0
TECHNICAL BRIEFS

Effects of Pitch Static Attitude and Roll Static Attitude on the Steady Performance of Air Bearing Sliders

[+] Author and Article Information
Hong Zhu

 Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., 5600 Cottle Road, 050/C154, San Jose, CA 95193hong.zhu@hitachigst.com

David B. Bogy

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Computer Mechanics Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720

J. Tribol 129(3), 689-694 (Mar 14, 2007) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2736731 History: Received December 02, 2004; Revised March 14, 2007

This paper addresses the effects of pitch static attitude (PSA) and roll static attitude (RSA) on air bearing slider steady performance, especially for ultralow flying height sliders. We performed simulations for three different low flying sliders with flying heights (FHs) of 7nm, 5nm, and 3.5nm using the static simulator code of the Computer Mechanics Laboratory. We found that PSA and RSA have quite significant effects on the steady performance of these air bearing slider designs, and the effect is more important the smaller the size and the lower the FH of the slider. We also investigated the effects of suspension stiffness on the air bearing sliders’ flying attitude (pitch and roll) and found that these effects are similar to those of PSA and RSA.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Rail shape of 7nm FH INSIC Pico slider

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Rail shape of 5nm FH INSIC Pico slider

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Rail shape of 3.5nm FH INSIC Femto slider

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Typical suspension at the unloaded state with positive PSA

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Definition of positive RSA at the unloaded state

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Typical suspension at loaded state

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

FH versus PSA (RSA=0deg) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Pitch versus PSA (RSA=0deg) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Roll versus PSA (RSA=0deg) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

FH versus RSA (PSA=1deg) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Roll versus normalized stiffness (with 1deg PSA and 0deg RSA) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Pitch versus normalized stiffness (with 1deg PSA and 0deg RSA) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

FH versus normalized stiffness (with 1deg PSA and 0deg RSA) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Roll versus RSA (PSA=1deg) for the three different slider designs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Pitch versus RSA (PSA=1deg) for the three different slider designs

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In