1

Hysteresis in Ferromagnetic Materials

Bruno Murta, bm442@cam.ac.uk, Churchill College, Cambridge, UK
(Practical partner Songran Shi, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK)

Experiment performed Friday 8th November 2013

ABSTRACT
The properties of ferromagnetic materials were investigated using mild steel
and transformer iron samples. Such samples were introduced in the core of a
secondary solenoid. A 6 V power supply generated an alternating current
across a primary coil, inside which was the secondary coil. The resulting
magnetic field generated an electromotive force across the terminals of the
secondary coil. The relative permeabilities (r) of mild steel and transformer
iron were determined to be 104.2 2.4 and 221 29 in the low-field region,
and 11.7 1.2 and 14.3 1.0 in the high-field region, respectively. The energy
lost per unit volume per cycle of hysteresis was of (38 3) kJ m-3 cycle-1 for
mild steel and (10.9 1.4) kJ m-3 cycle-1 for transformer iron. To study the
temperature dependence of ferromagnetic properties, the secondary coil and a
CuNi alloy core were immersed in water, which was heated and cooled to vary
the temperature of the sample. CuNi was found to be paramagnetic at 48C and
the relative permeability was 1.28 0.06. At 5C CuNi exhibited ferromagnetic
behaviour. In the low-field region r = 2840 50, whereas in the high-field
region r = 197 3. The energy lost per unit volume per cycle at this
temperature was (490 50) J m-3 cycle-1. The Curie point of CuNi alloy was
confirmed to be between 5C and 48C.
I. INTRODUCTION
Ferromagnetic materials play a large and growing
role in todays technology. Many common devices,
such as transformer cores and memory devices,
explore such magnetic properties. These
technological advances are only possible if the
underlying physical phenomena are understood.
The objectives of this experiment are therefore:
to study the properties of ferromagnetic
materials, namely:
o how the induced magnetic field flux
density B and the relative permeability
r vary with the applied field H;
o the energy loss per unit volume per
cycle of hysteresis;
to investigate the temperature dependence of
ferromagnetic properties.
An electrical circuit with a secondary solenoid
inside a primary solenoid was set up. A 6 V power
supply was used to generate an alternating current
across the primary coil. The resulting magnetic field
induced an electromotive force across the terminals
of the secondary coil. To study the properties of

ferromagnetic materials, mild steel and transformer

iron samples were introduced in the core of the
secondary coil. To investigate the temperature
dependence, the secondary coil and the CuNi alloy
core were immersed in water, which was heated and
cooled to vary the temperature of the sample.
A more detailed explanation of the theory is
disclosed in the next section. Section III provides
with a careful description of the method and
includes the results of the experiment. In section IV
such results are discussed and improvements to the
experiment are mentioned. The overall conclusions
are presented in section V.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Magnetic moments are produced by spinning
electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus. Some atoms
and ions behave as magnetic dipoles.
The magnetisation of a material is a function of
how strong and how well aligned the separate
moments are. The relative orientation may be
influenced by the neighbouring moments and by an
external field. Depending upon the material
considered, these individual dipole moments may be

perfectly aligned, randomly oriented or somewhere

in between.
In some materials, such as air, there are some
unpaired electrons in the molecular orbitals.
Because such electrons are isolated and noninteracting, the magnetic moments are randomly
aligned and the net moment is zero. If, however, an
external field H is applied, there is partial alignment
along the direction of H, which leads to a low
magnetization. This phenomenon is known as
paramagnetism.
However, other materials have many unpaired
electrons in partially filled shells, and therefore
there is a strong interaction between the individual
moments. In fact, cooperative alignment tends to be
favoured to minimise the energy of the system (a
quantum mechanical effect known as exchange
interaction [1]). Moments align with the applied
field and such orientation may become permanent,
i.e. moments may remain aligned even without an
external field. The phenomenon associated with this
non-linear behaviour is known as ferromagnetism.
At high temperatures thermal agitation competes
with exchange interaction. As a result, the magnetic
properties of ferromagnetic materials are
temperature-dependent: there is a temperature above
which the material is no longer ferromagnetic but
paramagnetic. Such temperature is known as the
Curie point [2].
A current I passing through a long solenoid
(primary coil) of nP turns and length LP generates a
magnetic field B = 0 I nP / LP inside it. Such current
I can be measured by passing it through a resistance
R* and measuring the voltage VX across it:

Dividing by RC, where R and C are associated

with the (ideal) integrator circuit, gives a quantity
VY with dimensions of voltage:
!! !

!
!"

!"# !!" ! !

!! !!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!"

When the material that fills the secondary coil is

paramagnetic, VY is expected to be proportional to
VX. Conversely, for ferromagnetic materials, this
linear behaviour is not observed. For the latter case,
the expression for B has to be replaced by B = r 0
I nP / LP, where r is a dimensionless parameter
whose value is not constant for the particular
material, as it depends on the externally applied
magnetic field H. Hence, equation (1) becomes:
!"#$#%&'#$#()#*+#&',#-#(.:#./#0+,#############(;,#################
III. METHOD AND RESULTS
A. Set Up
The electrical circuit used in all parts of the
experiment is shown in the figure below:

!"#$#%&'#$#()#*+#&',#-#(./#0+,#############(1,#################
Provided that I is varying, if there is a second
solenoid (secondary coil) of nS turns and crosssectional area AS inside the primary coil, according
to Faradays Induction Law an electromotive force
(EMF) will be induced across the terminals of the
secondary coil:
234#$#05#65#7)-78######################(9,#

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of electric circuit. The

capacitance C was chosen so as to approximate the
integrator to an ideal integrator. PicoScope Oscilloscope
Software was used instead of a conventional analog
oscilloscope. The 2.2 ! resistor R* limits the current
across the primary coil and hence prevents overheating.

Integrating the EMF with respect to time yields:

The current that passes through the primary
!"# !!" ! ! !! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! solenoid was measured by passing it through a

resistance R* and measuring the voltage across it

(VX). This resistor also limits the current and
prevents the coil from overheating.
A suitable integrator was designed in order to
measure the output voltage (VY) by integrating the
EMF generated at the secondary coil. Given that the
integrator was assumed to be approximately ideal in
section II, the capacitor impedance was set to be
much smaller than the resistance of the shunt
resistor R1 at a frequency of 50 Hz (the frequency of
the current across the primary coil). Using a 1 M!
shunt resistor, the capacitance was required to be
much greater than 3.2 nF. Hence, a 1 F capacitor
was used. A TL071 amplifier was used to make the
integrator.
The gain, A, of the ideal integrator [3] is given by:

Quantity
nS
nP
LP
R*
R
R1
C
0 (definition)

Measurement
500
400
(4.2 0.2) x 10-2 m
2.22 0.01 !
(9.87 0.01) x 103 !
(9.79 0.01) x 105 !
(1.01 0.01) x 10-6 F
4" x 10-7 H / m

Table 2: Summary of measurements. The resistances

and capacitances were measured using a bridge.

VY / V

B. Calibration
The experiment was calibrated by measuring the
permeability of air, which is constant and tabulated
!
[4]. Combining equations (2) and (3) from section II
!
!!!
! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!" !!!!!!!!!!!! gives:
!! !! !!! !!! !!!
!
!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The performance of the integrator was tested in
!!
!! !!! !!!! !
two ways:
1) Since an integrator with the same properties
The experiment was performed with air occupying
(i.e. same shunt resistor and capacitor) had been the whole volume inside the secondary coil. The
used in a previous experiment, the gain at 50 Hz value of r was determined from the slope of the VY
was measured and compared with the value from versus VX graph (figure 2).
the previous experiment.
VY versus VX (Air)
The gain was determined to be A = 0.34 0.02.
0.04
Hence, the gain previously determined, A = 0.32,
data 1
is within the error range.
linear
y = 0.00724*x 0.0201
2) A square wave was set as the input signal.
0.02
The observed output signal in the oscilloscope
was a triangular wave, as expected.
0
The dimensions of the core samples and the
secondary coil were measured with callipers. The
0.02
properties of the electrical components used in the
circuit (e.g. resistance, capacitance) were measured
0.04
using a bridge.
Sample
Secondary Coil
Mild Steel
Transformer Iron
CuNi Alloy

Cross-Sectional Area / m2
(2.290 0.004) x 10-5
(8.35 0.20) x 10-6
(2.91 0.08) x 10-6
(2.0 0.3) x 10-5

Table 1: Summary of cross-sectional areas of

core samples and secondary coil. The diameters
of the samples were measured with a calliper.

0.06

0.08

0
VX / V

Figure 2: VY versus VX when air fills the whole volume

inside the secondary coil. Using the slope from the linear
regression and equation (7) the calibrated permeability of
air was determined to be 1.16 0.06

The experimental value of the relative

permeability of air was determined to be r = 1.16
0.06. Hence, the tabulated value, r = 1.00, is not
within the error range.
The main cause for the difference between the
measurement and the lecture value is the
paramagnetic background, likely due to the material
around which the secondary coil is wrapped. Such
material is probably some steel or possibly
aluminium and its presence in the experimental
apparatus leads to this linear behaviour typical of
paramagnets.
This paramagnetic background was accounted for
in the following parts of the experiment.
C. The Experiment

In order to plot the hysteresis loop, the x-axis was

calibrated in units of B/(r 0) (i.e. A/m) and the yaxis in units of B (i.e. T). Using equations (4) and
(5), this implies multiplying VX by a factor of nP /
(LP R*) and VY by RC / (nS AS), respectively.
To account for the correction due to calibration,
the background effect was subtracted from the B vs.
B/(r 0) plot in the high field range (for |H| > 2 x
104 A/m). Such correction was not required in the
low field range, because the background effect is
negligible: the relative permeability of mild steel is
still much greater than the corrected permeability of
air.
The energy loss per unit volume of material per
cycle round the loop, Udissipated, is given by the area
enclosed by the hysteresis loop, since:

!
a) Mild Steel
!!"##"$%&'! ! !
!" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
A mild steel core was introduced in the secondary
!! !!
solenoid. Although the sample did not fill the inner
This area was determined using approximations
volume of the solenoid, the effective cross-sectional with triangles and parallelograms. The energy lost
area AS was approximated to that of the mild steel per unit volume per cycle of hysteresis was
sample, since its relative permeability (~102) is estimated to be (38 3) kJ m-3 cycle-1.
much greater than that of air (~1). As such, the
B versus H (Mild Steel)
2
effect due to air is negligible when compared with
that due to mild steel.
3

1.5

B versus H (Mild Steel)

1

1.5

0.5

B/T

B/T

0.5

0.5

1.5
2
3

1.5
2
3

0
1
B /(0 r) / A/m

3
4

x 10

Figure 3: Hysteresis loop of mild steel. At high-field range

(|H| > 2 x 104 A/m) the paramagnetic background
determined in the calibration was subtracted from the
original experimental data.

0.5

4
5
2

0
1
B /(0 r) / A/m

3
4

x 10

Figure 4: Estimation of area of hysteresis loop for mild

steel. The area of the loop was estimated by summing the
areas of the five simple polygons drawn in the figure. The
energy lost per unit volume per cycle was estimated to be
(38 3) kJ m-3 cycle-1.

In order to estimate the range of relative

permeability r for mild steel, two cases were
considered:

B versus H (Mild Steel)

2
1.5

B versus H (Transformer Iron)

2
1.5
1
0.5
B/T

1) Low Field Range: the maximum value of r is

observed since this corresponds to the steepest
sections of the hysteresis loop (the rate of
change of B is greatest);
2) High Field Range: the minimum value of r is
observed, since the rate of change of B is
lowest.
The upper and lower values of r were determined
directly from the slope of the hysteresis loop in the
appropriate ranges, since the slope is r 0. The two
trendlines used to estimate the upper value of r are
shown in figure 5 in red, whereas the two lines used
to estimate the lower value are in green. The final
estimate of each value is the average of the two
respective estimates.
In the low-field region, r = 104.2 2.4. In the
high-field region, r = 11.7 1.2.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
3

0
1
B /(0 r) / A/m

3
4

x 10

B versus H (Transformer Iron)

1.5

0.5
0

0.5

0.5

B/T

B/T

Figure 6: Hysteresis loop of iron transformer. At the high

field range (|H| > 1.2 x 104 A/m) the paramagnetic
background determined in the calibration was subtracted
from the original experimental data.

1.5
2
3

0.5

0
1
B /(0 r) / A/m

3
4

x 10

Figure 5: Estimation of range of relative permeability r of

mild steel. The red lines were used to estimate the upper
limit of r in the low-field range, whereas the lower limit in
the high-field range was estimated using the green lines.
The final estimate of each value is the average of the values
from each line. In the low-field region, r = 104.2 2.4. In
the high-field region, r = 11.7 1.2.

1.5
2
3

0
1
B /(0 r) / A/m

3
4

x 10

Figure 7: Estimation of area of hysteresis loop for

transformer iron. The area of the loop was estimated by
summing the areas of the three simple polygons drawn in
the figure. The energy lost per unit volume per cycle was
estimated to be (10.9 1.4) kJ m-3 cycle-1.

b) Iron Transformer
A similar method was followed when the
transformer iron sample was used as the core inside
In the low-field region, r = 221 29. For high
the secondary solenoid. The assumptions regarding
per unit
the effective cross-sectional area AS and the fields, r = 14.3 1.0. The energy lost
-3
-1
volume
per
cycle
was
(10.9

1.4)
kJ
m
cycle
.
correction due to calibration are still valid.

B versus H (Transformer Iron)

2

The method described in a) was performed.

However, since Cu/Ni was found to be
paramagnetic at 48C, the cross-sectional area
1
considered was that of the secondary coil and not of
0.5
the Cu/Ni core. In addition, since no hysteresis loop
was observed, the energy loss per cycle was not
0
determined.
The relative permeability, r, for CuNi alloy at
0.5
48C was determined to be 1.28 0.06.
1
Later, ice cubes were added to the water in the
beaker in order to lower the temperature below
1.5
40C. The temperature was again allowed to
stabilise and confirmed to be below 40C.
2
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
The method was repeated exactly as described in
B /(0 r) / A/m
4
x 10
a). The assumptions regarding the effective crossFigure 8: Estimation of range of relative permeability r of
sectional area AS and the correction due to
transformer iron. In the low-field region, r = 221 29. In
calibration are valid, as Cu/Ni was found to be
the high-field region, r = 14.3 1.0.
ferromagnetic at this temperature.
c) Cu/Ni Alloy
B versus H (CuNi Alloy, T = 5C)
In the case of the last sample, a Cu/Ni alloy, a
1.5
change in hysteresis properties occurs around 40C,
1
the Curie point.
The secondary solenoid and the Cu/Ni alloy core
0.5
inside it were immersed in hot water in a beaker
with a thermometer. The water was heated before
0
the coil was immersed, otherwise melting, fire or
shorting could result. The temperature was allowed
0.5
to stabilize and was confirmed to be above 40C.
B/T

B/T

1.5

B versus H (CuNi Alloy, T = 48C)

0.04
y = 1.64e06*x 0.0224

1.5

data 1
linear

0.02

2
3000

B/T

2000

1000
0
1000
B /(0 r) / A/m

2000

3000

Figure 10: Hysteresis loop of iron transformer. At the high

field range (|H| > 800 A/m) the paramagnetic background
determined in the calibration was subtracted from the
original experimental data.

0.02
0.04

In the low-field region, r = (2.84 0.05) x 103. In

the high-field region, r = 197 3. The energy lost
per unit volume per cycle was (490 50) J m-3
cycle-1.

0.06
0.08
3

0
1
B /(0 r) / A/m

3
4

x 10

Figure 9: B versus H for CuNi alloy sample at 48C. Using

the slope from the linear regression and the fact that the
slope equals r 0, the permeability of paramagnetic CuNi
at this temperature was determined to be 1.28 0.06

B versus H (CuNi Alloy, T = 5C)

1.5
1
0.5

B/T

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
3000

2000

1000
0
1000
B /(0 r) / A/m

2000

3000

Figure 11: Estimation of area of hysteresis loop for

ferromagnetic CuNi alloy at 5C. The area of the loop was
estimated by calculating the area of the parallelogram
drawn in the figure. The energy lost per unit volume per
cycle was estimated to be (490 50) J m-3 cycle-1.

B versus H (CuNi Alloy, T = 5C)

1.5
1

B/T

0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
3000

2000

1000
0
1000
B /(0 r) / A/m

2000

3000

Figure 12: Estimation of range of relative permeability r

of ferromagnetic CuNi alloy at 5C. In the low-field region,
r = 2840 50. In the high-field region, r = 197 3.

IV. DISCUSSION
A. Interpretation of Results
The B versus B/(r 0) graph for the mild steel
core exhibits a clear hysteresis loop. Hence, this
experiment confirmed the ferromagnetic behaviour
of this material. This analysis also applies to the
transformer iron.

The relative permeability of mild steel was found

to vary from 104.2 2.4 in the low-field range to
11.7 1.2 in the high-field range. Likewise, for
transformer iron, r was found to be 221 29 (lowfield) and 14.3 1.0 (high-field).
The energy released per unit volume per cycle was
determined to be (38 3) kJ m-3 cycle-1 for mild
steel and (10.9 1.4) kJ m-3 cycle-1 for transformer
iron.
Despite the similar magnetic properties of these
two materials, a relevant difference can be observed
when comparing the two hysteresis loops: the
coercive field of transformer iron is clearly lower
than that of mild steel, which is clearly noticeable in
terms of the width of the hysteresis loop.
As a result, transformer iron allows easy switching
from positive to negative saturation magnetization
(which explains why this material is used in
transformer cores), whereas the higher coercive
field of mild steel makes it a better material to be
used in permanent magnets.
The study of the magnetic properties of the CuNi
sample illustrated the temperature dependence of
ferromagnetism. Indeed, at 48C the B vs. B/(r 0)
graph was a straight line, and therefore the CuNi
alloy is paramagnetic at this temperature. However,
the same sample exhibited ferromagnetic behaviour
at 5C, because a hysteresis loop was observed. This
experiment therefore confirms that the Curie point
of CuNi is between 5C and 48C.
The relative permeability at 48C was found to be
1.28 0.06, which is a typically low value
associated with paramagnetic materials. At 5C r =
(2.84 0.05) x 103 at low field, which is one order
of magnitude greater than the analogous values of
mild steel or transformer iron. Although the
coercive field of CuNi at 5C is low (~100 Am-1),
the remanent magnetization is probably not high
enough for this material to be used in transformer
cores.
B. Improvements to the Experiment
The apparatus used to measure the temperature of
the CuNi sample could be improved. In fact, the
thermometer did not measure the actual temperature
of the sample, but rather the temperature of the
water. Alternatively, using a thermometer attached
to the CuNi alloy sample would be recommended.
In addition, the CuNi sample was immersed in
water even at a temperature above 40C, since this

was the only way to heat the sample. Given that the
relative permeability of CuNi at this temperature is
low, water may have contributed with a nonnegligible systematic error that could not be
evaluated during the practical session. As a result,
developing a different method for heating the
sample should be considered.
It is possible to verify that both the B vs. H graphs
for the transformer iron and the CuNi alloy are not
centred at the origin, even though the PicoScope
was operating in the AC mode. This systematic
error might have to be further investigated, but a
possible solution would be adding a high-pass filter
to the circuit.
The exact composition of the samples used in this
experiment should have been determined in order to
allow the comparison of these experimental values
with those of future experiments. This could not be
accomplished with the apparatus available in the
laboratory.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The magnetic properties of mild steel and
transformer iron were investigated. Both materials
were confirmed to be ferromagnetic. The relative
permeabilities (r) of mild steel and transformer iron
were determined to be 104.2 2.4 and 221 29 in
the low-field region, and 11.7 1.2 and 14.3 1.0 in
the high-field region, respectively. The energy lost
per unit volume per cycle of hysteresis was of (38
3) kJ m-3 cycle-1 for mild steel and (10.9 1.4) kJ
m-3 cycle-1 for transformer iron.
CuNi alloy was used to study the effect of
temperature in ferromagnetic properties. CuNi was
found to be paramagnetic at 48C and the relative
permeability was 1.28 0.06. At 5C CuNi
exhibited ferromagnetic behaviour. In the low-field
region r = 2840 50, whereas in the high-field
region r = 197 3. The energy lost per unit volume
per cycle at this temperature was (490 50) J m-3
cycle-1. The Curie temperature of CuNi alloy was
therefore confirmed to be between 5C and 48C.

VI. REFERENCES
[1] Z. Barber, Materials Science Part IA Course B
Handout: Materials for Devices, pp. 36-38,
Department of Materials Science and
Metallurgy, University of Cambridge, 2012.
[2] D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics,
p 281, New Jersey, 1999
[3] Systems and Measurements IB Physics A &
Physics B Practicals Michaelmas 2013, pp.
23-24 Cavendish Laboratory, University of
Cambridge, 2013.
[4] Richard A. Clarke, Clarke, R. Magnetic
Properties of Materials, surrey.ac.uk.