IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 35, NO.

1, JANUARY 1999 505

Energy Stored in Permanent Magnets

Howard C. Lovatt and Peter A. Watterson

Abstract— There has been some confusion over the energy

stored in a permanent magnet, with many texts and some finite
element packages giving incorrect values. We demonstrate the
correct formulation, under both normal operation and partial
demagnetization, and discuss the physical meaning of stored
energy in a permanent magnet.
Index Terms— Demagnetization, permanent magnets, stored
energy, work done.

NOMENCLATURE
Fig. 1. Recommended definition of stored energy density in a permanent
Permeability of free space (4 10 H/m). magnet.
Relative differential permeability of magnet (as-
sumed constant). the following volume integral [1]–[4]:
Magnetic flux density (T).
Minimum experienced by the magnet (T).
Remanent of the magnet (T). (1)
Depth into page (m).
Force (N). where is a dummy integration variable.
Magnetic field strength (A/m). When force is calculated from the derivative of stored
Minimum experienced by the magnet (A/m). energy with respect to a virtual displacement, the choice
Magnet length (m). of the lower limit of integration for the energy density is
Thickness of air gap (m). mathematically arbitrary. However, for a “rigid” permanent
Thickness of magnet (m). magnet (such as a modern rare earth magnet), acting along
Volume (m . its linear demagnetization (recoil) characteristic with a slope
Work done (stored energy) (J). , we believe that it is best to choose the lower limit as
Air gap length (m). the remanence , as depicted in Fig. 1, i.e.,

(2)
I. INTRODUCTION

U NDERSTANDING the energy stored in magnetic circuits

is fundamental to understanding their operation. It is
therefore surprising that although permanent magnets are a
With this definition, the energy is zero for a magnet with
a keeper, i.e., with and positive and symmetric in
common feature of many magnetic circuits, there is still on either side of (Note when the integration is
some confusion about the energy stored in the magnet. The downward along the demagnetization line, both and are
Appendix lists some incorrect definitions which have appeared negative.) It will be demonstrated below that this definition of
in the literature. The authors are also aware of two finite stored energy is particularly convenient under the condition of
element packages that incorrectly calculate the stored energy, partial demagnetization.
see the Appendix. There are also good physical reasons for this choice of zero
By consideration of the electrical energy input into an ideal energy:
solenoid, the standard definition for the magnetic energy of a 1) if the keeper is removed then the energy will increase
material in which and are parallel can be found and it is as work is done on the system;
2) the choice is consistent with the normal definition for
energy in an unmagnetized material [e.g., air,
Manuscript received June 16, 1998; revised September 9, 1998. The work see (1)];
of P. A. Watterson was supported by the NSW Government Department of
Energy. 3) it seems natural to always consider stored energy as
H. C. Lovatt is with CSIRO Telecommunications and Industrial Physics, positive (e.g., a spring stores positive energy if it is either
Lindfield, NSW, Australia 2070 (e-mail: howard.lovatt@tip.csiro.au). compressed or stretched); and
P. A. Watterson is with The University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of
Engineering, Broadway, NSW, Australia 2007 (e-mail: watt@ee.uts.edu.au). 4) we show in part 3 that it is permissible to consider only
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9464(99)00506-3. energy that can be easily recovered, i.e., to exclude the
0018–9464/99$10.00  1999 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV PUBLICA DE NAVARRA. Downloaded on February 02,2022 at 15:09:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
506
Fig. 2. System with a permanent magnet and ideal iron.
Fig. 3. Demagnetization characteristics of an ideal magnet.
energy associated with the atoms, crystal structure, and
energy lost as heat during magnetization.
The next section confirms that this definition (2) gives the
correct force for a simple idealized permanent magnet circuit
with no electrical energy input (e.g., see [4]), namely
(3)
and Section III provides a formula for energy which also holds
for a partially demagnetized magnet.
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE ENERGY-FORCE RELATIONSHIP
This section examines the simple idealized magnetic cir-
cuit depicted in Fig. 2, containing a magnet with a linear
demagnetization curve, Fig. 3, and confirms that if (2) is used
for the energy in the magnet, then the force on the keeper
satisfies (3). Fringing and leakage are neglected and the iron
is assumed ideal, i.e., infinite permeability and nonsaturating.
Using subscript for magnet and for air gap then the magnet
is assumed to satisfy
(4)
Ampere’s law and flux conservation imply
(5)
(6)
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV PUBLICA DE NAVARRA. Downloaded on February 02,2022 at 15:09:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 35, NO. 1, JANUARY 1999
(Note (6) is only true in practice for a zero length air gap.)
Solving the linear system (4)–(6) gives
(7)
The ideal iron magnetic energy is zero and therefore the
total magnetic energy is the sum of contributions from the
gaps, as given by (1), and the magnet, as given by (2)
(8)
(9)
Substitution of (7) leads directly to confirmation that the
force calculated by (3) for the energies given by (8)–(9) equals
the product of the total gap area multiplied by the generally
accepted magnetic force per unit area (e.g., see [4]), i.e.,
(10)
III. DEMAGNETIZATION AND REAL MAGNETS
In real magnets the demagnetization (recoil) curve is not a
straight line, however, for modern rare earth magnets it is a
very close approximation and hence a constant is adopted
to simplify the analysis. When too large a demagnetizing field
or too high a temperature is applied to a magnet it will at
least partially demagnetize. The subsequent operation of the
magnet is approximately along a recoil line with the same
as the original line, i.e., along
(11)
where is the minimum experienced by the magnet and
is the corresponding (see Fig. 3).
Therefore for any point on the new recoil line, the energy
stored per unit volume in the magnet is
(12)
Expressing the energy in terms of avoids the need to
account for the variation of and is a particularly elegant
expression thanks to the limits chosen for (2), namely to
The energy between the dotted and solid lines in Fig. 3
is the energy responsible for the demagnetization and is lost
primarily as heat (commonly referred to as hysteresis loss).
For any linear material and including, for example, when a
component of is applied in the direction perpendicular to the
magnetization direction in a magnet, the energy is of the form
(12) (inserting the appropriate approximately constant
IV. CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated that the stored magnetic energy per
unit volume in an ideal magnet with a linear recoil line and
LOVATT AND WATTERSON: ENERGY STORED IN PERMANENT MAGNETS
Fig. 4. Incorrect definition of stored energy given in the literature.
magnetic field along the magnetization direction is best
stated as
In general, it is better to calculate this energy from
instead of because calculations based on are valid
under partial demagnetization conditions. The component of
perpendicular to the magnetization direction in the magnet
(or in any linear material) contributes an energy of identical
form, but a different may apply.
APPENDIX
INCORRECT DEFINITIONS OF ENERGY
The following lists some ambiguous or incorrect definitions
of energy that have appeared in the literature (including
another IEEE journal).
Deodhar et al. [5] probably correctly calculated the co-
energy , which can be used equally as well as the
energy to calculate forces. However, their Fig. 3 incorrectly
suggests that the energy (or coenergy, it is not clear which)
is the area of a triangle between the operating point, the
remanence point, and the origin (see our Fig. 4). Also see
the discussions of Campbell [6] and Parker [7] below.
Campbell [6] states on p. 18 of his book that “To deliver its
stored energy, the magnet must move into the second quadrant
” Therefore, the magnet supposedly has decreasing energy
as its goes negative, or the energy decreases as work is done
on the system! Further, in his Fig. 4.13, is labeled
“magnet kinetic energy” and the area is labeled “total
potential energy.” In a similar manner to Deodhar et al. [5]
and Parker [7], the change in the energy as the magnet moves
down its load line is shown in Campbell’s Fig. 4.14 to be as
in our Fig. 4. This is contrary to Campbell’s Fig. 4.13.
Parker [7] does start off using the correct formula for energy,
, in his equation (2.13). However, in a discussion on
converting mechanical energy into stored magnetic energy the
same area as shown in our Fig. 4 is used (his equation 2.27).
This is similar to Deodhar et al. [5] and Campbell [6].
McCaig and Clegg [8] claim that our equation (3), i.e.,
conservation of energy, is not valid. They say, “It seems
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIV PUBLICA DE NAVARRA. Downloaded on February 02,2022 at 15:09:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
507
certain, however, that the work done is insufficient to pro-
duce the energies both inside and outside the magnet.” This
assertion seems to be based on the fact that force per unit area
is not universally applicable. Their solution is
to propose that the energy stored in the magnet is negative,
presumable to account for their perceived difference in the
work done and total stored energy.
A noticeable characteristic of many of these texts ([5]–[7])
is that they use the area shown in our Fig. 4 as the stored
energy in a magnet. If this definition is used as either energy
or coenergy it gives the wrong force when added to the energy
or coenergy in the rest of the circuit and differentiated.
The authors are aware of two finite element packages that
incorrectly calculate the stored energy in a permanent magnet:
MOTORCAD and ANSYS. MOTORCAD shifts the nonlinear
second quadrant magnet characteristics to the first quadrant by
modeling a current loop that accounts for the coercivity and
then gives the stored energy as , where and are the
first quadrant quantities. ANSYS 5.2 integrates from 0 to
and then uses the modulus of the result (presumably to make it
positive). Following correspondence with the authors, versions
5.3 and 5.4 of ANSYS correctly calculate the energy when the
characteristic is linear in the second quadrant. However,
the hysteresis loss is included when the characteristic is
nonlinear, see our Fig. 3 for the correct definition under partial
demagnetization. Since mistakes are common in the literature
it would be surprising if more finite element packages were
not in error, MOTORCAD and ANSYS are the only packages
the authors are familiar with.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank their colleagues at the
University of Technology, Syndey, and at CSIRO Telecom-
munications and Industrial Physics for proof reading the text
and providing many stimulating discussions on this topic.
REFERENCES
[1] B. I. Bleany and B. Bleany, Electricity and Magnetism. Oxford, U.K.:
Clarendon Press, 1957, p. 161.
[2] G. W. Carter, The Electromagnetic Field in its Engineering Aspects, 2nd
ed. London, U.K.: Longman, 1967, p. 195.
[3] A. E. Fitzgerald, C. Kingsley, Jr., and S. D. Umans, Electric Machinery,
5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992, p. 105.
[4] G. R. Slemon and A. Straughen, Electric Machines. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1980.
[5] R. P. Deodhar, D. A. Staton, T. M. Jahns, and T. J. E. Miller, “Prediction
of cogging torque using the flux-MMF diagram technique,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Applicat., vol. 32, pp. 569–576, May/June 1996.
[6] P. Campbell, Permanent Magnet Materials and Their Application.
Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994, p. 18; pp. 98–99.
[7] R. J. Parker, Advances in Permanent Magnetism. New York: Wiley,
1990.
[8] M. McCaig and A. G. Clegg, Permanent Magnets, 2nd ed. London,
U.K.: Pentech Press, 1987, p. 228.