pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23707 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY· math-ph· math.MP· physics.app-ph

Defining the Magnetization State of LCF Magnets: From Material Properties to Motor-Level Metrics

Taha El Hajji , Aleksandr Nadkin , Stefan Skoog , Lars Sj\"oberg , Kristoffer Nilsson , Anthony C. Morcos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SYmath-phmath.MPphysics.app-ph
keywords magnetization stateLCF magnetsvariable flux motorsfinite element analysisPMSMflux linkageback-EMFmagnetic properties
0
0 comments X

The pith

The paper proposes four definitions of magnetization state for LCF magnets to connect material properties with motor-level measurements in variable flux motors.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper seeks to create a unified method for defining the magnetization state of low coercive force magnets used in variable flux memory motors. It defines two states from intrinsic properties like magnetic flux density B and polarization J, and two from motor observables such as flux linkage and back-EMF. A reader would care because these motors adjust magnetization for higher efficiency, but without clear definitions it is hard to compare or control across scales. The work uses finite element simulations on a hybrid magnet PMSM to show how the definitions relate over the current operating plane. This framework helps choose the right metric for material study, control design, or monitoring.

Core claim

The authors establish that the magnetization state can be defined consistently using B and J at the material level or fundamental flux linkage and back-EMF components at the motor level, with finite element analysis revealing their relationships across the id-iq plane in an interior permanent magnet synchronous motor with hybrid LCF and HCF magnets.

What carries the argument

Four magnetization state definitions—material-based on B and J, motor-based on flux linkage and back-EMF—evaluated via finite element analysis on a hybrid-magnet interior PMSM.

If this is right

  • The four definitions allow consistent comparison of magnetization state from material properties to system-level observables.
  • Metric choice depends on the objective: material analysis uses B or J, while control and monitoring use flux linkage or back-EMF.
  • Finite-element mapping shows how material-level behavior translates to measurable motor quantities across the operating plane.
  • Variable-flux machines gain clearer guidance for achieving extended high-efficiency operation through controllable magnetization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These definitions could support real-time estimation of magnet state in motor controllers without direct access to the magnets.
  • Extending the definitions to include temperature effects would likely improve practical accuracy in operating motors.
  • Hybrid LCF-HCF designs could be optimized by weighting the motor-level metrics to balance the two magnet types.

Load-bearing premise

The finite element model with its defined circuit setup faithfully represents the physical relationship between material magnetization and motor-level quantities.

What would settle it

Laboratory measurements of actual flux linkage and back-EMF on a physical variable-flux motor under controlled changes in magnetization state, compared directly against the four proposed definitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23707 by Aleksandr Nadkin, Anthony C. Morcos, Kristoffer Nilsson, Lars Sj\"oberg, Stefan Skoog, Taha El Hajji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A typical demagnetization BH curve in 2nd Quadrant for a magnet with key properties view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Inversely, during magnetization, we apply a positive view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Recoil lines and minor/major loops To alter the state, the demagnetizing field must be sufficiently strong to push the operating point past the knee and onto the non-linear portion of the curve. When the field is removed from this new point, the operating point no longer returns to Br. Instead, it follows a recoil line with a slope of approximately µrec to a new remanent flux density, B′ r , which is lower… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BH curve of magnets 9 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-sectional view of the studied motor view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phases current illustrating the five intervals view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetization state MS(B) according to Definition 1 for both magnets view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetization state MS(J) according to Definition 2 for both magnets view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magnetization state according to (a) Definition 3: MS( view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Variable flux memory motors, which employ Low Coercive Force (LCF) magnets, achieve extended high-efficiency operation through controllable magnetization states. To address the need for a unified approach to defining and comparing the magnetization state (MS) across material and motor levels, this paper proposes four MS definitions: two based on intrinsic material properties-magnetic flux density B and magnetic polarization J-and two based on motor-level quantities-fundamental flux linkage and back-EMF components. These definitions are evaluated across the id, iq operating plane using finite element analysis on an interior PMSM with a hybrid magnet configuration (LCF and HCF: High Coercive Force) and a defined circuit setup. The results clarify the relationship between material-level behavior and measurable motor quantities. The proposed framework provides guidance for selecting appropriate MS metrics depending on the application objective, whether for material analysis, control implementation, or condition monitoring in variable flux machines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes four magnetization state (MS) definitions for Low Coercive Force (LCF) magnets in variable flux memory motors: two intrinsic material-level definitions based on magnetic flux density B and magnetic polarization J, and two motor-level definitions based on fundamental flux linkage and back-EMF components. These are evaluated across the id-iq operating plane via finite-element analysis (FEA) on an interior PMSM with a hybrid LCF/HCF magnet configuration and a defined circuit setup. The results are used to clarify relationships between material behavior and measurable motor quantities and to provide guidance on metric selection for material analysis, control, or condition monitoring.

Significance. If the FEA-based relationships hold under real conditions, the framework offers a useful bridge between material properties and motor observables for variable-flux machines, potentially aiding metric selection in design and control. The hybrid-magnet IPMSM case study and explicit circuit definition are concrete strengths that allow direct comparison of the four definitions.

major comments (2)
  1. [FEA evaluation and results sections] The evaluation of the four MS definitions (material B/J vs. motor flux-linkage/back-EMF) rests entirely on FEA without mesh-convergence data, error bars on the reported quantities, or sensitivity studies on material recoil curves and temperature. This is load-bearing for the claim that the definitions clarify relationships and guide metric selection, because discrepancies in real LCF hysteresis or cross-coupling could alter which motor-level metric best tracks material MS.
  2. [Evaluation methodology] No experimental measurements on a physical prototype are provided to confirm that the chosen FEA model and circuit setup accurately map material-level magnetization to motor-level observables. The central claim therefore depends on unverified simulation assumptions about partial demagnetization and load-dependent behavior.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and definitions] Notation for the four MS definitions should be introduced with explicit equations early in the manuscript to avoid ambiguity when comparing B, J, flux linkage, and back-EMF across the id-iq plane.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions for the id-iq plane plots should state the exact operating conditions (speed, temperature, magnet grade) used in the FEA.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing honest responses and indicating planned revisions to the manuscript where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [FEA evaluation and results sections] The evaluation of the four MS definitions (material B/J vs. motor flux-linkage/back-EMF) rests entirely on FEA without mesh-convergence data, error bars on the reported quantities, or sensitivity studies on material recoil curves and temperature. This is load-bearing for the claim that the definitions clarify relationships and guide metric selection, because discrepancies in real LCF hysteresis or cross-coupling could alter which motor-level metric best tracks material MS.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit mesh-convergence data, error bars, and sensitivity studies on recoil curves limits the robustness assessment of the FEA results. The study employs a consistent FEA setup to compare the relative behaviors of the four MS definitions across the id-iq plane, which mitigates some absolute error concerns for the comparative claims. In the revised manuscript, we will add a mesh-convergence study demonstrating stabilization of flux linkage and back-EMF values, include quantitative error estimates from successive refinements, and provide a sensitivity analysis on key recoil curve parameters (e.g., variations in knee-point position). Temperature effects on LCF behavior will be noted as a limitation and recommended for future investigation, as the current scope focuses on nominal-temperature definitions and relationships. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Evaluation methodology] No experimental measurements on a physical prototype are provided to confirm that the chosen FEA model and circuit setup accurately map material-level magnetization to motor-level observables. The central claim therefore depends on unverified simulation assumptions about partial demagnetization and load-dependent behavior.

    Authors: The manuscript is explicitly a simulation-based investigation that uses FEA with a defined hybrid-magnet IPMSM model and circuit setup to establish links between material-level (B/J) and motor-level (flux linkage/back-EMF) MS metrics. Standard LCF magnet models with partial demagnetization are employed, as described in the methods section. We acknowledge that direct experimental confirmation on a prototype would strengthen confidence in the mapping under real conditions. However, providing such measurements is outside the scope of this work, which aims to deliver a numerical framework and guidance on metric selection. The explicit circuit definition supports reproducibility of the simulations. In revision, we will add a statement clarifying the simulation assumptions and recommending experimental validation for practical deployment. revision: no

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of experimental measurements on a physical prototype to verify FEA assumptions on partial demagnetization and load-dependent behavior

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: definitions are explicitly proposed from standard EM quantities and evaluated via independent FEA

full rationale

The paper explicitly proposes four magnetization state definitions (B/J at material level, flux linkage/back-EMF at motor level) as a unified framework and then evaluates their behavior across the id-iq plane using finite-element analysis on a hybrid-magnet IPMSM model with a defined circuit. No load-bearing step reduces a claimed prediction or result to its own inputs by construction, nor does any derivation rely on self-citation chains, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled from prior work. The central claims remain definitional and comparative, self-contained against the stated FEA setup and operating-plane sweeps; absence of experimental validation affects external validity but does not create circularity within the presented derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all quantities (B, J, flux linkage, back-EMF) are standard electromagnetic terms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5491 in / 1208 out tokens · 46320 ms · 2026-05-08T05:28:17.760437+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    El Hajji, S

    T. El Hajji, S. Hlioui, F. Louf, M. Gabsi, G. Mermaz-Rollet, and M. Belhadi. Optimal de- sign of high-speed electric machines for electric vehicles: A case study of 100 kw v-shaped interior PMSM.Machines, 11(1):57, 2023. doi: 10.3390/machines11010057

    work page doi:10.3390/machines11010057 2023

  2. [2]

    Clean earth magnets.https://www.nironmagnetics.com/, 2025

    Niron Magnetics. Clean earth magnets.https://www.nironmagnetics.com/, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Jayarajan, N

    R. Jayarajan, N. Fernando, and I. U. Nutkani. A review on variable flux machine technology: Topologies, control strategies and magnetic materials.IEEE Access, 7:70141–70156, 2019. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2918953

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2019.2918953 2019

  4. [4]

    H. Hua, Z. Q. Zhu, A. Pride, R. P. Deodhar, and T. Sasaki. Comparative study on variable flux memory machines with parallel or series hybrid magnets.IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 55(2):1408–1419, March 2019. doi: 10.1109/TIA.2018.2879858

    work page doi:10.1109/tia.2018.2879858 2019

  5. [5]

    Basnet.Modeling, Analysis and Control of a V ariable Flux Machine

    B. Basnet.Modeling, Analysis and Control of a V ariable Flux Machine. PhD thesis, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia University, Montréal, QC, Canada, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    R. L. Owen, Z. Q. Zhu, J. Wang, D. A. Stone, and I. Urquhart. Review of variable-flux permanent magnet machines. InProc. 2011 Int. Conf. Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), pages 1–6, Beijing, China, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Z. Zhou, H. Hua, and Z. Q. Zhu. Flux-adjustable permanent magnet machines in traction applications.World Electric V ehicle Journal, 13(4):60, 2022. doi: 10.3390/wevj13040060

    work page doi:10.3390/wevj13040060 2022

  8. [8]

    G. S. L’Abbate. Design of IPM machines for traction using rare-earth-free iron-nitride mag- nets. Master’s thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Arribas, G

    B. Arribas, G. Almandoz, A. Egea, P. Madina, and I. Iturbe. Adoption of multiphase and variable flux motors in automotive applications.Applied Sciences, 14(23):10932, 2024. doi: 10.3390/app142310932

    work page doi:10.3390/app142310932 2024

  10. [10]

    Hsieh, D

    M.-F. Hsieh, D. K. Ngo, et al. Flux intensifying feature of permanent magnet assisted syn- chronous reluctance motor with high torque density.Electronics, 11(3):397, 2022. doi: 10.3390/electronics11030397. 16

    work page doi:10.3390/electronics11030397 2022

  11. [11]

    Fukushige, N

    T. Fukushige, N. Limsuwan, T. Kato, K. Akatsu, and R. D. Lorenz. Efficiency contours and loss minimization over a driving cycle of a variable flux-intensifying machine.IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 51(4):2986–2995, Jul./Aug. 2015

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    V . V . Do, T.-A. Huynh, and M.-F. Hsieh. Design and analysis of flux-intensifying spoke-type IPM motor for improving output torque and flux-weakening performance. InProc. 2022 25th Int. Conf. Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), pages 1–6, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    X. Liu, G. Guo, L. Du, and W. Zhu. Multi-objective optimal design and analysis of variable leakage flux IPM motors for improve flux-weakening ability.Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, 113:147–160, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Huynh, Y

    T.-A. Huynh, Y . Le, Z. Lee, P. W. Huang, and M.-F. Hsieh. Influence of flux barriers and permanent magnet arrangements on performance of high-speed flux-intensifying IPM motor. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 2023. In press

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    The demagnetization phenomenon in pm machines: Principles, modeling, and design considerations.IEEE Access, 11:47750–47773, 2023

    Farshid Mahmouditabar, Abolfazl Vahedi, and Fabrizio Marignetti. The demagnetization phenomenon in pm machines: Principles, modeling, and design considerations.IEEE Access, 11:47750–47773, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3274701

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3274701 2023

  16. [16]

    L. Ding, Y . Cheng, et al. Design and optimization of an asymmetric rotor IPM motor with high demagnetization prevention capability and robust torque performance.Energies, 16(9): 3635, 2023. doi: 10.3390/en16093635

    work page doi:10.3390/en16093635 2023

  17. [17]

    Jang and K

    M. Jang and K. Akatsu. Magnet operating point estimation using flux linkage observer and magnetic and thermal equivalent circuit in PMSM.IEEJ Journal of Industry Applications, 2021. 17

    work page 2021