THE FULL GUIDE FOR MAGNET SELECTION

& VERIFICATION IN THE MILLING, POWDER

& FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES WITH
REGARD TO PULL TESTING & GAUSS
TESTING
WHITEPAPER [FULL VERSION]
PUBLICATION AMR161001 Rev. 4
Published October 2016, Updated October 2020.

1
THE FULL GUIDE FOR MAGNET SELECTION & VERIFICATION IN THE
MILLING, POWDER & FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES WITH
REGARD TO PULL TESTING & GAUSS TESTING.

Introduction
The following review written by William J Baker, Senior Consultant of Active Magnetics Research,
is provided without prejudice for the benefit of quality objectives of the global food industry in
2016.
Fundamental to this review is the fact that neither highest pull test nor highest gauss test results
alone prove that magnets will be best performers in magnet installations. This will be made
abundantly evident for the magnet selectors benefit in the pages to follow.

Background
Baker has over 50 years’ experience in magnet application and design with a focus primarily in
the food and milling industry, particularly since the advent of more powerful Rare Earth magnets
commencing in the 1980s and progressing to the present day.

Review
Neodymium magnets have enabled redesign of grate and bar magnets to suit modern food-safe
processing where the emphasis for magnets has shifted from prevention of damage and
downtime caused by tramp iron to food safety and product purity.
It will be agreed that in the 2016 food industry, we must efficiently extract <1/8” fragments of
weakly magnetic SS chips, scrapings, and metal dust. We must also prevent magnetic stones
(missed by destoners) from being ground by roll mills to become black specs of unwanted
contamination in final outgoing products or passed to the marketplace within the grain size of a
finished product.
Obviously, peak performance magnets are essential for day-to-day continuing protection. As a
bonus, effective magnets will reduce product wastage and save time searching for causes of
metal detector rejections.
Not only must we prevent machinery damage and production holdup, but also prevent brand
name damage and costly product recall from various magnetic and metal contaminations
disallowed by existing and upcoming regulations. We must extract what metal detectors and/or x -
ray protections may miss. Peak performing magnets will reduce unnecessary initiations of these
other essential food safety devices and allow them to perform at their best sensitivity.

2
Someone might well ask…
• How do I really know if my magnets are peak perform ers?
• How do I know that original peak performing magnets have not lost effective strength since new?

It is the objective of this paper to clarify these critical issues.

These are the vital questions demanding accurate answers to satisfy those responsible for risk
reduction, maintenance of company quality image, and discriminating engineers responsible for
the selection and maintenance of effective process equipment.

QUESTION 1. HOW DO I REALLY KNOW IF MY MAGNETS ARE PEAK PERFORMERS?

If the magnet in question is a final magnet, I should first see if it conforms to HACCP International
Food Safety Standard 0909MAGSEP 1-2010…at least in terms of gauss and pole centers.

What is ‘magnet performance’ in food, milling, and related industries operating under a
HACCP or similar risk and hazard control system?
“The ability of, typically, a grate magnet to extract the highest percentage of weakly magnetic and
typical magnetic contamination found in food streams prior to outgoing product”.
I will further show presently that besides strength (pull test or gauss test) and pole centers
(distance between high strength pole bands) there are other factors to consider which are of
great importance in selecting long term optimum performing magnet installations where food
safety and outgoing product purity is critical.

What are the measures of this performance in order of importance?

• Most 10,000 gauss collection poles (22mm centers or less) in a given bar length
• Longest linear length of collection poles per given bar length
• Location to avoid downstream re-contamination (nearest to out-loading or packing)
• Sizing to magnetically cover the product stream without blocking
• Best magnet strength retention measures as confirmed by certified magnet verifications to detect
decline from original strength
• The magnet shape will efficiently retain magnetics extracted
• Easiest magnet to regularly clean off collected fragments to maintain separating efficiency of a
clean magnet.

Further recommendations for securing overall magneti c separation efficiency

• Consider installing additional 10,000 gauss magnets of final magnet standard at earliest intake
positions to confirm ingredients are free of magnetics
• Best practice will also likely include magnets to remove the bulk of magnetics such as stainless
steel and ferrous tramp, rust, and magnetic stone to avoid machinery damage and grinding of
larger magnetics to fine weakly magnetic particles which are harder to separate.
• It should be remembered that intermediate or contributing magnets h elp to avoid overloading of
final magnets, particularly where the packing magnet is of small dimensions.

3
Exposing a magnetic separation myth
After reviewing some recent magnet manufacturers’ tests and claims, it seems that pull test
results are often presented in a way to encourage the conclusion that magnet bars showing the
highest pull test average are therefore the highest performers. This is not the case in sensitive
food magnet applications, as I will proceed to show.
Whilst blind testing strategy and good testing methodology may be used, the objectives and
conclusions of tests need to be clarified.
Higher pull test readings are easily engineered, but performance does not necessarily equate
with highest pull test readings! Please refer Diagram A below.

Diagram A

Explanation of Diagram A
By widening the inner high permeability mild steel pole plate between two magnets in repulsion,
we can easily elevate the pull test, but this reduces the gauss flux density. The catch is that pole
centers are then widened in order to achieve specified gauss. This results in the higher pull test
tube being less efficient as depicted in more detail in Diagram B below.
The inner high permeability steel pole plate is wider in Magnet #1, therefore more lines of force
pass through the ¼” diameter mild steel ball and result in the higher pull test reading.
This magnet will hold tighter to large and medium tramp iron larger than ¼” ball size. This magnet
circuit does not conform to the MAGSEP Standard for final magnets but could be selected for
machinery damage prevention applications.
In order to maintain specified flux density (gauss) readings, it will be noticed in Magnet #1 that
pole centers of highest pull test magnets are necessarily wider apart! This is to utilize the extra
energy of a longer inner magnet - very significant when it comes to selecting the best performer
for risk reduction and product free of <1/8” fragments and fine weakly magnetic contamination,
which is now often our main objective in sensitive food-related industries. Please refer to Diagram
B on the following page.

4
Diagram B

Explanation of Diagram B
Magnet #2 has similar gauss as Magnet #1. However, it is a more efficient performer on typical
magnetics as there are more high strength pole bands and less dead areas around the centreline
between pole bands.
Assuming pull test and gauss strength is identical, a magnet bar with 25mm pole centers will be
much less efficient on fine weakly magnetic contaminations and 30mm pole centers less efficient
again.
The International Standard for Final Magnets 0909MAGSEP 1 -2010 Section 6.3 on Page 7
recognizes 10,000 gauss at 22mm pole spacing as the maximum permitted pole centers for final
magnets in a food processing operation operating under a HACCP risk control program. This is
important so that fine and weakly magnetic particles can attra ct and hold to the high strength pole
bands during their quick passage around the magnet tube or bar. If pole centers are wider many
such fragments are deflected but escape before being retained, as Diagram B shows.

5
Informed Conclusion 1
The magnet with the highest pull test will hold ¼” and larger ferrous pieces to the magnet bar
with marginally more force and may be selected for the highest performance where the magnet is
not a final magnet or where the prime importance is to extract small to medium tra mp iron for
prevention of equipment damage.

Informed Conclusion 2
‘Highest gauss at shortest distance between poles’ should be selected as the best performer
where the prime duty is to extract <1/8” fragments, fine, and weakly magnetic contaminations.
The intended duty and achievement expected of the magnet MUST be considered when selecting
or designing the best performing magnet for the job, and not pull test or gauss meter test results
alone.
The engineer selecting magnetic separators should ask the ques tion, “What are the center
distances between the high strength pole bands along the bar?”
Caution: 10% more in pull test value with longer pole centers may mean 20-30% less separating
efficiency – specify a maximum of 22mm pole centers for final and important contributing
magnets.

Informed Conclusion 3
Gauss tests instead of, or as well as, pull tests are related to the potential performance of magnet
installations. The gauss test is more quantitative, gauss / tesla being an SI unit.
Pull test in ounces can vary to show elevated readings if the width of pole plates is varied.
In conjunction with ‘Informed Conclusion 2’ gauss results in the tests confirm that the calibrated
gaussmeter is the more overall reliable indicator of potential magnetic separation pe rformance.

Informed Conclusion 4
Since both are now reliable comparative instruments, digital calibrated pull testers or digital
calibrated gaussmeters are equally suitable for detecting and trending magnet strength loss over
time on magnets originally determined to have gauss readings an d pole spacing’s conforming to
the MAGSEP Standard.

6
QUESTION 2. HOW DO I KNOW THAT ORIGINAL PEAK PERFORMING MAGNETS HAVE NOT
LOST EFFECTIVE STRENGTH SINCE NEW?
It can be demonstrated that since introduction of the new calibrated digital pull testers such as
available from Eriez, AMR, and other manufacturers, calibrated digital instruments (either pull
testers or gaussmeters) are both an accurate means of measuring and trending DECLINE in
magnetic strength from new magnet ratings comparing the same magnet/s over time.
It is recommended in the 0909MAGSEP 1-2010 Standard that final magnets be tested at least
once yearly using a recently calibrated gaussmeter. The results of these tests can trend magnet
strength decline and help to pinpoint early demagnetization due to unforeseen factors such as;
• Temperature above the magnet operating temperature rating
• Thermal shock
• Corrosion
• Excessive vibration
• Poor or cheap Rare Earth Magnets of low coercivity rating
• Rough handling and impact by persons doing the magnet cleaning

Summary, Specifications, and Efficiency Tips

• Pull strength tests and gauss strength tests should not be used as the sole basis to select between
magnets of different manufacturers.
• In all circumstances, it is important to consider what the prime or essential duty of the magnet is
and to select the best performing field pattern for tramp iron protection or final magnets product
purity, as the case may be. Please refer to Diagram B on Page 5.
• Have particular regard for suitability of magnet design to not lose fragments defined as <1/8”
weakly magnetic and fine contamination and which indeed are the biggest magnetic and metal
contamination issues in the food industry.
• Calibrated digital instruments, pull testers or gaussmeters are now equally effective, reliable, and
accurate for comparing magnet strength loss of an individual or set of installed magnets over time.
• When selecting for magnetic separation efficiency , consider pole centers as well as strength. 7/8”
(22mm) maximum is safe for tubes and bars up to 2” diameter.
• High performing final magnets and important contributing magnets will use neodymium iron boron
magnets of high coercivity and resistance to thermal shocks, such as RE80HT or equivalent with
excess service temperature rating of preferably 302°F/150°C.
• High-performance final magnets will also be sized for correct coverage of product stream and
located at/or immediately upstream of packing or out-loading.
• Lower grade or wider pole center grate magnets of lower cost may be successfully used as
magnetic intake scalping magnets or at large area bag opening or blend stations upstream of final
magnets. Regular magnet cleaning is essential.
• If considering self-cleaning grate type magnets, ensure the bars are solid and without sleeves
which, being necessarily thin to achieve surface strength, are very susceptible to impact damage
during instream cleaning cycles. Also, ensure there is an effective mechanism for equalizing bar
abrasion and preventing build-up and blockage. Mag-Ram magnetic separators and rotary grate
magnets provide these benefits inherently.

7
 • Drum magnets and plate magnets have long served well for removing heavy and damaging size
tramp iron at intakes and at individual hammer mills, pin mills, roll mills, etc. to prevent damage
and proliferation of ground up magnetic material. Remember quick cleaning sleeve type grate
magnets at intake areas are easily damaged and usually become jammed with sleeves no longer
being used.
• High performance, small, low-cost indicator magnets are becoming popular for placing on top of
intake or bag opening grates, ingredient tubs, and intake blow lines. These need to be the same
specification as final magnets to indicate magnetic stone, work hardened stainless steel particles,
etc.
• Indicator magnets can be employed to detect and control all supply streams. By this means, the
source of problem materials containing more than acceptable levels of magnetic contamination is
undeniably and quickly identified, so corrective action can be taken without the usual argument
that “we have magnets and it must have come from your place”. Various designs of indicator
magnets may be obtained from Magnattack Global and others.

Addendum
The below test results are the basis of supporting the facts and opinions expressed in this paper.

Method
1. Magnets in repulsion were placed in a 1” diameter tube and compressed with circuit variations
comprising, 2mm and 4mm wide mild steel pole plates between them.
2. Calibrated gauss and pull test meters were used to record eight readings on the external of the
tube on the center line of each pole plate with magnet lengths of 20mm and 30mm.
3. Readings were thereby recorded at 22mm, 24mm, 32mm, and 34mm pole centers. The readings
were averaged as shown in the results table.

Photo 1. All instruments were currently calibrated (certificate s

available).

8
 Photo 2. Shows how magnet tubes were set up for testing
with 20mm and 30mm length inner magnets.

Photo 3. Shows how the pole junction with 2mm

and 4mm inner pole plates were tested with all
three instruments.

Eight readings were taken with each instrument

and averaged (results on the next page).

Observations
• The Eriez pull tester read slightly higher than the AMR instrument but well within normal 2% or 3%
instrument variation tolerance.
• Gaussmeter readings were consistent with usual field test readings on these magnet pole center
variations.
• Same grade magnets were used to avoid variation from the cause of different grades used by
different manufacturers of tube and bar magnets.
• Same thickness tube and stainless steel were used on each test to prevent variations from other
causes.

9
Results

Pole Centre Pole Plate Magnet Length Average Gauss Average Eriez Average AMR
Width Pull Test Pull Test

0.866” / 22mm 0.0787″ / 2mm 0.787” / 20mm 10,694 gauss 90.46 oz 89.6 oz

0.945” / 24mm 0.1575” / 4mm 0.787” / 20mm 9,634 gauss 99.18 oz 99.0 oz

1.26” / 32mm 0.0787″ / 2mm 1.181” / 30mm 11,472 gauss 93.53 oz 92.6 oz

1.34” / 34mm 0.1575” / 4mm 1.181” / 30mm 9,987 gauss 98.92 oz 99.0 oz

Explanation
• 2mm wide pole plates gave the highest gauss and shortest pole centers, but lowest pull test value.
• Wider pole plates gave the highest pull test value, longer pole centers, but lower gauss value.
• Longer magnet elements with 2mm wide pole plates, substantial ly increased gauss, slightly
increased pull test value, but greatly increased pole centers.
• Longer magnet elements with 4mm wide pole plates greatly reduced the gauss, maintained the
higher pull test value but further increased the pole centers.

The figures for gauss and pull test confirm that pull in ounces is not an SI value, meaning there is
not an equivalent ratio between gauss flux density and ounce pull over a variety of magnets.
Martin Stone of HACCP International explains this is the reason pull te st is not allowed in the
Standard as the basis for certified magnet verifications.
We have already depicted in Diagram B above that because more lines of flux pass through a ¼”
pull test ball when wider pole plates are used within the magnet tube, this mak es the pull value
higher along with marginal more hold on tramp iron 3mm and upward in size.
However, the diagram also shows that high gauss and short pole centers are more important
when the duty is to extract and hold weakly magnetic fragments less than 3mm in size. Especially
so when you remember that the middle of each magnet in any tube magnet circuit is nil gauss
and nil pull. Contaminate particles must move to the high gauss pole bands as the product moves
past the magnet bar.
Since magnetic gauss and pull is always weak at a distance from the magnet bar, all magnets in
sensitive food streams should also aim for product contact. The argument that higher pull on the
surface and higher pull at distance measured with a ¼’ mild steel ball does not prove relevant.
Separation of fine and weakly magnetic fragments requires specified flux density in gauss and
distance between poles as the essential performance factors.
Where product flow permits, staggered magnet bars, splitter bars, or angle deflectors may be
used to further raise magnetic separation efficiency.

10
CONCLUSION
Food Safety Standard 0909MAGSEP 1-2010 for final magnets in a food-related process correctly
specifies final magnets should be a minimum of 10,000 gauss at 22 mm pole centers.
The most efficient magnet grate tube or bar for separating fine and weakly magnetic
contamination is not the magnet showing the highest pull test value. The most efficient magnet
will have the highest gauss at the shortest distance between pole bands centers. The MAGSEP
Standard currently excludes pull test instruments. However, HACCP International have confirmed
that magnet verifications using calibrated pull test instruments may be acceptable provided the
verification includes calibrated gauss values as per the Standard.
AMR Magnet Verification Reports can include both gauss and pull test values. AMR Magnet
Verification Reports are certified by HACCP International and are available for clients in
Australia, New Zealand, and North America.

For magnet verifications conforming to HACCP International Food Safety Standard

0909MAGSEP 1-2010, look for the HACCP Certification Logo.

Other copyright titles available to AMR / Representatives and Food/Milling Industry Partners
(conditions may apply):
• Types and sources of magnetic contamination
• Instructions for pull testing
• Instructions for gauss testing
• Types and sources of magnetic contamination
• Metal detectors in focus
• Causes of rare earth magnet strength loss

Order form for MAGSEP voluntary standard for final magnets in a food industry operating under a
HACCP risk reduction program - this standard is available by order form from AMR or direct from
HACCP International.

Contact
Magnet Testing & Validations Magnattack Global USA
AMR Consulting Commissioned Testing Agents for AMR in
North America
Int’l Phone: +61 2 4272 5756
Phone: +1 630 994 3310
Email: info@amrconsulting.co
Web: www.magnattackglobal.com/magnet-
Web: www.amrconsulting.co
validations

Consulting Reference: HACCP International

North Sydney, Australia | Web: www.haccp-international.com

11