Measurement Techniques, Vol. 53, No.

9, 2010

ANALYSIS OF THE ERROR IN MEASURING

THE MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY OF A
FERROMAGNETIC MATERIAL IN AN
OPEN MAGNETIC CIRCUIT

S. G. Sandomirsky UDC 538.2:620.179.14

The conditions under which the result of a measurement of the magnetic permeability of samples in an open
magnetic circuit can be used to obtain a reliable result of a calculation of the initial magnetic permeability
µin and the maximum magnetic permeability µmax of structural steel are established. A formula is derived
for determining the error of the calculation, taking the measurement error into account. The possible
reason for the overestimated results of a measurement of µin of low-carbon and medium-carbon steels at
high annealing temperatures is analyzed.
Key words: ferromagnetic, magnetization, magnetic permeability.

The parameters of ferromagnetic materials that are important in electrical engineering and for magnetic structural
analysis are the initial magnetic permeability μin and the maximum magnetic permeability μmax [1–3]. Using standard pro-
cedures, μin and μmax are measured on toroidal samples or in the closed magnetic circuit of a permeameter [4, 5]. It is not
always possible to obtain samples for such investigations. Moreover, this is particularly the case when μin must be measured
on a thermally demagnetized material with subsequent amplification of the magnetic field [3]. This eliminates the possibili-
ty of repeated measurements of μin on samples which undergo heat treatment under specified conditions. Hence, the results
of an investigation of the effect of different technological factors on μin and μmax when obtaining materials are given more
rarely in the reference literature than other magnetic parameters [1, 2, 6]. This restricts the search for optimal procedures for
the thermal processing of materials and for developing methods for the magnetic nondestructive testing of such materials.
The difficulty of satisfying the standard requirements imposed on a measurement of the magnetic properties of mate-
rials explains why some researchers use the results of a measurement of the magnetic parameters of samples with a low
demagnetizing factor (the central demagnetization factor N) in a closed magnetic circuit. For example, the effect of the
annealing temperature on low-carbon and medium-carbon rolled sheet steels on their magnetic properties has been investi-
gated on samples in the form of plates of length 200 mm, width 20 mm, and thickness 1–2 mm in the solenoid of the BU-3
ballistic equipment [7–14]. It was assumed that because the demagnetization factor is small, the magnetic parameters of the
samples and their material depended in a similar way on the technological factors. The results of a measurement of the coer-
cive force of soft-magnetic materials using samples in a closed magnetic circuit were a justification for this when observing
certain conditions as in [4]. Although the justification and conditions for using this approach when measuring other magnet-
ic parameters have not been investigated, the results of the measurements obtained have been included in reference books as
the magnetic properties of materials (for example, see Fig. 12.1 in [2]). On the basis of an analysis of these, conclusions have
been drawn on the optimum parameters for magnetic quality control of the annealing of cold-deformed carbon steels.

Joint Institute of Machine Construction, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus; e-mail: sand@
iaph.bas-net.by. Translated from Izmeritel’naya Tekhnika, No. 9, pp. 57–61, September, 2010. Original article submitted
April 29, 2010.

1060 0543-1972/10/5309-1060 ©2010 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

 μ

μb

Fig. 1. Magnetic permeability μ of a material (a) and the coefficient k (b),

calculated from (3), as a function of the magnetic permeability μb of a body
for the samples considered: 1–5 correspond to the central demagnetization
factors of the samples N = 0.00097, 0.00172, 0.002, 0.00256, and 0.00303.

The conditions for which the saturation magnetization of a material can be measured with a specific error using sam-
ples of finite dimensions in an open magnetic circuit were described in [15]. It was shown in [16] why it is not possible in
practice to obtain the residual magnetization of a ferromagnetic material under such conditions from the result of a mea-
surement of the residual magnetization of a sample of finite dimensions in an open magnetic circuit.
Below we consider the conditions under which the results of a measurement of the initial and maximum magnetic
permeability of samples of finite size in an open magnetic circuit can be used to determine μin and μmax of their materials.
This problem can be solved if we know fairly accurate formulas for calculating the central demagnetization coeffi-
cients N of bodies of simple shape made of a material with a high magnetic permeability (μ >> 1) [17]. Without loss of gen-
erality and to increase the practical significance of the analysis, we will consider the relation between the magnetic perme-
abilities of the material μ and of the body μb for samples in the form of plates of length L = 200 mm, width B = 20 mm, and
thickness A = 0.5, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 mm, which (apart from A = 0.5 mm) have been used in research [7–14]. Following
the recommendations in [17], the value of N for plates is calculated from Varmut’s formula

⎡ ⎤
N=
1 ⎢ λ eff ln ⎛ λ + λ2 − 1⎞ − 1⎥ 1 + 2.35 ln(1 + 0.137λ eff ) ,
⎢ ⎜ eff eff ⎟ ⎥ (1)
λ2eff − 1 ⎢ λ2 − 1 ⎝ ⎠
⎥⎦
1 + 2.28 ln(1 + 0.284λ eff )
⎣ eff

L π
where, using the Schneider and Arkadiev approach, λ eff = > 1.
2 AB

1061
 The results of a calculation using (1) of the central demagnetization factors N of plates are as follows:

A, mm 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.5 2

N 0.00097 0.00172 0.002 0.00256 0.00303

The effect of nonuniform magnetization of the plates when making measurements is unimportant in this case.
The data obtained are practically identical with the results of the measurement of N given in [13].
We will use the formula for the magnetic permeability μb of a ferromagnetic body [18]:

µb = µ/[1 + N(µ – 1)]. (2)

To calculate the magnetic permeability μ of a material μb, we will write (2) in the form

µ = kµb; k = (1 – N)/(1 – Nµb). (3)

The coefficient k shows how many times μ > μb.

In Fig. 1 we show graphs of μ = μ(μb) and k = k(μb) for the samples considered. It follows from Fig. 1 that the
coefficient k and the slope of the μ = μ(μb) graphs increase sharply as μb and N increase. Nevertheless, the magnetic per-
meability μ of the material can be calculated from (3) for an absolutely accurate measurement of μb and a measurement or
calculation of N.
However, modern magnetic-measurement apparatus does not provide an “absolutely accurate” measurement of the
magnetic parameters for materials in an open (or closed) magnetic circuit. Thus, the equipment described in [19] has not been
tested metrologically (the authors merely state a “reproducibility” of ±1.5% of the results of measurements), while the equip-
ment described in [20] has been tested over a range of variation of field strengths of ±40 kA/m and an induction of ±2.5 T
with a fundamental reduced measurement error of 2%. Consequently, according to [21] the limits of the permissible absolute
fundamental error of a measurement using the equipment described in [20] are 800 A/m and 50 mT over the whole mea-
surement range. This gives a relative error in measuring the initial and maximum magnetic permeabilities of steel samples
using the equipment described that is excessively high.
The BU-3 ballistic equipment, when the rigid requirements on the class of accuracy of its components and on the
accuracy of the measurement of the dimensions of the samples are satisfied, enables the magnetic induction and field strength
to be measured with a relative error of about ±3% [5]. The error δμ in measuring μ of materials or samples may be ±6%.
The error δN in measuring the demagnetization factor N of samples cannot be less than ±3%. We will analyze what the error
σ must be when using (3) to calculate the magnetic permeability μ of a material when using the results of a measurement
of μb with an error of δμ.
For the analysis, we use the sensitivity Sxµ of μ to the parameter x (which can be μb or N), defined by the formula [22]:

Δμx x
S μx = lim = μ ′x , (4)
Δx → 0 Δxμ μ

where Δμ is the change in the magnetic permeability of a ferromagnetic material, corresponding to a change Δx in the param-
eter x when the other parameters remain constant, and µx′ is the derivative of μ with respect to the parameter x.
The sensitivity Sxµ shows to what extent a change in the parameter x, the other parameters remaining constant, caus-
es a change in the value of μ. For example, when Sxµ = 2 a change in the parameter x by 1% changes μ by 2%.
Taking (3) into account, we obtain from (4)

1 N (μ b − 1)
Sμμ = μ
, SN = . (5)
b 1 − Nμ b (1 − N )(1 − Nμ b )

1062
 Sμμb

SNμ

μb

Fig. 2. Graphs of the sensitivities S µµb (a) and SNµ (b), calculated from (5), against
the magnetic permeability μb of a body for the same samples as in Fig. 1.

In Fig. 2, we show graphs of the sensitivities S µµb and SNµ against the magnetic permeability μb of a body for the sam-
ples considered. It follows from Fig. 2 that the values of μb for which 1 ≤ Sµµb ≤ 2 and 0 ≤ SNµ ≤ 1 do not exceed 510, 290,
250, 200, and 170, respectively, while the values of μ of the material are not greater than 1008, 578, 499, 409, and 349, respec-
tively. The error in determining μ can be calculated from the formula

σ = Sμμ δ μ + S N
μ
δN . (6)
b

Following [1, 6], the initial magnetic permeability μin and the maximum magnetic permeability μmax of structural
steels, which have undergone different heat treatments, were measured in the ranges 9 ≤ μin ≤ 150 and 20 ≤ μmax ≤ 1000.
Consequently, one can determine μmax of structural steels with acceptable accuracy from the results of a measurement of μb
on samples with N ≤ 0.001 (for example, using plates with dimensions of 200 × 20 × 0.5 mm). When using the results of
measurements of μb made on samples having a high demagnetization factor, the error in determining μ will be unacceptable.
Thus, according to the results shown in Fig. 2b in [8], for a sample with dimensions of 200 × 20 × 1 mm made of 08Yu steel,
annealed at a temperature Tann = 500°C, we obtain μmax = 475. For δμ = ± 6% and δN = ± 3% a calculation using (5) gives
σ = ±46%. A further increase in Tann with an increase in μmax of the sample leads to values of σ which exceed reasonable
limits (μ of the material may be practically anything).
The initial magnetic permeability μin ≤ 150 of structural steels can be determined with acceptable accuracy from the
results of measurements on the samples considered (up to N ≤ 0.005). As an example of this, we show in Fig. 3 the results of
a determination of μin of 08Yu and 45 steels as a function of the annealing temperature Tann. The calculation was carried out
using (3) and (1) together with experimental data obtained on plates of 08Yu steel with dimensions of 200 × 20 × 1 mm in [8]

1063
μb, μin

Tann, °C
a b

Fig 3. Graphs of the initial magnetic permeability μin (the continuous curves) of 08Yu steel (a) and 45 steel (b), calculated
from (3), against the annealing temperature Tann; the dashed curves represent the possible ranges of variation of the calculated
values, the crosses represent the results of measurements on plates of different dimensions, and the points denote possible
ranges of variation of μin of the samples for a relative error of the measurement of ±6%.

and of 45 steel with dimensions of 200 × 20 × 1.2 mm in [13] (the parameter μin in [7–12] is denoted by μo). The range of
possible variation of the calculated values of μin of 08Yu and 45 steels was determined using (6) for δμ = ±6% and δN = ±3%.
Note that, according to [8, 13], when Tann varies in the range of 20–900°C the coercive force Hc of these steels falls mono-
tonically from 760 to 120 A/m and from 910 to 190 A/m, respectively (in Fig. 1b in [13] there is a misprint on the Hc scale:
the correct value is 480 A/m and not 380 A/m).
The result obtained is surprising: whereas the values of μin of 08Yu and 45 steels with Hc = 700–900 A/m (at low
values of Tann) correspond as a whole to μin = 60–95 of materials having the same coercive force [6], for Hc = 120–200 A/m
the calculated values of μin of these steels exceed by a factor of 3–4 the value of μin = 150 of technically pure iron, annealed
at Tann = 950°C, having Hc = 80 A/m [1]. Moreover, the results of a direct measurement of μin on samples of 08Yu and
45 steels with a demagnetization factor N = 0.00172–0.002 annealed at Tann = 900°C considerably exceed (by a factor of
1.5–2) the value μin = 150.
There are, of course, materials with large values of μin. Silicon iron, for example, with a 3–4% silicon content can
have μin = 500 and even (texturized) 1500 (see Table 12.5 in [1]). But here Hc = 40 and 8 A/m, respectively [1], i.e., a factor
of 3–12 less than in the steels investigated after annealing at Tann = 900°C.
There are three possible explanations for the result obtained in [7–14]:
1) as a result of high-temperature annealing, 08Yu and 45 steels (and also 3KP, 08KP, 10KP, 15SP, 20SP, 35, 50, and
65G steels, for which the results of a measurement of μin are presented in [7–14]) acquire values of μin that are anomalously
high for their coercive force;
2) the measurements of μin were not made on thermally demagnetized samples with a subsequent increase in the
magnetic field as in [3, 4], but after demagnetization of the samples by an alternating magnetic field (“magnetic preparation”);
3) there was a systematic error in the measurement of μin. It is possible that μin was not measured as described in
[4, 5] by extrapolation of the initial magnetization curve with respect to the induction with the magnetic field strength grad-
ually reduced to zero, but by measuring μb at a fixed (although small) magnetizing field strength. Hence, for a relatively high
Hc of the material the result of a measurement of μ is close to μin. As the value of Hc of the material decreases the result of
a measurement of μ acquires an intermediate value between μin and μmax.

1064
 Conclusion. Our investigations enable us to draw the following conclusions.
1. Reference data on the results of a measurement of μin and μmax of structural steels are not always reliable. In some
cases, in reference books, monographs and scientific papers, results are presented of measurements of these parameters on
samples of different dimensions in an open magnetic circuit, which do not correspond to the values of μin and μmax of the
materials. Underestimated values of μmax and a relatively small range of these when the technological factors change are a
feature of these results (see, for example, Fig. 12.1 in [2]).
2. The maximum magnetic permeability μmax of structural ferromagnetic materials (with μmax ≤ 1000) can be cal-
culated using formulas (3), from the result of a measurement in an open magnetic circuit on samples with a demagnetization
factor N ≤ 0.001. Here the magnetic measuring apparatus should have a relative error in measuring the magnetic parameters
of not greater than ±3%. The relative error of the calculation can be found using (6), taking (5) into account. The results of a
measurement of μmax on samples with a large value of N cannot be used to determine μmax of a material due to the extremely
large error of the calculation.
3. The initial magnetic permeability μin of structural ferromagnetic materials (when μin ≤ 150) can be calculated
using formulas (3) from the result of a measurement in an open magnetic circuit on samples with a demagnetization factor
N ≤ 0.005. The relative error of the calculation can be obtained from (6).
4. The results of a measurement in an open magnetic circuit [7–14] of the initial magnetic permeability of samples
of low-carbon and medium-carbon steels after high-temperature annealing exceed the values of μin of materials with close
magnetic properties by a factor of 1.5–2, which does not exclude errors in the measurement procedure.

REFERENCES

1. D. Jiles, Introduction to Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Chapman and Hall, London (1989).
2. V. V. Klyuev (ed.), Nondestructive Testing: A Reference Book in 8 Volumes [in Russian], Vol. 6, Mashinostroenie,
Moscow (2006).
3. GOST 19693-74, Magnetic Materials. Terms and Definitions.
4. GOST 8.377-80, GSI. Magnetic Materials. Measurement Procedure when Determining Static Magnetic Characteristics.
5. E. T. Chernyshev et al., Magnetic Measurements [in Russian], Izd. Standartov, Moscow (1969).
6. G. V. Bida and A. P. Nichipuruk, Magnetic Properties of Heat-Treated Steels [in Russian], UrO Ross. Akad. Nauk,
Ekaterinburg (2005).
7. M. A. Melgui, A. A. Vostrikov, and A. A. Zbrovskii, “Monitoring of the mechanical properties of rolled sheet steel
by a magnetic method,” Defektoskopiya, No. 3, 10–15 (1971).
8. M. A. Melgui et al., “Investigation of the possibility of magnetic quality control of the annealing of cold-rolled 08Yu
and 10KP sheet steels,” in: Nondestructive Testing Methods and Instruments and Their Application in Industry:
Proc. 1st Belorussian Conf., Minsk (1973), pp. 91–97.
9. M. A. Melgui et al., “Nondestructive testing of the mechanical properties of steels for deep stamping,” Stal, No. 2,
167–170 (1977).
10. M. A. Melgui et al., “Magnetic nondestructive testing of low-carbon cold-rolled sheet and strip,” Zavod. Lab., No. 5,
581–583 (1977).
11. M. A. Melgui and E. A. Shidlovskaya, “Nondestructive quality control of the annealing of thin-strip 65G steel,” in:
New Physical Methods and Instruments for Monitoring Industrial Products: Proc. 2nd Belorussian Conf., Minsk
(1978), pp. 30–35.
12. E. A. Shidlovskaya, “Monitoring the annealing of cold-deformed sheet steels,” in: The Physical Properties of Metals
and Problems of Nondestructive Testing [in Russian], Nauka i Tekhnika, Minsk (1978), pp. 89–93.
13. M. A. Melgui, E. A. Shidlovskaya, and T. V. Olenovich, “Monitoring of the mechanical properties of medium-car-
bon sheet steels in the supplied state,” Defektoskopiya, No. 5, 60–64 (1980).
14. M. A. Melgui, Magnetic Monitoring of the Mechanical Properties of Steels [in Russian], Nauka i Tekhnika, Minsk (1980).

1065
15. S. G. Sandomirsky, “The choice of the value of the magnetizing field in the magnetostructural analysis of ferro-
magnetic articles,” Defektoskopiya, No. 7, 42–48 (1981).
16. S. G. Sandomirsky, “Analysis of the possibility of measuring the remanence of a ferromagnetic material in an open
magnetic circuit,” Metrologiya, No. 3, 33–41 (2010).
17. S. G. Sandomirsky, “Recommendations on the use in technical calculations of formulas for the central demagneti-
zation factor of solid and hollow cylinders, rods and plates of material with high magnetic permeability (a review),”
Tekh. Diagn. Nerazrush. Kontrol, No. 3, 38–46 (2008).
18. V. K. Arkadiev, Electromagnetic Processes in Metals [in Russian], ONTI, Moscow–Leningrad (1934).
19. M. A. Melgui and A. A. Osipov, “Equipment for measuring dynamic and quasi-dynamic magnetic characteristics,”
Defektoskopiya, No. 3, 34–39 (1991).
20. V. F. Matyuk and A. A. Osipov, “The UIMKh equipment for measuring the magnetic characteristics of soft magnetic
materials and articles,” Defektoskopiya, No. 3, 12–25 (2007).
21. GOST 8.401-80, GSI. Classes of Accuracy of Measuring Instruments.
22. S. G. Sandomirsky, “The sensitivity of the remanence of ferromagnetic articles to the magnetic characteristics of
their materials and geometrical parameters,” Defektoskopiya, No. 12, 53–59 (1990).

1066