Abstract:
The inventive method uses the ultrasound Doppler method (UVP) in order to determine a local velocity profile perpendicular to a line for a fluid which flows through said line, carrying suspended or emulsified particles. The wall shear stress of said fluid is measured locally within the range of said local velocity profile. Specific rheological parameters of the flowing fluid thus examined, e.g. viscosity function (shear viscosity), flow limit etc., can be determined from the local velocity profile and the local wall shear stress associated therewith. A suitable model is adapted by iteratively adapting a model-based theoretic velocity profile to a measured velocity profile.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
   This invention relates to a method and device for determining the rheological parameters of a flowing fluid, in particular of a suspension or an emulsion. 
   Similar methods and devices are already known. The ultrasound Doppler method is here used to determine a local velocity profile perpendicular to a line for the fluid that flows through a flow channel and carries suspended or emulsified particles. In addition, the static pressure is measured upstream and downstream from the area of the determined local velocity profile to determine a pressure difference along the direction of flow in the area of the local velocity profile. The velocity profile and the associated pressure difference profile can then be used to determine specific rheological parameters of the examined flowing fluid, e.g., the viscosity function (shear viscosity), yield point, etc. 
   This combination of ultrasound Doppler method (UVP, ultrasound velocity profiling) and pressure difference determination (PD, pressure difference), referred to by experts as UVP-PD for short, has been described in numerous publications in different variants, always with slight modifications. 
   The article “Velocity profile measurement by ultrasound Doppler shift method” by Y. Takeda in the International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow”, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 1986, confirms the suitability of the UVP method for determining a one-dimensional velocity profile in tubules or blood vessels only several millimeters in diameter. 
   The “Rheological Study of Non-Newtonian Fluids” by E. Windhab, B. Ouriev, T. Wagner and M. Drost, 1.sup.st International Symposium on Ultrasonic Doppler Methods for Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Engineering, September 1996 describes the aforementioned UWP-PD method. 
   “Ultrasound Doppler Based In-Line Rheometry of Highly Concentrated Suspensions” by B. Ouriev, Diss. ETH No. 13523, Zurich 2000, contains an extensive description of the theoretical and equipment-related principles of the UVP-PD method along with its application in drag shear flows and pressure shear flows, in particular of model suspensions or given rheological fluids, e.g., during the manufacture of chocolate or pasta products. This publication deals with both laminar and turbulent flows. 
   The UVP-PD method described here yields good results for different kinds of velocity profiles and for the rheological parameters to be determined for the examined fluids. However, the two spaced apart measuring points are always required for measuring the pressure upstream and downstream from the determined velocity profile. While use can today be made of slightly intrusive miniaturized ultrasound transceivers, ultrasound measuring transducers and pressure sensors, the distance between the two pressure measuring points always required upstream and downstream from the acquired local velocity profile for reasons of measuring accuracy already places limits on a further “compacting” of the UVP-PD measuring device by edging the two pressure sensors together. 
   BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
   An object of the invention is to provide a method and measuring device that uses the ultrasound Doppler method and enables a more compact measuring device along with a simplification of the method complexity relative to the UVP-PD method of prior art. 
   The method according to the invention for determining the rheological parameters of a flowing fluid, in particular of a suspension or emulsion, requires that the fluid flow be limited at least in some areas by a wall contacting the fluid, and involves the following steps:
         a) Sending into the fluid flow an ultrasound signal transmitted from an ultrasound transmitter at least at one prescribed first frequency f 1  at an angle θ, which is different from 90°, relative to the direction of flow;   b) Receiving into an ultrasound receiver an ultrasound signal reflected by particles entrained in the fluid in respective fluid areas with at least one second frequency f 2  that is characteristic for the respective fluid area and shifted relative to the frequency f 1  by a respective frequency shift Δf;   c) Acquiring the local wall shear stress in at least an area of the fluid contacting the wall;   d) Calculating the at least one frequency shift Δf using the at least one first frequency f 1  and the at least one second frequency f 2 ;   e) Allocating the respective frequency shift Δf to a respective fluid area using the respective running time of the ultrasound signal between the point of transmission from the ultrasound transmitter and point of reception by the ultrasound receiver;   f) Calculating the fluid velocity of the respective fluid area in which the reflecting particles are entrained using the respective frequency shift;   g) Calculating rheological parameters of the fluid using the wall shear stress of the fluid acquired in the at least one local wall area and the calculated fluid velocity of the respective local fluid areas of the flowing fluid.       

   The arrangement according to the invention for determining the rheological parameters of the flowing fluid using the method according to the invention consists of:
         At least one wall area that contacts and borders a fluid flowing in the device at least in partial areas of the fluid interface;   An ultrasound transmitter for sending an ultrasound signal with at least one preset frequency f 1  at an angle θ, which is different from 90°, relative to the direction of flow of a fluid flowing in the device;   An ultrasound receiver for receiving an ultrasound signal with at least one frequency f 2  that can be shifted relative to frequency f 1  by a frequency shift Δf;   At least one shear stress sensor for detecting a wall shear stress in at least one area of the fluid in contact with the wall;   One computer and processor for calculating frequency differences and allocating a specific frequency difference to a respective fluid area using a respective time difference between the transmission and reception of an ultrasound signal; for calculating the fluid velocity of a respective fluid area using the respective frequency shift; and for calculating rheological parameters of the fluid using the acquired wall shear stress of the fluid and the calculated fluid velocity of the respective fluid areas of the flowing fluid.       

   The two pressure measurements in prior art are avoided by acquiring the local wall shear stress in step c), i.e., by performing a single shear stress measurement in the area of the boundary layer of the flowing fluid. This makes it possible to reduce the amount of space and cabling required for the measuring arrangement, and also to simplify the method. 
   Since the method according to the invention requires that the fluid flow be limited at least in partial areas by a wall in contact with the fluid, the method according to the invention can also be applied to fluid flows in a partially open channel, e.g., in a fluid flow driven by gravitational force in an inclined groove, or a fluid flow between the cylinder jacket of the rotor and stator, e.g., in a rotational rheometer. These applications are also facilitated by the compact measuring arrangement for the method according to the invention. It is completely sufficient to examine the behavior of the flowing fluid (fluid velocities in local partial areas) in a local area that accommodates the ultrasound transmitter, the ultrasound receiver or, if necessary, an ultrasound transceiver and the shear stress sensor are located during exposure of the fluid to external influences (shear effect, e.g., owing to pressure differences or inertia forces; drag effect of a fluid that adheres to a moving wall or slides along it with slippage). This makes the method suitable for studying the shear and drag-shear flows, as well as combined shear-drag-shear flows. However, turbulent flows can also be analyzed. 
   In shear flows, which are kept going by such a wall-shear effect, e.g., in the rotational rheometer of the preceding paragraph, it is even impossible to use the UVP-PD method of prior art, since, while fluid velocities can be determined via UVP, pressure drops along the direction of flow cannot. 
   By contrast, the method according to the invention in conjunction with the arrangement according to the invention enables the use of UVP both in pure drag-shear flows, mixed driven drag/shear-shear flows, in particular in tubular flows with inner stopper, and naturally in pure shear-shear flows based on the local, in extreme cases even point, measurement of the wall shear stress in the boundary layer area of the fluid. Any experimental “boundary conditions” can hence be selected. This opens up new capabilities for the parameterization of different flows and allocation between such parameters and continuum-mechanical or microscopic, particle-based models. 
   The transmitted ultrasound signal can be a signal with several discrete first frequencies (f 1 , f 1 ′, f 1 ″, . . . ), and the received ultrasound signal can be at least a second signal, each with several discrete second frequencies (f 2 , f 2 ′, f 2 ″, . . . ), which are shifted relative to the respective first frequencies (f 1 , f 1 ′, f 1 ″, . . . ) by a respective frequency shift Δf characteristic for the respective fluid area. This makes it possible to determine the fluid velocity characteristic for a fluid area based on several subtraction operations, for which f 2 −f 1 =f 2 ′−f 1 ′=f 2 ″=f 1 ″= . . . =Δf, at least in first approximation. The arithmetic mean is preferably found for the individual differences to obtain a reliable value for Δf, and hence for the respective fluid velocity of one of the fluid areas. 
   The transmitted ultrasound signal can also be a signal with a first frequency spectrum (FS 1 ), and the received ultrasound signal can be at least one second signal with a respective second frequency spectrum (FS 2 ), which is shifted relative to the first frequency spectrum (FS 1 ) by a respective frequency shift Δf characteristic for the respective fluid area. Frequency shifts can here also be used at several points in the two frequency spectra for averaging the value Δf, and hence determining the respective fluid velocity of one of the fluid areas. 
   Pulsed signals are preferably used for the transmitted, and hence also for the received ultrasound signals. In step e) of the method according to the invention, this simplifies the allocation of the respective frequency shift Δf and a respective fluid area using the respective running time of the ultrasound signal between the time it leaves the ultrasound transmitter and is received by the ultrasound receiver. In particular, the pulsed signals here each have a constant carrier frequency. 
   The transmitted and received ultrasound signals can also each be continuous signals, however. This is advantageous in particular when using the frequency spectra FS 1  and FS 2  described further above. 
   The wall shear stress is best acquired only in a single area of the fluid in contact with the wall. This enables a particularly compact realization of the method according to the invention. 
   The ultrasound signal radiated into the fluid is best transmitted and the reflected ultrasound signal is best received at the same location, e.g., by means of an ultrasound transceiver. 
   A local velocity profile is preferably established transverse to the direction of flow using the fluid velocities of the fluid areas of the fluid calculated in step f), wherein the viscosity function (shear viscosity) of the fluid is determined in particular from the local velocity profile calculated in step f) and the local wall shear stress acquired in step c) in at least one area of the fluid in contact with the wall. 
   In the method according to the invention, a suitable model is preferably tailored by iteratively adjusting a model-based theoretic velocity profile to a measured velocity profile. Diverse rheological parameters can then be derived from the adjusted theoretical velocity profile. 
   The measured velocity profile are preferably processed before the adjustment, wherein the measured velocity profiles are subjected to time averaging in particular. This yields more reliable velocity profiles for the subsequent model adjustment. 
   A respective statistical fluctuating variable, in particular the standard deviation, is preferably determined from the ascertained wall shear stresses and/or the ascertained velocity profile, and compared with a prescribed limiting value for the fluctuating variable. This comparison is preferably used as the basis for selecting reliable measured data. 
   A suitable model can be selected by checking the boundary conditions used in the model. For example, it can be assumed that the velocity of the fluid at the wall is zero, i.e., that there is wall adhesion. Depending on whether curve adjustment is successful or not, this assumption can be accepted or rejected. The assumption that the velocity of the fluid at the wall differs from zero can e handled in like manner. 
   The boundary conditions can also be advantageously checked by counting failed iteration steps during the attempted adjustment of a model, wherein another model with different parameters and/or different boundary conditions is selected in particular when a preset number of iteration steps has been exceeded. 
   The used models are preferably selected from the following group of models:
         Power law model   Herschel-Bulkley model   Cross model       

   Other rheological models can also be used. 
   The used boundary conditions are preferably selected from the following group of boundary conditions:
         Fluid velocity at the wall is zero, or presence of wall adhesion   Fluid velocity at the wall is not zero, or presence of wall sliding   Yield point dipped below in an area of the fluid flow, or stopper present in flow   Yield point not dipped below in any area of the fluid flow, or stopper not present in flow   Flow state: laminar   Flow state: turbulent       

   The used models and boundary conditions are described in “Ultrasound Doppler Based In-Line Rheometry of Highly Concentrated Suspensions” by B. Ouriev, Diss. ETH No. 13523, Zurich 2000, or in “Rheological study of concentrated suspensions in pressure-driven shear flow using a novel in-line ultrasound Doppler method’ by B. Ouriev and E. J. Windhab, Experiments in Fluids 32 (2002). 
   At least some of the determined rheological parameters of the fluid can also be compared with values for this parameter that were ascertained in other ways. This makes it possible to additionally verify the results for the rheological parameters. The other method for determining the rheological parameters preferably involves measuring the viscosity in a rotational rheometer and/or in a capillary rheometer. 
   The static fluctuating variable, in particular the standard deviation, is best determined for the acquired velocity signals for each velocity channel (=location in velocity profile) and/or for the acquired pressure signals of each pressure measuring point. This information can be used among other things to tell whether the flowing fluid is in a turbulent or laminar flow state. 
   The arrangement according to the invention preferably has only one shear stress sensor, which is situated in the at least one wall area, and is used to acquire a wall shear stress in at least one area of the fluid in contact with the wall. 
   In one embodiment of the arrangement according to the invention that is especially preferred, since it is particularly compact, the shear stress sensor, ultrasound transmitter and ultrasound receiver or ultrasound transceiver are arranged in the at least one wall area. 
   In another preferred embodiment, the arrangement according to the invention can have at least a first wall area and a second wall area, between which a fluid flowing in the device can respectively stream, and which contact and limit the fluid boundary at least in partial areas, wherein an ultrasound transmitter is preferably situated in the first wall area, and an ultrasound receiver in the second wall area. This makes it possible to use ultrasound waves that are not directionally reversed by 180°, but undergo only a relatively small directional change, when reflected/scattered by the particles entrained in the liquid. This ensures approximately the same running time or approximately the same path length in the flowing medium for all ultrasound waves received at the opposing ultrasound sensor. As a result, the traversed, flowing medium exercises approximately the same dampening effect on practically all ultrasound waves reflected/scattered between the ultrasound sensor and ultrasound receiver via particles in various interspersed fluid areas. However, one must remember that, while the absorption of received sound waves evens out as the deviation angle of the sound waves reflected/scattered on the moved particles decreases, this is necessarily accompanied on the one hand by a correspondingly reduced resolution during the localization of the respective reflecting fluid areas in step a) of the method according to the invention, in particular when using pulsed signals, and on the other hand by lower frequency shifts. However, the frequency shifts also increase as the flow velocities rise in the fluid, thereby at least offsetting the impact of the low deviation angle. 
   A first ultrasound transceiver is preferably situated in the first wall area, and a second ultrasound transceiver in the second wall area. This makes it possible to irradiate the flow with ultrasound waves “from left to right” and simultaneously “from right to left”, so that “left” and “right” measuring results can be obtained. This is particularly advantageous when the question is whether the certain asymmetries in the experimentally determined velocity distribution transverse to the direction of flow are only metrological artifacts or actual asymmetries in the real velocity distribution in the fluid. Such artifacts mimic an asymmetry in velocity distribution, and can generally be corrected by averaging the two distributions affected by the artifacts. If the averaged result is then still asymmetrical, this points to an actual asymmetry in the flow. 
   A first ultrasound transceiver and a first shear stress sensor are preferably situated in the first wall area here as well, while a second ultrasound transceiver and second shear stress sensor are arranged in the second wall area. 
   The wall area of the arrangement can be the interior wall of a tube or channel section that can be integrated into a line or channel for fluid transport, wherein the ultrasound transceiver and shear stress sensor are preferably integrated in a compact ultrasound transceiver/shear stress sensor measuring transducer unit. The arrangement can additionally incorporate a pressure sensor. This makes it possible to design not only each individual element of the arrangement like a “probe”, but the entire arrangement according to the invention, which ensures an even better “process accessibility” of the method according to the invention. 
   Additional advantages, features and possible applications of the invention can be gleaned from the following description of preferred exemplary embodiments, which are not to be regarded as limiting. 

   
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     Accompanying the specification are figures which assist in illustrating the embodiments of the invention, in which: 
       FIG. 1  is a measuring arrangement according to prior art; 
       FIG. 2  is a measuring arrangement according to the invention; and 
       FIGS. 3 to 7  in diagrammatic fashion is the procedure according to the invention for processing and evaluating the measured values acquired with the measuring arrangement in  FIG. 1 . 
   

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     FIG. 1  shows a tube section  1  in which a fluid  2  flows. The measuring arrangement on  FIG. 1  comprises an ultrasound transceiver  3  as well as a pressure sensor  4  downstream and pressure sensor  5  upstream from the ultrasound transceiver  3 . 
   According to the ultrasound Doppler method (UVP method), an ultrasound transceiver  3  sends out a narrow ultrasound wave US with a frequency f 1  (practically flat wave or parallel beam) into the flowing fluid  2  transverse to the direction of fluid flow. The ultrasound wave US is reflected or scattered by moving particles that are entrained in the flowing fluid  2 . The portion of the ultrasound wave US reflected or scattered back into the ultrasound transceiver  3  has a shifted frequency f 2  owing to the particle motion (Doppler shift). This frequency shift provides information about the velocity of the particles or fluid in a specific fluid volume. The acquired varying frequency shifts are allocated to locations in the fluid where the frequency-shifting reflection or scattering takes place by measuring the running time between when the ultrasound wave was transmitted and received at the ultrasound transceiver  3 . This is why pulsed ultrasound waves are used. The smaller the distances between the sequentially received reflected ultrasound pulses are in terms of time, and hence location, the greater the local resolution and number of acquired frequency shifts. The velocity profile can be determined in this manner. 
   The two pressure sensors  4  and  5  are used to measure a first static pressure P 1  downstream and a second static pressure P 2  upstream from the area of the fluid flow traversed by the ultrasound waves. The wall shear stress in the fluid is then determined from this. 
   The viscosity function (shear viscosity) of the fluid can be determined by combining the fluid velocity distribution (“reaction of the fluid”) transverse to the direction of flow and the fluid wall shear stress (“external influence on the fluid”). 
   In addition to determining the fluid-wall shear stress and the fluid velocity profile, a suitable model for the viscosity function (shear viscosity) along with suitable boundary conditions for the flowing fluid are selected according to the invention. 
     FIG. 2  also shows a tube section  1  in which fluid  2  flows. The measuring arrangement on  FIG. 2  comprises an ultrasound transceiver  3  as well as a shear stress sensor  6  opposite the ultrasound transceiver  3  in the area in which the velocity profile is to be acquired. 
   According to the ultrasound Doppler method (UVP method), the ultrasound transceiver  3  is used to determine the velocity profile as already described on  FIG. 1  here as well. 
   However, a shear stress sensor  6  that enables a local determination of wall shear stress in the fluid is here used instead of the two pressure sensors  4  and  5 . The wall shear stress is here determined directly and in the area where the velocity profile is also determined via UVP. While a “global”, indirect acquisition takes place in prior art ( FIG. 2 ), in which the entire distance between the two pressure sensors is necessarily averaged, the arrangement according to the invention is used in the inventive method to rather perform a “local”, direct determination of the wall shear stress. Therefore, an allocation between the actual values for the wall shear stress (boundary condition) at the location of the acquired velocity profile and the velocity profile belonging to this boundary condition ends up taking place. 
   The fluid velocity distribution (“reaction of the fluid”) transverse to the direction of flow and the fluid wall shear stress (“external influence on the fluid”) can here again be combined to determine the viscosity function (shear viscosity). 
     FIG. 3  diagrammatically shows the process for evaluating the measured shear stress information to determine the wall shear stress in the fluid. The geometry of the flow channel is input at  31 . The shear stress S is input at  32 , while additional shear stresses are input as needed at  33  and  34 . Up to N different shear stresses S 1  to SN can (optionally!) be input. The input shear stress value is filtered in a filter at  38  via a triggering that takes place at  39  in order to smooth out the signal. A wall shear stress is then output at  35 . The wall shear stress distribution is determined at  36 , and pressure fluctuations as a rule measured only at one location are determined at  37  as needed. 
     FIG. 4  diagrammatically shows the process for handling the unprocessed, “raw” velocity profiles before curve adjustment. Measured, unprocessed velocity profiles are input at  41 . The fluid sound velocity measured for the examined fluid and prescribed sound frequency is input at  42 . The values for the input velocity profiles are subjected to time averaging at  418  via a triggering that takes place at  419  to obtain averaged velocity profiles at  43 . In addition, the parameters used for the ultrasound Doppler method are input at  418 , specifically the Doppler angle at  411 , acoustic information at  412 , the initial depth at  413 , the channel distance at  414 , the measuring window at  415 , the pulse repetition rate at  416  and the used beam geometry at  417 . The standard deviation for each velocity channel of the velocity profile is determined at  44 , and then compared with a predetermined limiting value at  45 . The actual initial depth, the actual penetration depth and the actual channel distance are then determined from this at  46 ,  47  and  48 , respectively. Proceeding from these three values, reliable velocity data are then selected at  49  for subsequent calculations, which are finally prepared for the curve adjustment at  410 . 
     FIGS. 5A and 5B  diagrammatically illustrate the process for selecting a suitable model, choosing reliable data and checking the boundary conditions for the flowing fluid. The velocity data for curve adjustment are prepared at  51 . The determined standard deviation SMD is compared with a predetermined limiting value SMDL for standard deviation at  52 . 
   If SMD is less than SMDL, a decision is made at  53  to use the SMD to adjust the data (curve adjustment). In this case, a curve adjustment is performed by method of least error squares at  54 . This is used at  55  to monitor the axial symmetry of the flow profile, and at  56  to determine the maximum flow velocity. If SMD is greater than SMDL, the process of solving the boundary value problem is initiated at  518 , and a warning signal is output at  520 . The warning signal indicates that the boundary conditions have not been satisfied. 
   It is determined whether the wall velocity is zero at  57 . If it is then confirmed that the velocity at the wall differs from zero at  511 , the power law model is loaded at  516  with the assumption of a wall sliding effect. By contrast, if it is denied at  511  that the velocity at the wall differs from zero, this statement (velocity at the wall is zero) is taken as a condition at  512 . It is determined whether the maximum flow velocity is constant at  58 , whether the pressure fluctuations are low at  59 , i.e., whether the SMD is low, and whether the temperature difference along the flow channel (tube) is low or zero at  510 . 
   If all conditions  58 ,  59  and  510  are confirmed or satisfied at  512 , and if the velocity at the wall is zero, the power law model is loaded at  513  as part of the approach to resolving the problem. If it is then determined at  514  that the flow index is greater than a set limit, the power law model is loaded at  516  with the assumption of a wall sliding effect, and the model assuming a yield point is loaded at  517 . By contrast, if it is determined at  514  that the flow index is less than a set value, the power law model is loaded at  515 . By contrast, if all conditions  58 ,  59  and  510  are denied or not satisfied at  512 , and if the velocity at the wall differs from zero, the solution involving the power law model is introduced at  518  to determine the flow index, while a repetition of the measurement is initiated at  519 , and a warning signal is output at  520 . 
     FIGS. 6A and 6B  diagrammatically illustrate the process for solving a boundary value problem via curve adjustment, in particular when considering the assumption of wall sliding during curve adjustment. 
   At  61 , it is assumed that the maximum flow velocity is constant. At  62  and in the first iteration of  69 , it is assumed that the velocity at the wall is zero. At  63 , information from  61  and  62  is used to implement an adjustment using the power law model. The flow index n of the power law model of  67  is then set to n=1 at  64 . Under this precondition along with the precondition of  61  and that stemming from  69  to the effect that the sliding velocity on the wall is zero, the theoretical velocity profile is calculated for n=1 at  65 . 
   The input data are then adjusted at  66  by method of least error squares. The data for this purpose are input at  618 ,  619 ,  620 ,  621  and  622 , specifically the actual penetration depth at  618 , the actual penetration depth at  619 , the actual channel distance at  620 , the standard deviation exceeding the standard deviation limit at  621 , and information about the axial symmetry of the flow profile from the axial symmetry controller at  622 . A range of data is selected at  617  from the data input at  618  to  622 . The flow index or criteria for adjustment quality are gleaned at  612  and  613  from the adjustment that took place at  66 . 
   It is decided at  611  whether the flow index read at  612  is less than a lowest limiting value or not. If this is not the case, the flow index is incremented at  10 ), and again used with the power law model at  63 . An iterative process is then followed, wherein the steps  610 ,  63 ,  64 ,  65 ,  66 ,  612  and  613  are run through repeatedly. If the other case is still present at  611 , specifically if the flow index is less than a lowest limiting value, the boundary value problem is resolved using other models at  68 . 
   It is assumed at  67  that the fluid glides along the wall, meaning that the fluid velocity at the wall differs from zero. This assumption is used in conjunction with the power law model at  64  to in turn calculate a corresponding theoretical profile at  65 . The process for iteration then continues just as in the preceding paragraph. 
   It is decided at  616  whether the criteria for adjustment quality read at  613  exceed preset limiting values or not. If this is the case, an inquiry is made at  614  as to whether the number of iterations exceeds a preset number or not. If this is the case, the sliding velocity at the wall is set to zero at  69  in a first iteration step, and iteration is repeated at  65 . Otherwise, the iteration is continued. The process for iteration then continues just as in the preceding paragraphs. If it is decided at  616  that the adjustment criteria do not exceed the preset limiting values, the arguments (e.g., flow index, sliding velocity, radius of stopper, etc.) are output at  615 , and one continues on to  623 . 
   An inquiry is made at  623  whether the sliding velocity at the wall is zero or not. If it is zero, the volumetric flow rate, wall shear velocity and shear velocity distribution are calculated at  624 ,  625  and  626  form the adjustment to the velocity profile. If the sliding velocity at the wall is not zero, the respective volumetric flow velocity, wall shear velocity and shear velocity distribution are calculated in an analogous manner at  627 ,  628  and  629  from the adjustment to the velocity profile assuming wall sliding. Based on the variables calculated at  624  to  626  or at  627  to  629 , the wall shear viscosity is then calculated at  630 , and the shear viscosity function at  631  (e.g., its distribution along a direction transverse to the flow). 
     FIGS. 7A and 7B  diagrammatically illustrate the process for determining the flow state. The power law model, Herschel-Bulkley model, Cross model or other models are used as the basis at  71 ,  72 ,  73  and  74 , respectively. The boundary value problem is again solved from this at  77 , and the rheological variables are output at  79 . 
   It is decided at  715  whether the shear viscosity calculated from the shear viscosity distribution is less than a preset viscosity limit input by the user, which was used via off-line and/or on-line reference measurements, e.g., utilizing a rotational rheometer, a capillary rheometer or some other rheometer. If the shear viscosity is less than the limiting value, it is decided that a turbulent flow state per  714  is present. If the shear viscosity is greater than or equal to the limiting value, it is decided that a laminar flow according to  713  is present. 
   An approach to solving the turbulent flow state is used at  76 . This approach differs from that used for the laminar flow state only by the adjustment model, which has a similar form, but uses other values for the parameters, e.g., for the flow index. The “turbulent” flow index is then calculated at  76  and used at  711 . 
   It is decided at  712  whether the flow index is less than a lowest limiting value or not. If the flow index is lower, it is decided that a turbulent flow state according to  714  is present. If the flow index is equal to or greater than the lowest limiting value, and based upon an evaluation of the variables for SMD, viscosity, flow index and maximum velocity, it is decided that a laminar flow state according to  713  or a turbulent flow state according to  714  is present, and the approach for the turbulent flow is used at  76 . 
   It is assumed at  710  that wall sliding is present. The approach taking into account wall sliding is used at  75 . This yields a value for wall sliding at  78  along with other rheological parameters at  79 . 
   The standard deviation SMD is used as the basis for each velocity channel at  718 . It is decided at  716  whether the SMD exceeds a maximum limit or not. If the SMD does exceed this maximum limit, it is in turn decided at  712  whether the flow index is less than the lowest limiting value or not. If yes, the turbulent state according to  714  is present. If no, the laminar flow state according to  713  is present. 
   The standard deviation SMD of the current n-th adjustment to the unprocessed “raw” pressure signal is used as the basis at  719 . It is decided at  717  whether pressure fluctuations are present or not. If pressure fluctuations are present and if permitted by an evaluation of viscosity, flow index and maximum velocity, it is decided that a turbulent flow according to  714  is present, and the approach for the turbulent flow is used at  76 . If no pressure fluctuations are present, it is decided for the laminar state, and the approach for the laminar state is used at  77 . 
   In sum, it can be stated that flow types can essentially be divided into the following:
         laminar flow with stopper (highly viscous material, e.g., highly concentrated suspension)   laminar flow without stopper (both with flow index n&gt;1, i.e., dilatant or shear-thickening material, and with flow index n&lt;1, i.e., structurally viscous or shear-diluting material)   turbulent flow (low-viscous material, e.g., weakly concentrated suspension).       

   The (“smoothened”) global flow profile of the turbulent flow transverse to the tube axis at which the local velocity fluctuations can be filtered out can be described analogously to the high-viscous stopper flow by the Herschel-Bulkley model, for example. 
   The present invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not as restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims and their combination in whole or in part rather than by the foregoing description. All changes that come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.