Comments:

1. The proposed paper deals with “An improved conformal mapping method for magnetic field
analysis in surface mounted permanent magnet motors”. The state of the arts is well writing.
However, authors should enlighten and detail what their contribution is compared to the existing
literature.

Answer: In compared to the existing literature about CM method, the developed method in this
paper (ICM method) can consider the magnetic saturation and the relative permeability of PMs
(𝜇𝑟 ). The ICM method can also consider the magnetic induction inside PMs due to the armature
reaction. Therefore, the ICM method can be used for demagnetization analysis in PM motors.

2. « SMPM » must be defined when used for the first time in the paper (in the introduction
section, page 3, line 37), as in abstract section.

Answer: In revised manuscript, we defined “SMPM” when used for the first time in the
introduction section.

3. Equations must be written using the same font. (example : equation 4)

Answer: In revised manuscript, all equations are written using the same font.

4. Page 6, line 54: sentence uncompleted: it ends by “and”.

Answer: This sentence is not uncompleted. The word “and” shows that the other constitutes of
Eq. (4) are defined as follows:

𝜕𝑧 1
= (5)
𝜕𝑠 𝑠
𝜕𝑧
= 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓(𝑓, 𝑤) (6)
𝜕𝑤
𝜕𝑤 ∆𝑥
=𝑗 (7)
𝜕𝜓 2𝜋𝜓

5. 𝜇 is not defined in figure 3.

Answer: 𝜇1 , 𝜇2 , and 𝜇3 are defined in revised manuscript. They are respectively the
permeabilities of the stator core, the air gap, and the rotor core.

6. There are several variables which are not defined in this paper.

Answer: In revised manuscript, all variables are defined.

7. Figures numbers are not correct, fig6…fig8…

Answer: We modify the order of figures in revised manuscript.

8. It is important to give the obtained errors when comparing the flux density due to the
permanent magnet and due to the armature in figures 12 to 16. Moreover, results may be
compared to other similar research works.

Answer: The main error shown in Figs. 11-15 (Figs. 12-16 in initial manuscript) is due to the
unsaturated model of CM method. The ICM results also show a minor error (less than 5%) in
comparison to the FEM/FP-FEM results.

In similar research works, the CM results were compared with the comparing linear FEM results.
However, the ICM method is more accurate than previous works about CM method.

9. The algorithm given in fig 17 should be explained.

Answer: In revised manuscript, this flowchart is explained step-by-step for each step of
simulation.