Relative permeabilities in steel datasheets

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steradiant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relative Steel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the interpretation of BH-curves and relative permeabilities from electrical steel datasheets, specifically focusing on the isovac 330-35A datasheet. Participants are examining the discrepancies between calculated and reported values of relative permeability and the definitions of variables used in the datasheet.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculated relative permeability using the formula mu_r = B/(mu_0*H) and noted a discrepancy between their maximum value of 7.07e3 and the datasheet's value of 8.23e3.
  • Another participant expressed confusion regarding the use of "J" in the datasheet, suggesting it represents an AC magnetic flux density rather than the typical "B" for magnetic flux density.
  • A participant pointed out that the datasheet seems to use "J" for the magnetization curve, which is unconventional, and speculated about the implications of using AC values instead of DC values.
  • There is a suggestion that the datasheet may have used a different value for mu_0, which could affect the permeability calculations, though the exact adjustment for AC calculations remains unclear.
  • One participant questioned the relationship between "J" and the vector current density or magnetization vector, noting that the unit of "J" is given as millitesla, which typically indicates magnetic flux density.
  • Another participant confirmed the assumption that "J" in the datasheet refers to magnetic polarization and provided a calculation for relative permeability based on this interpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of "J" in the datasheet and the calculations of relative permeability. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation or the reasons for the discrepancies in values.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in the definitions used in the datasheet and the assumptions made in their calculations, particularly regarding the use of AC versus DC values and the specific constants applied in the calculations.

Steradiant
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
How to interpret the data in an electric steel datasheet?
Hello,
I have a question regarding BH-curves and relative permeabilities from electrical steel datasheets. When e.g. looking at the datasheet from the isovac 330-35A there is the data for the J/H-curve. I calculated B=mu_0*H + J and mu_r=B/(mu_0*H). When evaluating this calculation pointwise with the the data from the table, I don't get the same mu_r/J curve as shown in the datasheet. My maximum mu_r is 7.07e3 instead of 8.23e3. What am I not considering?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
(2nd edit ... hmmm ... on second thoughts I agree that doesn't look quite right in the data sheet)
 
Last edited:
I took a preliminary look at this specification sheet. The first thing that confuses me is that it seems to use the "J/H magnetization curve" instead of the "B/H magnetization curve". People usually use B to represent the magnetic flux density, but in this specification use J to represent.
 
alan123hk said:
I took a preliminary look at this specification sheet. The first thing that confuses me is that it seems to use the "J/H magnetization curve" instead of the "B/H magnetization curve". People usually use B to represent the magnetic flux density, but in this specification use J to represent.
It's giving AC values. B is usually a letter for DC flux. I assume they are using J to denote it is an AC flux.

I originally looked at that thinking they'd plotted initial (DC) permeability on the first graph (and labelled it wrong) and assumed the OP was talking about that (which is ALSO a difference with the graphs). But the data itself in that table doesn't calculate through.

If they have in mind that there is some sort of adjustment for AC then I am not sure what that is. They seem to have used a value for uo of about 1.1e-6 instead of 1.25e-6 to arrive at their permeability values. I don't know maybe there is some sort of adjustment for this sort of AC calculation but I have never heard of it.

At this point I'd be contacting the vendors for a clarification.
 
Steradiant said:
I calculated B=mu_0*H + J and mu_r=B/(mu_0*H)
I can understand that ## ~u_r = \frac B {u_0H} ##, but I don't quite understand why ##~~B=u_0H+J##.

Do you think ##J## is related to the vector current density and magnetization vector ##M## of ferromagnetic materials ? But according to the specification, the unit of ##J## is mt (millitesla), so it should represent the magnetic flux density.

Steradiant said:
My maximum mu_r is 7.07e3 instead of 8.23e3. What am I not considering?
Could you please elaborate on how you calculated this result ?
 
In table on page 2 they list the magnetic polarization in Tesla. Therefore I assumed, that J in the Table is the magnetic polarization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetization#Magnetic_polarization). As far as I know it's pretty common to use the magnetic polarization instead of the magnetic flux density in the material characterization.

mu_r = 1+J/(mu_0*H) = 1+0.8/(mu_0*90) = 7074.55
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K