27/05/2026
We work on systems where simulation, hardware and reality all have to agree. Sometimes they do. Sometimes the bench has other ideas.
In a recent actuator validation project, Jone Lay, Principal Systems Engineer at Ingenuity Design Group, modelled a PMSM motor two different ways: using analytical magnetic-circuit methods and finite-element analysis (FEM). Both were then tested against real-world bench measurements.
At first glance, the motor behaved as expected. But once the data started coming in, the details told a different story.
Small geometric assumptions in the airgap model created measurable error. End-region leakage had a larger impact than expected. And measured back-EMF suggested the motor’s magnets were performing below the vendor specification.
A reminder that high-fidelity tools alone are not enough. Validation only becomes meaningful when independent methods agree with each other - and with physical measurement.
“Agreement between two independent methods isn’t a result you screenshot once - it’s a signal you keep watching.”
The project is part of a broader effort to build actuator systems with tighter control over performance, efficiency and design trade-offs before hardware reaches production.
If you’re developing high-performance electromechanical systems where simulation accuracy matters, we’d love to talk.
You can read more about the project here: https://ingenuitydesigngroup.com/insights/how-we-validated-our-pmsm-motor-against-real-data?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=may-blog-insight
