Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

A semi-smooth Newton method for magnetic field problems with hysteresis

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a semismooth Newton method with an explicit generalized Jacobian solves discretized magnetic field problems with energy-based vector hysteresis, converging globally r-linearly, mesh-independently, and locally…

desk verdict A rigorous semismooth-Newton analysis for energy-based magnetic hysteresis; the main claims hold for χ>0, but the theorems overreach to χ=0, where the complementarity reformulation and the generalized Jacobian formula are wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01499 v1 pith:R4V3HTS3 submitted 2025-06-02 math.NA cs.NA

Herbert Egger , Felix Engertsberger This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65K1065N3049M1565K1546N10
keywords magneticvectorhysteresissemi-smoothNewtonmethodscalarpotentialformulationfiniteelementdiscretizationmesh-independentconvergencegeneralizedJacobianenergy-basedmodelnonlinearcomplementarityfunction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes that the nonsmooth, energy-based vector hysteresis law $B(H)=\mu_0 H+J(H;J_p)$ is strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous, and therefore gives well-posed scalar-potential magnetostatic problems and finite-element discretizations. Its main result is a convergence theorem: for the lowest-order finite-element discretization with barycentric quadrature, a semismooth Newton method with Armijo line search converges globally r-linearly for any starting guess, with a rate independent of mesh refinement, and superlinearly once the iterates are close. The proof supplies an explicit, computable element of the generalized Jacobian of the hysteresis operator, so the Newton linearization can be formed elementwise without smoothing the nonsmooth term. This matters because load-step simulations of transformers and electrical machines need solvers that do not stall on hysteretic material laws.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the co-energy representation $w^*(H)=\frac{\mu_0}{2}|H|^2-\inf_J\{U(J)-\langle H,J\rangle+\chi|J-J_p|\}$, whose gradient is $B(H)$. Writing the minimizer through the Moreau envelope and proximal operator of the shifted energy yields strong monotonicity and Lipschitz continuity of $B$. The nonsmooth term $\chi|J-J_p|$ is then encoded as a nonlinear complementarity problem with the max-function $\phi_{\mathrm{NCP}}$, and a semismooth implicit-function argument shows $J(H)$ and hence $B(H)$ are semismooth, giving the computable generalized Jacobian (22). The Newton iteration (36)--(38) uses that matrix as the linearization and an Armijo line search on the co-energy functional; the convergence proof combines a contraction lemma for quasi-Newton iterations with a standard superlinearity criterion for semismooth Newton methods.

What would settle it

Run the iteration (36)--(38) on a sequence of uniformly refined triangulations for one large load step and record the number of iterations to a fixed tolerance; if that count grows with the number of degrees of freedom, the mesh-independence claim in Theorem 19 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the material law $B(H)=\mu_0 H+J(H;J_p)$, with $J$ the minimizer of $U(J)-\langle H,J\rangle+\chi|J-J_p|$, is semismooth and has the explicit generalized Jacobian $S_B$ given by (22): $S_B=\mu_0 I$ when $J=J_p$, and $S_B=\mu_0 I+(\nabla^2_{JJ}U(J)+\frac{\chi}{|J-J_p|}(I-\frac{(J-J_p)\otimes(J-J_p)}{|J-J_p|^2}))^{-1}$ when $J\neq J_p$. From that, the authors prove well-posedness of the scalar-potential problem (7)--(8) and its $P1$ finite-element discretization with barycentric quadrature, and prove Theorem 19: the iteration (36)--(38) converges globally r-linearly with constants independent of the mesh, and locally superlinearly. The same semismooth machinery is extended by summation to models with several pinning forces, and by convex duality to the inverse hysteresis operator and the vector-potential formulation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic field can be written as $H=H_s-\nabla\psi$, which the analysis assumes by requiring the domain to be homeomorphic to a ball; if the domain is not, Theorem 19's guarantees do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $P1$ discretization of the scalar potential formulation on a domain homeomorphic to a ball, a single load step can be solved from an arbitrary initial guess without mesh-dependent slowdown in iteration count.
  • The explicit formula for $S_B$ gives a ready-made elementwise linearization, so the method needs no regularization or smoothing of the kink in $\chi|J-J_p|$.
  • Because convergence is locally superlinear, load-cycle simulations that reuse the previous time step as initial guess need only a few Newton iterations per step; the paper's reported averages are about 4.3--4.5 iterations over a 100-step cycle.
  • The monotonicity and Lipschitz bounds imply unique solvability of both the continuous problem and its finite-element discretization, a prerequisite for discretization error analysis.
  • The analysis extends to multiple pinning forces by summing the individual generalized Jacobians, and to the vector-potential formulation through the inverse hysteresis operator $H(B)=\nabla_B w(B)$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves unproved is the same convergence guarantee for non-simply-connected geometries, where the scalar potential representation $H=H_s-\nabla\psi$ fails and the vector-potential formulation would be needed.
  • The generalized Jacobian formula depends only on the current field and stored polarization, so it could plausibly serve as a preconditioner or fixed-point accelerator inside other solver frameworks, a use the paper does not pursue.
  • The analysis treats each load step as a rate-independent increment; coupling the same semismooth Newton step to eddy-current or dynamic terms would require additional terms in the linearization that the paper does not analyze.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper embeds the energy-based vector hysteresis model (3), in which the polarization J is obtained by minimizing U(J)-<H,J>+χ|J-Jp|, into the scalar potential formulation of magnetostatics. The main theoretical results are: (i) the forward hysteresis operator B(H)=μ0H+J(H) is the gradient of a convex co-energy density and is therefore strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous; (ii) the continuous and finite element problems are well-posed; (iii) B is semismooth and an explicit element of its generalized Jacobian is provided; and (iv) a semismooth Newton method with Armijo line search converges globally r-linearly, mesh-independently, and locally superlinearly. Numerical experiments on a T-joint transformer compare the proposed method with local quasi-Newton, local coefficient, and global coefficient solvers.

Significance. If valid, the results provide a rigorous convergence theory for a fast Newton-type solver for a thermodynamically consistent vector hysteresis model, extending earlier smooth magnetostatics analyses. The proof of Theorem 3 via Moreau envelopes is clean, and the complementarity reformulation in Section 4 is a nontrivial and potentially influential contribution. The numerical experiments in Section 7 are detailed and support the practical claims. However, as explained in the major comments, the semismooth analysis is currently only correct for χ>0, while the assumptions and the numerical model explicitly include χ=0. This gap affects Theorem 12 and the local superlinear part of Theorem 19, so a substantial revision is needed.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.3–4.4, Lemma 14, Lemma 17, Theorem 12, Section 6.1] Lemma 14 is false when χ=0 and J(H)≠Jp. For example, take U(J)=σ/2|J|², Jp=0, and H≠0. The unique minimizer of (3) is J=H/σ, but the system (23)–(26) has no solution: (26) forces either λ=0 or |∇U(J)−H|=0, and in both cases (23) yields J=Jp. Hence the equivalence used in Lemmas 15 and 17, the claimed solvability of (29), and the branch S_J=0 in formula (31)/(22) are unjustified for χ=0. At a point with χ=0 and J(H)≠Jp, the correct derivative of J(H) is (∇²U(J))^{-1}, not 0, so Theorem 12 is not valid as stated and the local superlinear convergence in Theorem 19 is not guaranteed. This is not a purely formal edge case: Assumption 2 explicitly allows χ≥0, and the multi-pinning model used in Section 6.1 and Table 1 contains a χ_1=0 cell. Please either restrict the nonsmooth analysis to χ>0 a.e. and treat χ=0 components by the standard smooth implicit-function argument, or extend Lemma 14 and the generalized Jacobian formula to cover χ=0 separately.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'convergence of a the semi-smooth Newton method' contains a duplicated article; please fix it.
  2. [Section 1.1] The sentence 'amounts to a single load step of of such a system' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  3. [Section 2.2, proof of Theorem 3] The text says '∇Hw*(H) is strongly convex and Lipschitz continuous'; it should read '∇Hw*(H) is strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous'.
  4. [Section 4.4, Case 2 of Lemma 17] The displayed Schur complement has the opposite sign from the standard Schur complement of the second diagonal block; the regularity conclusion is unaffected, but the sign should be corrected or the convention explained.
  5. [Section 7.3] In the bullet describing the global coefficient method, 'For the (CGM)' should be 'For the (GCM)'.
  6. [Section 7.2] The assertion that 'all results of this work are also valid for this particular problem' is not proved; please add a remark explaining the extension to the non-homogeneous boundary conditions in Problem 20.
  7. [Theorem 19] The statement says 'for any ψ_h∈V_h, the iterates ψ_h^n ...'; it should specify the initial iterate ψ_h^0, since the same symbol ψ_h is used for the solution of (18).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the hysteresis operator bounds, the generalized Jacobian formula, and the convergence claims are derived in-text from convex analysis and external semi-smooth tools; the sole load-bearing self-citation is an independently stated generic convergence lemma whose hypotheses are verified in the paper.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3 obtains strong monotonicity and Lipschitz continuity of B(H)=∇_H w*(H) in-text through the Moreau-envelope representation of the co-energy (Section 2.2), and well-posedness (Theorems 7 and 10) follows from Zarantonello's Lemma with no fitted input. The semi-smoothness result (Theorem 12 via Lemma 17) is proved by a complementarity reformulation (Lemmas 14-15), an external implicit-function theorem for semi-smooth maps (Lemma 16, cited to Gowda), and explicit Jacobian computations; formula (22) is derived from the generalized Jacobian structure and is not tuned to make the convergence proof work. The only self-citation in the load-bearing path is [15, Thm. 2] in the proof of Theorem 19, used to conclude global r-linear and mesh-independent convergence; this cited result is a general convergence criterion whose hypothesis, the uniform spectral bounds (39), is verified in-text from formula (22), so it qualifies as independent support rather than a circular reduction, and the local superlinear part cites the external results [20, Prop. 2.12] and [37, Thm. 3.3]. The numerical section tunes the GCM baseline parameter (μr=1000), but this affects only the comparison solver, not the paper's central claim. Two caveats belong to correctness rather than circularity and do not change the verdict. First, Assumption 2 and the multi-pinning model in Section 6.1 allow χ=0 (Table 1 contains χ_k=0), yet Lemma 14's claimed unique λ and the J=Jp branch S_J=0 in (22) are only established for χ>0, so Theorem 12 and the superlinear part of Theorem 19 are not justified as stated in that corner; this is a validity gap, not a reduction to inputs. Second, the vector-potential extension in Section 6.2 draws on the conjugate-correspondence and inverse-function theorems and is explicitly only outlined, so it is a scope limitation the paper itself announces. Overall, no step of the claimed derivation is equivalent to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems build on the energy-based hysteresis model (3) taken from [3] and on standard convex and semismooth analysis. No new physical entities or fitted parameters are introduced; the only hand-tuned number is the comparison method's permeability µr=1000 in the numerical section, which does not affect the theoretical results.

free parameters (1)
  • µr for GCM baseline = 1000
    Relative permeability used in the global coefficient method comparison; set by parameter tuning in Section 7.3, not part of the central theoretical claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption U is σ-strongly convex and twice continuously differentiable on its domain (Assumption 2)
    Needed for the Moreau envelope argument in Theorem 3 and for nonsingularity of generalized Jacobians in Lemma 17; typical for energy-based material models.
  • domain assumption The domain Ω is homeomorphic to a ball and Hs∈H(curl;Ω) (Assumption 5)
    Required for the scalar potential representation H=Hs-∇ψ and the equivalence of (1)-(3) with (7)-(8).
  • domain assumption χ, U, Hs are piecewise continuous with respect to the mesh T_h (Assumption 9)
    Ensures the barycentric quadrature (17) and the discrete problem (18) are well-defined.
  • standard math Standard convex analysis and semismooth calculus results (Lemma 1, Lemma 16, Zarantonello's lemma)
    Used for monotonicity, semismooth implicit function theorem, and well-posedness; cited to [24,25,26,32].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A semi-smooth Newton method for magnetic field problems with hysteresis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R4V3HTS3

@misc{pith2026250601499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A semi-smooth Newton method for magnetic field problems with hysteresis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R4V3HTS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01499}
}
read the original abstract

Ferromagnetic materials exhibit anisotropy, saturation, and hysteresis. We here study the incorporation of an incremental vector hysteresis model representing such complex behavior into nonlinear magnetic field problems both, from a theoretical and a numerical point of view. We show that the hysteresis operators, relating magnetic fields and fluxes at every material point, are strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous. This allows to ensure well-posedness of the corresponding magnetic field problems and appropriate finite element discretizations thereof. We further show that the hysteresis operators are semi-smooth, derive a candidate for their generalized Jacobians, and establish global linear and local superlinear convergence of a the semi-smooth Newton method with line search applied to the iterative solution of the discretized nonlinear field problems. The results are proven in detail for a hysteresis model involving a single pinning force and the scalar potential formulation of magnetostatics. The extension to multiple pinning forces and the vector potential formulation is possible and briefly outlined. The theoretical results are further illustrated by numerical tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2D cross-section of the T-joint of a transformer (limb width: 1m) taken from [41, 16]. On the flux walls Γw (red) the boundary condition B · n = 0 is imposed, while on the flux gates Γg (green, yellow, blue) we prescribe H×n = 0. In addition, a time-varying flux φ is imposed at these gates. Corresponding B−H values at different time-steps are extracted at the measurement points M1–M6. 7.1. Model problem. The specifi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hysteresis curves of the x- and y-component of the magnetic field H and magnetic induction B at the measurement points Mi depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Efficient evaluation of forward and inverse energy-based magnetic hysteresis operators

    math.NA 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A regularized Newton method with a Schur complement evaluates the inverse energy-based hysteresis operator in O(K) work, matching the forward operator, with controllable smoothing error.

  2. On the vector potential formulation with an energy-based hysteresis model and its numerical solution

    math.NA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A convex variational formulation for vector potential magnetostatics with energy-based hysteresis is derived, with existence, uniqueness, and global convergence of two finite element solvers.

  3. A semi-smooth Newton method for efficient evaluation of the inverse hysteresis operator

    math.NA 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A globally convergent semismooth Newton method, with mesh-independent linear rates, is developed and tested for inverse energy-based vector hysteresis in vector potential finite element simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G. Meunier. The Finite Element Method for Electromagnetic Modeling . Wiley, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    S. J. Salon. Finite Element Analysis of Electrical Machines . Springer, New York, NY, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Francois-Lavet, F

    V. Francois-Lavet, F. Henrotte, L. Stainier, L. Noels, a nd C. Geuzaine. An energy-based varia- tional model of ferromagnetic hysteresis for finite element computations. J. Comp. Appl. Math. , 246:243–250, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Henrotte, A

    F. Henrotte, A. Nicolet, and K. Hameyer. An energy-based vector hysteresis model for ferro- magnetic materials. COMPEL, 25:71–80, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Bergqvist

    A. Bergqvist. Magnetic vector hysteresis model with dry friction-like pinning. Physica B: Con- densed Matter, 233:342–347, 1997

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Bergqvist, A

    A. Bergqvist, A. Lundgren, and G. Engdahl. Experimental testing of an anisotropic vector hysteresis model. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 33:4152 – 4154, 1997

    1997

  7. [7]

    Kaltenbacher, K

    M. Kaltenbacher, K. Roppert, L. D. Domenig, and H. Egger. Comparison of energy based hysteresis models. In COMPUMAG 2022 , pages 1–4, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Prigozhin, V

    L. Prigozhin, V. Sokolovsky, J. W. Barrett, and S. E. Zirk a. On the energy-based variational model for vector magnetic hysteresis. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 52:1–11, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    I. D. Mayergoyz and G. Friedman. Generalized Preisach mo del of hysteresis. IEEE Trans. Magn., 24:212–217, 1988

    1988

  2. [10]

    D. C. Jiles and D. L. Atherton. Theory of ferromagnetic h ysteresis. J. Magnetism. Magn. Materials, 61:48–60, 1986

    1986

  3. [11]

    Sadowski, N

    N. Sadowski, N. J. Batistela, J. P. A. Bastos, and M. Lajo ie-Mazenc. An inverse Jiles-Atherton model to take into account hysteresis in time-stepping finit e-element calculations. IEEE Trans. Magn., 38:797–800, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    Mielke and T

    A. Mielke and T. Roubicek. Rate-Independent Systems. Springer, New York, NY, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    P. Monk. Finite Element Methods for Maxwell’s Equations . Oxford Academic, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    K. Jacques. Energy-Based Magnetic Hysteresis Models - Theoretical Dev elopment and Finite Element Formulations. PhD thesis, Universit´ e de Li` ege, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Egger, F

    H. Egger, F. Engertsberger, L. Domenig, K. Roppert, and M. Kaltenbacher. On nonlinear magnetic field solvers using local Quasi-Newton updates. Comp. Math. Appl. , 183:20–31, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Jacques, R

    K. Jacques, R. Sabariego, C. Geuzaine, and J. Gyselinck . Inclusion of a direct and inverse energy-consistent hysteresis model in dual magnetostatic finite element formulations. IEEE Trans. Magn., 52:7300304, 2015. 16 A SEMI-SMOOTH NEWTON METHOD FOR MAGNETIC HYSTERESIS

    2015

  9. [17]

    Engertsberger

    F. Engertsberger. The scalar potential approach in non linear magnetostatics. Master’s thesis, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Egger, F

    H. Egger, F. Engertsberger, and B. Radu. Global converg ence of iterative solvers for problems of nonlinear magnetostatics. arXiv:2403.18520, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    L. Qi. Convergence analysis of some algorithms for solv ing nonsmooth equations. Math. Oper. Res., 18:227–244, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    M. Ulbrich. Semismooth Newton Methods for Variational Inequalities an d Constrained Opti- mization Problems in Function Spaces . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    P. G. Gruber and J. Valdman. Solution of one-time-step p roblems in elastoplasticity by a slant Newton method. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 31:1558–1580, 2008/09

    2008

  14. [22]

    Hager and B

    C. Hager and B. I. Wohlmuth. Nonlinear complementarity functions for plasticity problems with frictional contact. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 198:3411–3427, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Sauter and C

    M. Sauter and C. Wieners. On the superlinear convergenc e in computational elasto-plasticity. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 200:3646–3658, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    A. Beck. First-Order Methods in Optimization . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    E. Zeidler. Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications. II/B . Springer, New York, 1990

    1990

  19. [27]

    D. Boffi, F. Brezzi, and M. Fortin. Mixed Finite Element Methods and Applications . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    D. Braess. Finite Elements: Theory, Fast Solvers, and Applications in Solid Mechanics . Cam- bridge University Press, 3 edition, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Egger, F

    H. Egger, F. Engertsberger, and B. Radu. On the converge nce of higher order finite element methods for nonlinear magnetostatics. arXiv:2408.12283, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Qi and J

    L. Qi and J. Sun. A nonsmooth version of Newton’s method. Math. Prog., 58:353–367, 1993

    1993

  23. [31]

    F. H. Clarke. Optimization and nonsmooth analysis . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1990

    1990

  24. [32]

    M. S. Gowda. Inverse and implicit function theorems for H-differentiable and semismooth functions. Optim. Methods Softw. , 19:443–461, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Hinterm¨ uller, K

    M. Hinterm¨ uller, K. Ito, and K. Kunisch. The primal-du al active set strategy as a semismooth Newton method. SIAM J. Optim. , 13:865–888, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. Wright. Numerical Optimization. 2nd ed. Springer, 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    Dlala, A

    E. Dlala, A. Belahcen, and A. Arkkio. A fast fixed-point m ethod for solving magnetic field problems in media of hysteresis. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 44:1214–1217, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    F. I. Hantila, G. Preda, and M. Vasiliu. Polarization me thod for static fields. IEEE Trans. Magn., 36:672–675, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    Facchinei

    F. Facchinei. Minimization of SC 1 functions and the Maratos effect. Oper. Res. Lett. , 17:131– 137, 1995

    1995

  30. [38]

    Egger, F

    H. Egger, F. Engertsberger, L. Domenig, K. Roppert, and M. Kaltenbacher. On forward and inverse magnetic vector hysteresis operators. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 61:7300207, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    J.-S. Pang, D. Sun, and J. Sun. Semismooth homeomorphis ms and strong stability of semidef- inite and Lorentz complementarity problems. Math. Oper. Res. , 28:39–63, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    B. Heise. Analysis of a fully discrete finite element met hod for a nonlinear magnetic field problem. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 31:745–759, 1994

    1994

  33. [41]

    Gyselinck, L

    J. Gyselinck, L. Vandevelde, J. Melkebeek, and P. Dular . Complementary two-dimensional finite element formulations with inclusion of a vectorized J iles-Atherton model. COMPEL, 23:959–967, 12 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    S. Yue, J. Yin, Y. Li, Y. Dou, R. Chen, and J. Liu. A modified fixed-point iteration algorithm for magnetic field computation with hysteresis models. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 61:1–4, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    P. Zhou, D. Lin, C. Lu, M. Rosu, and D. M. Ionel. An adaptiv e fixed-point iteration algorithm for finite-element analysis with magnetic hysteresis mater ials. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 53:1–5, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    J. Saitz. Newton-Raphson method and fixed-point techni que in finite element computation of magnetic field problems in media with hysteresis. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 35:1398–1401, 1999

    1999

  37. [45]

    J. Yuan, M. Clemens, H. De Gersem, and T. Weiland. Soluti on of transient hysteretic magnetic field problems with hybrid Newton-polarization methods. IEEE Trans. Magn. , 41:1720–1723, 2005

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.