Finite Element Simulation of

Operational and Non-operational

Hard Disk Drive Response to Shock
and Vibration
Eric Jayson

Center for Magnetic Recording Research,

University of California, San Diego

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Outline
• Introduction
• Modeling process
• Finite element models
• Experimental verification
• Comparison of linear and tilt drop
• Additional simulations
• Operational drive simulation
• Use of load curves for shock and vibration
• L/UL suspension
• Bump impact simulation

• Summary

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Introduction

•Shock impulses are endured by a hard disk drive during

manufacturing, shipping and user operation
•Damage can occur to the magnetic material if the slider lifts
off and recollides with the disk, i.e., head-slap
•It is desirable to find a correlation between a linear drop test
and a tilt drop test
•Experimental data used to verify the numeric results, i.e.,
modal analysis and high speed video
•Numeric simulations may be used to identify source of
mechanical failure in variety of circumstances

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Modeling with HyperMesh and LS-DYNA3D

• LS-DYNA3D is an finite element

solver used to analyze nonlinear
dynamic problems
- large deformation dynamics &
contact
- crash testing
- airbag deployment
- metal and plastic forming

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Modeling with HyperMesh and LS-DYNA3D

• HyperMesh is used as the pre- and

post-processor
- import geometry model from
Pro/E
- create mesh (elements and
nodes)
- interface with LS_DYNA3D
- prepares input data cards
- analyze and display result
files

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Modeling with HyperMesh and LS-DYNA3D

Pro/E or any CAD model for geometry

Export lines and surfaces

Import, mesh and define BC’s with Hypermesh

Export input deck in LS-Dyna format

Run input deck in LS-Dyna

Import LS-Dyna results to Hypermesh

Display results in Hypermesh

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Contact Algorithm
• Contact modeled using a penalty method
• Linear springs placed normal to interface plane
where penetrating nodes are found
• Interface stiffness approximated with element
stiffness in normal direction
• Algorithm:
• check if ‘slave’ nodes are penetrating ‘master’ surface
• apply force proportional to penetration distance
• calculate position of next time step and repeat
• Energy dissipated through friction

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 First HDD Finite Element Model

•3182 elements
•3135 nodes
•No gimbal
•Simplified
geometry
•Shell elements for
suspension
•Solids for rest
•Complete impact
surface modeled
•Rigid connections
do not allow
rotational DOF

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Head Slap Simulation for First HDD Model

•Interference between slider and suspension

•Pitch and roll motion apparent

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Second HDD Finite Element Model

•7799 elements
•11735 nodes
•Gimbal included
•More complex
geometry
•Shells for
suspension, gimbal
and disk
•Solids for rest
•Impact surface
reduced
•Rigids allow all DOF

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Head Slap simulation for Second HDD Model

•Large deflection in the HGA

•Oscillations in suspension cause collisions between the gimbal
and suspension

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Verification of Model: High Speed Video
Analysis

• Begins as slider is
about to lift from
disk surface
• Large deflections
observed in HGA
• Significant pitch
motion shown

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Third HDD Finite Element Model

•8931 elements
•13025 nodes
•Gimbal wire
included
•More complex
geometry
•Shells for
suspension, gimbal
and disk
•Solids for rest
•Modal analysis for
this model

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Verification of Model: Modal Analysis
Mode Measured. Numeric
arm bend 1050 1120
susp bend 3150 3210
susp torsion 7120 6940
arm 2nd bend 7250 7170
Arm 1st bending Suspension 1st bending

Arm 2nd bending Suspension 1st torsion

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Linear drop model

Initial position

h
v
Impact position

• Impact velocity is a function of drop

height: v  2 gh

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Displacement of slider corners (150mm drop)

• Pitch and roll motion present

• (a) and (b) show large pitch
motion
• (c) is strong impact of all
four corners with the disk
surface (d)
• Smaller pitch and roll
motion present in second head
slap
Slider (TEO)
Slider (LEO)
Slider (LEI)
Slider (LEI)
Disk surface
ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Displacement and acceleration data for slider
corner (LEO)

• Acceleration is related
to impact force
• Large spikes
correspond to each
contact
• Smaller spikes caused
by other corners of the
slider impacting
• Negative acceleration
due to impacts between
gimbal and suspension

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Tilt drop model
• Want to relate drop angle to
W impact angular velocity
• Conservation of energy
used to find angular
velocity: 1
Wh  I y 2
2
r
h  r sin 
h
 W = weight of HDD
h = height of c.g. when dropped
 = drop angle
  = impact angular velocity
r = radial distance to c.g.

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Comparison of linear and tilt drop simulations

• Correlation of a linear drop

and a tilt drop is useful in
predicting the response of the
drive to shock
• Reduce cost of testing in
industry
• Determine the worst case
scenario for shock impulse
• Comparison performed with
same model but different BC’s

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Slider displacement from disk surface
• Duration for linear drop:
(d) - (c) = 1.7ms
• Duration for tilt drop:
(h) - (g) = 1.7ms
• Amplitude loss for linear:
(a) to (b) = 82% loss
• Amplitude loss for tilt:
(e) to (f) = 28% loss
Max slider displacement

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Pitch and roll of slider

• Pitch and roll angle

calculated from slider
displacement data
1  a  b 
 pitch  tan  

 l 
1  c  d 
 roll  tan  

 w 
l = length of slider
w = width of slider
a,b,c,d = absolute
displacement
ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 68mm linear drop and 90deg tilt drop

• Two tests have same

vertical impact velocity at
the head/disk interface
• Maximum linear drop
head displacement is 1.91
mm
• Maximum tilt drop head
displacement is 1.72 mm
• Pitch and roll
displacement are more
centered about 0 for
linear drop test
ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Lateral motion of head (cross track motion)

0.25
• Linear test shows 0.1
90 deg

0.2
68mm mm amplitude of motion
0.15 • Tilt test shows 0.15 mm
Displacement (mm)

0.1
amplitude of motion
0.05 • Lateral motion is
0 centered about 0 line for
-0.05 linear test
-0.1 • Lateral motion is
-0.15
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
centered about 0.05 line
Time (sec) for tilt test
• Tilt drop test gives larger
amplitude motion in both
ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu directions
 Operational HDD Shock Simulation

•Airbearing modeled using

linear springs for pitch, roll
and z-direction stiffness
•Z-dir stiffness = 208 N/mm
•Roll stiffness = 6 N/mm
•Pitch stiffness = 7 N/mm
•Values determined from
airbearing simulator for
pico slider
•Actuator rotated to
operating position

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Operational HDD Shock Simulation

•Suspension, disk and actuator arm vibrations are present

•Little displacement in slider, mostly lateral motion (cross track
motion)

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Load curves for shock simulation
•Shock impulse is a half sine wave
with an amplitude of 63 g’s and
duration of 2 ms
•Shock applied at actuator arm base
and disk inner radius
•Amplitude and duration easily
varied
•Results close to full HDD model

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Load curves for vibration simulation
•Prescribed translation in x,y and z
direction
•Vibration applied at actuator arm
base and disk inner radius
•Bandwidth and amplitude easily
changed for particular model

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 L/UL Suspension Shock Simulation

•Suspension in unloaded position subject

to drop test corresponding to 50mm drop
height
•Hitachi suspension with slider and
limiters
•Large deflection apparent in HGA
•Limiters very close to disengaging

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Bump Impact Simulation
•Modeled as operating drive running
at 4200 rpm
•Velocity of bump = 14730 mm/s
•Height of bump (1 element) = 100 nm
•Modeled constrained at actuator arm
base and airbearing springs

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Summary and Conclusions
• Head slap is evident for non-operational
shocks in both linear and tilt drop events
• Pitch and roll motion is present during
head slap
• Contact force may be related to slider
acceleration
• Energy dissipated quicker in linear model
• Duration and amplitude are similar for
head slap in both linear and tilt drop
models
ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Summary and Conclusions
• Pitch and roll motion slightly larger and
more “one sided” for tilt drop test
• Lateral motion of slider is larger for the
tilt drop simulation
• Experimental data verifies model
• Operational drive can be approximated
using linear springs for pitch, roll and z-
dir airbearing stiffness

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Summary and Conclusions
• Operational drives show more lateral
motion while non-operational drives
show more vertical motion
• Load curves may be used to simulate
shock events - similar results as drop test
• Load curves may also be used to simulate
a HDD subject vibration loads
• Bump impacts excite modes of suspension
and HGA

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu
 Acknowledgements
• We would like to acknowledge Seagate
Technology for providing the opportunity
to conduct this project

ejayson@talkelab.ucsd.edu