well as compression relaxation. All of the modeled
parameters should have strict physical meaning, and they should
correspond to basic physical properties of the studied material,
such as elasticity, viscosity (or apparent viscosity) and flow limit.
It was also assumed that the model would account for stress–strain
in one direction only, and that the material would be isotropic in a
given direction of strain. An analysis of the compression phase in
the creep test (Fig. 2) indicates that the examined material has
complex rheological properties. The first compression phase is
indicative of viscoelastic material, it continues until the achieve-
ment of stress boundary value, after which rapid material flow is
observed. In the following phase, the analyzed material behaves
like a reinforced elastic–plastic body, and it is ideally plastic in
the final phase. It should be noted, however, that in the initial

(a) (b) (c)

7.5
F [N] F [N] F [N]
5.0 5.0 5.0

γ [mm] γ [mm]
γ [mm]
2.5 2.5 2.5
-1 -1
v [mm⋅s ] v [mm⋅s ]
0.0 0.0 0.0

F F
v v v v [mm⋅s-1]
γ
-2.5 -2.5 -2.5
γ γ

-5.0 -5.0 -5.0

0 50 100 150 200 time [s] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 120 121 122 123 124 125

Fig. 1. Simulation of a creep test of biological material with the use of the TA.XT2i texture analyzer: (a) entire experiment; (b) initial compression phase (c) transition from
compression to actual creep.
 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359 353

0.0007
Exp. 01
Exp. 02
Exp. 03
0.0006
Exp. 04
Exp. 05
Exp. 06
0.0005
Exp. 07

principial stress σ [Pa]

Exp. 08
Exp. 09
0.0004
Exp. 10
Exp. 11
Exp. 12
0.0003
Exp. 13
Exp. 14
Exp. 15
0.0002
Exp. 16
Exp. 17
Exp. 18
0.0001
Exp. 19
Exp. 20
Average
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
principial strain ε

Fig. 2. Analysis of sample compression in a creep test r = f(e): 1 – viscoelastic material; 2 – flow limit; 3 – rapid material flow; 4 – reinforced elastic–plastic material; 5 – ideal
plastic material.

phase, strain rates are several times higher than in the remaining r(t)/rg < 1, then c(t) = 0, implying a model of an ideal rigid body
phases (Fig. 1), and they correspond to the maximum head speed under the analyzed conditions;if r(t)/rg P 1, then
of the measuring device. cðtÞ P 0 ^ c_ ðtÞ P 0 ð1Þ

2.2. Rheological model rðtÞ ¼ rE ðtÞ þ rg ðtÞ þ rg ð2Þ

where:
We selected the simplest rheological model that combines the rE ðtÞ ¼ E  eðtÞ; t 2 htbc ; tec i ð3Þ
features of an ideal Hookean elastic solid, an ideal St. Venant plas-
Flow was described using the Ostwald-de Waele power-law
tic solid and viscous fluid (Fig. 3). The model’s analog is a system
model – the simplest, two-parameter rheological model describing
where a spring, a hydraulic damper and a slide are connected in
flow curves (4).
parallel. The model is logically verified both in the creep test and
in the stress relaxation test. Strain characteristics are preserved rg ðtÞ ¼ k  c_ ðtÞn ð4Þ
in both processes, the starting point for material flow and strain
If the combined effect of rg and rg were to be taken into account
and stress values are taken into account for infinite duration of
(the last two terms of Eq. 2), the studied phenomenon would be de-
both tests. The only exception is the initial compression phase
scribed by Eq. (5), which is similar to the Herschel-Bulkley model
when strain rates are much higher than in the remaining periods.
describing non-linear viscoelastic fluids (Tang and Kalyon, 2004).
A more complex model would be required to account for the above
rp ðtÞ ¼ r0 þ k  c_ ðtÞn ð5Þ
phase, such as the Cross model (Claracq et al., 2004) which differ-
entiates between viscosity values for low and high strain rates. The recovery phase would occur only if conditions r(t) P rg
Alternatively, a separate model that accounts for strain dynamics were satisfied in the preceding compression phase, implying that
in this phase would be needed (Jamroziak et al., 2010). The model for t = tbr = tec ? c(tbr) = c(tec). In the recovery phase, the theoretical
was logically verified, jointly for the compression phase in both value of external load r(t) = 0 for every t2 htbr, teri. In practice, how-
tests and separately for the recovery phase and the stress relaxa- ever, the above condition is not always met due to the inertia of the
tion phase. measuring device and the inertia of the material (in particular at
It was assumed that at the beginning of the compression phase the initial stage), and when:
of each test (t = tbc = 0), the displacement of the cross-head would rE ðtÞ þ rg ðtÞ P rg ! cðtÞ P 0 ^ c_ ðtÞ 6 0; ð6Þ
be equal to zero (c = 0). The state of the system at time t > 0 is
determined by the ratio of external load r(t) to flow limit rg:if rðtÞ ¼ rE ðtÞ þ rg ðtÞ  rg ð7Þ

σ rE ðtÞ þ rg ðtÞ < rg ! cðtÞ P 0 ^ c_ ðtÞ ¼ 0 ð8Þ

γ rg
then at : t¼1 ! rg ¼ 0 ! e1 ¼
ηp E
E σg
Similarly to the creep phase, the stress relaxation phase is pre-
ceded by the compression phase (however, in the stress relaxation
test (tec  tbc) << (ted  tbd)). In the stress relaxation phase, for every
t2htbd, tedi:
dðrðtÞÞ
cðtÞ ¼ cðtks Þ ^ c_ ðtÞ ¼ 0; rðtÞ P 0 ^ 6 0; rE ðtÞ ¼ EeðtÞ
dt
Fig. 3. Rheological model.
¼ const: ð9Þ
354 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359

therefore: and b (from 0.23 to 0.19). The same effect (with respect to both
the accuracy of estimation and the final form of Eq. 15a) was
dðrðtÞÞ dðrE ðtÞ þ rg ðtÞ  rg Þ dðrg ðtÞÞ achieved using the following exponential equation:
¼ ¼
dt dt dt
n1
rðtÞ ffi rðtbd Þ  ealnðtÞþb
¼ n  k  c_ g ðtÞ c
€ðtÞ ð10Þ ð15bÞ
dðrðtÞÞ a a
ffi  rðt bd Þ  ealn;ðtÞþb ¼  rðtÞ
implying that the value of external load r(t) in the stress relaxation dt t t
phase results only from changes in the value of rg(t). An analysis of Eq. (10) shows that the dependence described by
Eq. (16) should occur regardless of whether Eq. (15a) or (16a) are
2.3. Simulation model considered:
dðc_ g ðtÞÞ a
The described rheological model was implemented in the MAT- c€g ¼ ffi  c_ g ðtÞ ð16Þ
dt t
LAB R2010b environment using function ode45 for solving differen- and then equation 10 would take the following form:
tial equations. The equations were formulated for both tests,
 1
beginning from the initial phase of sample compression until the a  rðtÞ n
end of the test.
c_ g ðtÞ ¼ ð17Þ
ank
For the compression phase in both tests:
The following assumption has to be made to estimate the
if FðtÞ < rg  s ! c_ ðtÞ ¼ v;ðtÞ ð11Þ unknown values of parameters in Eq. 17 (due to data redundancy):
 1n
   1 rðtÞ
FðtÞ  E hc þ rg  s n
affia ! c_ g ðtÞ ffi ð18Þ
nk
if FðtÞ P rg  s ! _cðtÞ ¼ ð12Þ
k
The above assumption is logical (it accounts for the trends in
where: F(t) – is the actual force exerted by the measuring head;v(t) functions described by the left and right sides of Eqs. 9 and 10),
– is the actual speed of the measuring head;h – initial height of and it can be verified practically through similar estimations of
sample; s – initial cross-sectional area of sample. the optimal values of the flow consistency index for creep and
For the recovery phase in the creep test at the initial condition compression stress relaxation tests.
of tbr = tec ? c(tbr) = c(tec):
3. Material and methods
c FðtÞ
if; E < þ rg ! c_ ðtÞ ¼ v ðtÞ ð13Þ
h s 3.1. Materials and methods
   1
c FðtÞ FðtÞ þ rg  E hc  s n The experimental material was turkey muscle breast with 75%
if; E P þ rg ! c_ ðtÞ ¼  ð14Þ
h s k moisture content, 24% protein content and less than 1% fat content.
The analyzed meat was cut across the grain into slices with the thick-
And, respectively, for the stress relaxation phase in the initial
ness of 0.02 m, and it was thermally processed in a convection stea-
state of tbd = tec ? c(tbd) = c(ted) = c(tec) = const, we relied on fact
mer at a temperature of 160 °C. The roasting process was continued
that the structure of Eq. (15a) describing variations in r(t) is sim-
until the temperature at the coolest point of the turkey breast slice
ilar to the structure of Eq. (4):
reached 80 °C. Roasted slices were conditioned in a cooler for 24 h
rðtÞ ffi b  rðtbd Þ  ta at a temperature of 4 °C (±1 °C). Using a knife, 101010 mm cubes
dðrðtÞÞ a a ð15aÞ were cut out manually from the material across the grain.
ffi  b  rðt bd Þ  t a ¼  rðtÞ
dt t t
3.2. Experiment
The above assumption is validated by statistical analysis of
experimental data, where the share of explained variance is not The experiment was performed using the Stable Micro Systems
less than 0.993 for the estimated values of a (from 0.52 to 0.58) TA.XT2i texture analyzer. The device supports precise determination

Input parameters

Direct problem Experimental data

SIMULATION EXPERIMENT

γSym (t) γExp (t)

New modeled Calculating the function of the objective

parameters Φ(E, ηp, σg, n)

Minimization Optimal
Φ?
Φ(E, ηp, σg, n) parameters

Fig. 4. Inverse analysis algorithm.

 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359 355

of the studied material’s response to compression, and it has many 3.3. Inverse analysis
applications in texture analyses and determinations of mechanical
parameters in biological materials. The device was operated with The accuracy of the model is largely determined by the adopted
the use of Texture Expert Exceed (v. 2.64) software which supports boundary conditions and the description of the deformed material’s
fast calibration, test parameter setting, data gathering, analysis, properties. Unknown values of material parameters can be deter-
visualization and reporting. mined with the use of inverse analysis. The inverse analysis algorithm
The samples were subjected to creep tests and stress relaxation comprises three main stages: experimental, simulation and optimiza-
tests. For each test, 20 replications were performed with the fol- tion (Fig. 4). Since the observed difference in characteristics (Fig. 5) is
lowing settings: determined not only by variations in the values of parameters esti-
mated for every sample, but also by the precision of the sample prep-
– maximum compressive force 6 N; aration process, the simulation was performed independently for
– maximum head speed 0.005 ms1; every replication, as per the algorithm given in point 2.3. The modeled
– duration of creep and recovery test 240 s; parameters (E, gp, rg and n) were the optimized decision variables, and
– duration of relaxation test 200 s; the following range of allowable solutions was adopted based on the
– discretization time step 0.02 s. results of the preliminary simulation:

0.0045
Exp. 01
Exp. 02
0.0040 Exp. 03
Exp. 04
0.0035 Exp. 05
Exp. 06
Exp. 07
0.0030
displacement [m]

Exp. 08
Exp. 09
0.0025 Exp. 10
Exp. 11
0.0020 Exp. 12
Exp. 13
Exp. 14
0.0015
Exp. 15
Exp. 16
0.0010 Exp. 17
Exp. 18
0.0005 Exp. 19
Exp. 20
Average
0.0000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
time [s]

Fig. 5. Results of the creep test c = f(t).

(a) 7 (b) 7 Exp. 01

Exp. 02
Exp. 03
6 6 Exp. 04
Exp. 05
Exp. 06
5 5 Exp. 07
stress [Pa 10-4]

stress [Pa 10-4]

Exp. 08
Exp. 09
4 4 Exp. 10
Exp. 11
Exp. 12
3 3 Exp. 13
Exp. 14
Exp. 15
2 2 Exp. 16
Exp. 17
Exp. 18
1 1 Exp. 19
Exp. 20
Average
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time [s] time [s]

Fig. 6. Results of the compression stress relaxation test r = f(t): (a) beginning of compression; (b) entire experiment.
356 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359

(a) (b)
0.004 0.004 Exp. 01
Exp. 02
Exp. 03
Exp. 04
Exp. 05
0.003 0.003 Exp. 06
displacement [m]

Exp. 07

displacement [m]
Exp. 08
Exp. 09
Exp. 10
0.002 0.002 Exp. 11
Exp. 12
Exp. 13
Exp. 14
Exp. 15
Exp. 16
0.001 0.001
Exp. 17
Exp. 18
Exp. 19
Exp. 20
Average
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time [s] time [s]

Fig. 7. Results of the compression stress relaxation test c = f(t): (a) beginning of compression; (b) entire experiment.

Table 1
Estimated values of the modeled parameters in a creep test.

Sym. 01 Sym. 02 Sym. 03 Sym. 04 Sym. 05 Sym. 06 Sym. 07 Sym. 08 Sym. 09 Sym. 10 Sym. 11
E MPa 1.085 1.110 1.115 1.000 1.110 1.050 1.130 1.115 1.115 1.230 0.945
K MPasnm-n 1.60 1.26 1.34 1.30 1.34 1.58 1.40 1.42 1.30 1.50 1.58
rg kPa 22.0 21.5 21.5 23.0 21.0 21.5 20.5 21.0 21.0 21.5 20.5
N – 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.52 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.54
dc m  103 0.0446 0.075 0.0498 0.0462 0.0508 0.049 0.0647 0.0445 0.0367 0.034 0.0706
Sym. 12 Sym. 13 Sym. 14 Sym. 15 Sym. 16 Sym. 17 Sym. 18 Sym. 19 Sym. 20 Aver. 1 Aver. 2
E MPa 1.175 1.265 0.950 1.145 0.995 1.030 1.260 1.135 0.860 1.091 1.085
K MPa sn mn 1.24 1.36 1.54 1.30 1.32 1.42 1.76 1.84 1.50 1.45 1.60
rg kPa 21.0 18.5 22.5 21.0 22.0 21.0 24.0 24.0 22.0 21.6 22.0
N – 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.48 0.48 0.52 0.52 0.54
dc m  103 0.039 0.0595 0.0463 0.0512 0.0612 0.0602 0.1743 0.1124 0.0916 – –

(a) (b) (c) (d)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
n -n
k=1.58 MPa⋅s ⋅m E=1.050 MPa E=1.050 Mpa E=1.050 Mpa
n -n
σ g=21.5 kPa σ g =21.5 kPa k=1.58 MPa⋅s ⋅m n
k=1.58 MPa⋅s ⋅m
-n

0.4 0.4 n=0.54 0.4 n=0.54 0.4 σ =21.5 kPa

n=0.54 g

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

δγ [m⋅10 ]

δγ [m⋅10 ]
-3

-3

δγ [m⋅10 ]

δγ [m⋅10 ]
-3

-3

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.94 1.04 1.14 1.24 1.24 1.44 1.64 1.84 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56
n -n
E [MPa] k [MPa⋅s ⋅m ] σg [kPa] n [-]

Fig. 8. Analysis of the model’s sensitivity in a creep test simulation.

– elastic modulus [MPa] E2 h0.94: 1.27i; where cExp and cSym denote actual and simulated material strain,
– flow consistency index [MPa sn mn] k2h1.22: 1.86i; respectively.
– flow limit [kPa] rg2h18.5: 24.5i;
– flow behavior index [-] n2h0.46: 0.58i,
4. Results and discussion
and the minimized sum of squared differences between actual and
simulated strain was adopted as the optimization criterion U. 4.1. Experimental results
"t¼t #
X kp
2
UðE; k; rg ; nÞ ¼ min ðcExp ðtÞ  cSym ðtÞÞ ð19Þ The results of the creep test are presented in Fig. 5, and the
t¼t ps results of the stress relaxation test are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359 357

Owing to a large number of measurements (12001 in each test), the arithmetic mean from all replications at a given moment in time.
test runs are presented in the form of linear diagrams. If the differences in the value of parameters noted in successive tests
had resulted only from the absence of uniformity in the material’s
4.2. Estimation of modeled parameters based on creep test results physical properties, then in line with Bellman’s principle of optimal-
ity, the mean values in both columns should be equal or similar
The estimated values of the modeled parameters, the properties within the allowable limit of error. The significance of those differ-
of the analyzed material and the mean error of estimated strain are ences can be explained by the fact that the geometric dimensions of
presented in Table 1. The error of estimation is described by Eq. (20): the studied samples are not reproducible.
An analysis of the model’s sensitivity to changes in every
pffiffiffiffi
dc ¼ U ð20Þ parameter (when the remaining parameters have optimal value)
indicates that the model is particularly sensitive to changes in
Columns ‘‘Aver. 1’’ and ‘‘Aver. 2’’ present average values of the elastic modulus E, flow limit rg and flow index n, and it is less
above parameters, where the first contains values averaged based susceptible to changes in the value of consistency index k. The
on the results of each replication, and the second – values estimated results of the sensitivity analysis and the accuracy of estimating
for the averaged process characteristics, calculated by determining creep characteristics are exemplified in Figs. 8 and 9.

4
E=1.05 MPa
n -n
k=1.58 MPa⋅s ⋅m
σg=21.5 kPa
Sym. 06 γ (t)-δγ n=0.54
displacement [m⋅10- ]

3
3

Sym. 06 γ (t)+δγ
Sym. 06 γ (t)
2

Exp. 06 γ (t)

0
0 50 100 150 200 time [s]

Fig. 9. Precision of estimating creep characteristics.

Table 2
Estimated values of the modeled parameters in a stress relaxation test.

Sym. 01 Sym. 02 Sym. 03 Sym. 04 Sym. 05 Sym. 06 Sym. 07 Sym. 08 Sym. 09 Sym. 10 Sym. 11
E MPa 1.080 0.960 1.025 1.155 1.205 1.080 1.265 1.180 1.020 0.960 1.230
K MPa sn mn 1.36 0.70 1.28 1.86 1.86 1.24 1.50 1.32 1.30 1.28 1.46
rg kPa 22.5 32.0 24.0 22.5 23.5 23.5 18.0 23.5 22.5 24.0 23.5
N - 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
dc M  103 0.0099 0.0409 0.0078 0.0022 0.0038 0.0078 0.0991 0.0037 0.008 0.0108 0.0195
Sym. 12 Sym. 13 Sym. 14 Sym. 15 Sym. 16 Sym. 17 Sym. 18 Sym. 19 Sym. 20 Aver. 1 Aver. 2
E MPa 1.270 0.960 1.215 1.125 0.980 1.265 1.080 1.165 0.980 1.110 1.115
K MPa sn mn 1.74 0.70 1.24 1.32 1.28 1.78 1.38 1.24 1.40 1.36 1.36
rg kPa 24.0 32.0 23.5 23.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.5 24.0 24.1 24.0
N - 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
dc M  103 0.0104 0.0409 0.0038 0.0106 0.0349 0.0031 0.0085 0.0088 0.0392 – –

(a) (b) (c) (d)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
n -n
k=1.32 MPa⋅s ⋅m E=1.125 MPa E=1.125 Mpa E=1.125 Mpa
n -n
σg =23.0 kPa σg=23.0 kPa k=1.32 MPa⋅s ⋅m n
k=1.32 MPa⋅s ⋅m
-n

0.4 0.4 n=0.50 0.4 n=0.50 0.4 σ =23.0 kPa

n=0.50 g

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

δγ [m⋅10 ]
δγ [m⋅10 ]

-3

δγ [m⋅10 ]

δγ [m⋅10 ]
-3

-3

-3

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.94 1.04 1.14 1.24 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56
E [MPa] k [MPa⋅s ⋅m ]
n -n
σg [kPa] n [-]

Fig. 10. Analysis of the model’s sensitivity in a simulation of the stress relaxation test.
358 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359

2.5 2.5

2 2
displacement [m⋅10- ]
3

1.5 1.5

Exp.15γ (t)
1 1 E=1.125 MPa
Sym.15γ (t) n
k=1.32 MPa⋅s ⋅m
-n

σg=23.0kPa
0.5 0.5 n=0.50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time [s]

Fig. 11. Precision of estimating stress relaxation characteristics.

Table 3 from the biodiversity of samples, the anisotropic properties of the

Statistical evaluation of the modeled parameters. sampled material as well as the fact that the geometrical dimen-
Parameter Test Mean ± standard error sions and the shape of samples differed significantly from the as-
sumed values. The average values of the modeled parameters,
E (MPa) Creep 1.098 ± 0.021
Relaxation 1.110 ± 0.025 standard deviation and standard error are presented in Table 3
k (MPa sn mn) Creep 1.445 ± 0.037 and Fig. 12.
Relaxation 1.362 ± 0.069 The statistical significance of test results’ effect on the
rg (kPa) Creep 21.550 ± 0.276
estimation of the modeled parameters was assessed by the
Relaxation 24.075 ± 0.675
n (-) Creep 0.522 ± 0.005
Mann–Whitney U test (parametric test criteria were not met).
Compression 0.495 ± 0.002 Based on the resulting estimations of elastic modulus E and flow
consistency index k, there are no grounds for refuting the hypoth-
esis that the two values are equal (p < 0.01). The above particularly
4.3. Estimation of modeled parameters for the stress relaxation test applies to estimations of the elastic modulus (p = 0.6263)
(Fig. 12a), and the analyzed model proved to be highly sensitive
The values of the modeled parameters and the mean error of to changes in that parameter (Figs. 8a and 10a). The above hypoth-
strain estimation obtained in the inverse analysis for the stress esis cannot be applied with the same degree of certainty to the
relaxation test are presented in Table 2. flow consistency index (p = 0.1895). The width of distribution is
The results of a sensitivity analysis and the accuracy of estimating significantly greater (Fig. 12b), in particular in the stress relaxation
stress relaxation characteristics are exemplified in Figs. 10 and 11. test, and the model is less sensitive to changes in the flow consis-
tency index (Figs. 8b and 10b). The above is observed only when
4.4. Model validation the remaining parameters have optimal values. The said parameter
should be analyzed in combination with the flow behavior index.
Whereas in individual cases, the proposed model adequately de- An analysis of flow limit rg (Fig. 12c) suggests that the dis-
scribes the processes reported during the creep test and the stress cussed parameter can be expected to yield different values in each
relaxation test (excluding the initial compression phase – Figs. 9 test, and the above was statistically validated (p = 0.000066). The
and 11), the formulation of conclusions based on the assumptions differences between mean values are smaller than those which
made in point 2.1 is somewhat problematic. Those difficulties can could be expected had the samples been prepared manually, in
be largely attributed to variations in strain characteristics between which case the probable variations in cross-sectional dimensions
the two tests (Figs. 5 and 7). The noted variations could also result would be determined in the range of ±0.5 mm. The values noted

(a) (b) (c) (d)

3 0.4 40
1 2
1-2 1
4 1
1-2
2 0.3 30
2 1-2
1-2

2 0.2 20
2 2 1
1
0.1 10

0 0 0 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 18 22 26 30 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
E [MPa] n
k [MPa⋅s ⋅m ]
-n
σg [kPa] n [-]

Fig. 12. Density functions of standard distribution: 1 – creep test; 2 – stress relaxation test; 1-2 – averaged values for both tests.
 R. Myhan et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 111 (2012) 351–359
in the creep test, where the width of distribution is much smaller
than in the analogous stress relaxation test, are marked by a higher
degree of certainty.
As regards flow behavior index n, the results of inverse analysis
also reveal a significant difference (p = 0.00012). In this case, how-
ever, a clear differentiation in the width of distribution (Fig. 12d)
suggests that the estimations obtained based on the stress relaxa-
tion test are marked by a higher degree of probability. The values
produced by creep test simulations are probably overestimated be-
cause the test limit (t = 240 s) is shorter than the creep limit (dc/
dt – 0) in the experimental part. In both cases, n < 1 (n  0.5),
which indicates that apparent viscosity decreases with an increase
in the flow rate.
5. Conclusions
An original rheological model of a solid was developed to make
the estimated parameters of the rheological model independent of
the type of strength test performed in this study. The model was
designed as a parallel combination of spring, viscous and plastic
elements. A rheological equation combining load, strain and time
was formulated for the kinematic model of a solid. The model com-
prised four parameters: elastic modulus, consistency index, flow
limit and flow index. The values of the above parameters were
determined in a series of creep tests and stress relaxation tests
involving cubes of roasted turkey breast muscles. The modeled
parameters were determined by inverse modeling using the de-
signed model and measurement results. The results of a statistical
analysis indicate that the proposed mathematical model supports
the determination of rheological properties of the studied material,
such as elastic modulus and consistency index, regardless of test
type (creep or stress relaxation). The model was logically verified
and validated based on the results of the creep test and the stress
relaxation test of roasted turkey breast. From the resulting estima-
tions of the elasticity modulus and the consistency index, it can be
inferred that there are no grounds for refuting a statistical hypoth-
esis (p 6 0.01) that the analyzed parameters are independent of the
type of mechanical tests (creep and stress relaxation) used to
determine those values. An analysis of the model’s susceptibility
to changes in rheological properties indicates that the model is rel-
atively not sensitive to changes in the consistency index, but it is
sensitive to changes in the value of the elastic modulus, flow limit
and flow index in simulations of the creep test and the stress relax-
ation test. The values of the model parameters, estimated based on
the results of both tests, are similar and remain within the maxi-
mum permissible error, which suggests that they correspond with
the actual rheological properties of the studied food material. The
developed model may be applied in rheological analyses of biolog-
ical materials, in particularly in the food processing industry, med-
icine and veterinary medicine, as well as in other fields that require
a quantitative description of the rheological properties of materials
with solid consistency.
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education, Grant No. 2 P06T 051 29.
359
References
Akuzawa, S., Sawayama, S., Kawabata, A., 1995. Dynamic viscoelasticity and stress
relaxation in starch pastes. Journal of Texture Studies 26, 489–500.
Bellido, G.G., Hatcher, D.W., 2009. Asian noodles: Revisiting Peleg’s analysis for
presenting stress relaxation data in soft solid foods. Journal of Food Engineering
92, 29–36.
Bhattacharya, S., 2010. Stress relaxation behaviour of moth bean flour dough:
Product characteristics and suitability of model. Journal of Food Engineering 97,
539–546.
Białobrzewski, I., Danowska-Oziewicz, M., Karpińska-Tymoszczyk, M., Markowski,
M., Majewska, K., Zapotoczny, P., Cierach, M., 2007. Mathematical modelling
and opimization of the process of roasting turkey breast in a steam-convection
oven. Project No. 2 P06T 051 29 – The Final Report, Ministry of Science and
Higher Education, Warszaw, pp. 1–80.
Blahovec, J., 1996. Stress relaxation in cherry fruit. Biorheology 33 (6), 451–
462.
Blahovec, J., 2003. Activation volume from stress relaxation curves in raw and
cooked potato. International Journal of Food Properties 6 (2), 183–193.
Campus, M., Addis, M.F., Cappuccinelli, R., Porcu, M.C., Pretti, L., Tedde, V., Secchi, N.,
Stara, G., Roggio, T., 2010. Stress relaxation behaviour and structural changes of
muscle tissues from Gilthead Sea Bream (Sparus aurata L.) following high
pressure treatment. Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010), 192–198.
Cheng, Y., Shimizu, N., Kimura, T., 2005. The viscoelastic properties of soybean curd
(tofu) as affected by soymilk concentration and type of coagulant. International
Journal of Food Science and Technology 40, 385–390.
Claracq, J., Sarrazin, J., Montfort, J.P., 2004. Viscoelastic properties of
magnetorheological fluids. Rheologica Acta 43, 38–49.
Del Nobile, M.A., Chillo, S., Mentana, A., Baiano, A., 2007. Use of the generalized
Maxwell model for describing the stress relaxation behavior of solid-like foods.
Journal of Food Engineering 78, 978–983.
Hassan, B.H., Alhamdan, A.M., Elansari, A.M., 2005. Stress relaxation of dates
at khalal and rutab stages of maturity. Journal of Food Engineering 66,
439–445.
Jamroziak, K., Bocian, M., Kulisiewicz, M., 2010. Examples of applications non-
classical visco-elastic models in the process of ballistic impact. Modelowanie
_
Inzynierskie 40, 95–102 (in Polish).
Khazaei, J., Mann, D., 2004. Effects of temperature and loading characteristics on
mechanical and stress-relaxation behavior of sea buckthorn berries. Part 3.
Relaxation behavior. The CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development
4, 1–12.
Kuo, M.I., Wang, Y.C., Gunasekaran, S., 2000. A viscoelasticity index for cheese
meltability evaluation. Journal of Dairy Sciences 83412–83417.
Masi, P., 1989. Characterization of history-dependent stress relaxation behaviour of
cheeses. Journal of Texture Studies 19, 373–388.
Mitchell, J.R., Blanshard, J.M.V., 1976. Rheological properties of nalginate gels.
Journal of Texture Studies 7, 219–234.
Mohsenin, N.N., 1986. Physical Properties of Plant and Animals Materials, third ed.
Gordon and Breach, New York.
Mohsenin, N.N., Mittal, J.P., 1977. Use of rheological terms and correlation of
compatible measurements in food texture research. Journal of Texture Studies
8, 395–408.
Peleg, M., 1980. Linearization of relaxation and creep curves of solid biological
materials. Journal of Rheology 24 (4), 451–463.
Steffe, J.F., 1996. Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering, second ed.
Freeman Press, East Lasing.
Tang, H.S., Kalyon, D.M., 2004. Estimation of the parameters of Herschel–Bulkley
fluid under wall slip using a combination of capillary and squeeze flow
viscometers. Rheologica Acta 43 (1), 80–88.
Van Bockstaele, F., De Leyn, I., Eeckhout, M., Dewettinck, K., 2011. Non-linear creep-
recovery measurements as a tool for evaluating the viscoelastic properties of
wheat flour dough. Journal of Food Engineering 107 (1), 50–59.
Venugopal, V., Muthukumarappan, K., 2001. Stress relaxation characteristics of
cheddar cheese. International Journal of Food Properties 4 (3), 469–484.
Wang, Z., Hirai, S., 2009, Physical parameter identification of rheological object
based on measurement of deformation and force. In: Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation Kobe Japan 1238–
1243.
Wang, Z., Hirai, S., 2010. Modeling and property estimation of Japanese sweets for
their manufacturing simulation. The 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems October 18–22 2010 Taipei Taiwan.
Wang, Z., Hirai, S., 2011. Modeling and estimation of rheological properties of food
products for manufacturing simulations. Journal of Food Engineering 102, 136–
144.