Head Suspension Resilient Region Thickness for Shock Resistance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In miniaturized hard disk drives, thinning the load beam to improve shock properties leads to increased stress on the resilient part, making it impossible to maintain a certain spring load, and expanding the width of the load beam's base end side can cause interference with disk components, hindering miniaturization.

Innovation Solution

A head suspension design where the resilient part is made relatively thicker than the rigid part to increase the spring load without extending the load beam's base end, allowing for miniaturization while maintaining improved shock properties.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the load beam is thinned to improve shock properties, then the shock resistance is improved, but the stress on the resilient part increases and spring load cannot be maintained

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveshock resistanceVSAvoidspring load
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by making the resilient part thicker than the rigid part. Specifically, the resilient part has a thickness of 20-30 μm while the rigid part has a thickness of 10-20 μm. This local variation in thickness allows the resilient part to maintain sufficient spring load and stress resistance while the overall load beam remains thin for improved shock properties.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the thickness parameter of different parts of the load beam. By setting the resilient part thickness to 20-30 μm and the rigid part thickness to 10-20 μm, the patent optimizes both shock resistance and spring load characteristics through parameter adjustment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Strength

If the width of the load beam's base end side is expanded to increase spring load, then the spring load is increased, but interference with disk components occurs and miniaturization is hindered

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespring loadVSAvoiddrive size
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSVolume of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by concentrating the thickness increase specifically in the resilient part rather than expanding the overall width of the load beam. This allows the spring load to be increased through local thickening (20-30 μm) without increasing the lateral dimensions that would cause interference with disk components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of increasing spring load by expanding in the lateral dimension (width), the patent transitions to the thickness dimension. The resilient part is made thicker (20-30 μm) rather than wider, which increases spring load without causing interference with disk components and allows continued miniaturization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

3Volume of moving object

If the load beam is thinned to enable miniaturization, then the drive size is reduced, but the stress on the resilient part increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedrive sizeVSAvoidstress on resilient part
Core Design Contradiction:
Volume of moving objectVSStress or pressure

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by making the resilient part thicker (20-30 μm) than the rigid part (10-20 μm). This local thickening specifically addresses the stress concentration in the resilient part while maintaining the overall thin profile of the load beam for miniaturization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The load beam functions as a composite structure with two distinct regions: a thinner rigid part (10-20 μm) for overall structural integrity and miniaturization, and a thicker resilient part (20-30 μm) for stress absorption and spring load. This composite approach allows simultaneous achievement of miniaturization and stress management.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This configuration enhances the shock properties of the head suspension by increasing the spring load of the resilient part without interfering with disk components, enabling the miniaturization of hard disk drives while maintaining effective shock resistance.

Implementation Method 1

a resilient part (13) whose thickness (t1) is relatively greater than a thickness (t2) of the rigid part (11)

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElasticity: Elasticity

Data Source

PatentUS7636221B2Disk drive head suspension having resilient region thicker than a rigid region
Publication Date: 2009.12.22 NHK SPRING CO LTD
  • US7636221B2 patent drawing
  • US7636221B2 patent drawing
  • US7636221B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A head suspension for a hard disk drive is capable of improving shock property of the hard disk drive while miniaturizing the hard disk drive. A head suspension has a base plate to be attached to a carriage and turned around a spindle of the carriage, a load beam which includes a beam and a hinge, a base end of the beam being supported to the base plate through the hinge and which applies a load onto a head for writing and reading data to and from a disk at a front end side thereof, and a flexure which connects the head to writing and reading wires and supports the head and which is attached to the load beam, where the hinge is set to be relatively thicker than the beam so that the load beam is made thin and the load is increased.