1 / 42

Challenges of cost effective screening of current and future TMR/PMR design heads

Challenges of cost effective screening of current and future TMR/PMR design heads. Henry Patland President & CEO hpatland@us-isi.com www.us-isi.com.

kapono
Download Presentation

Challenges of cost effective screening of current and future TMR/PMR design heads

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Challenges of cost effective screening of current and future TMR/PMR design heads Henry Patland President & CEO hpatland@us-isi.com www.us-isi.com

  2. As the industry makes the transition to PMR technology, with expected 100% transition by 2010, there are many challenges that head designers need to overcome to make this transition successful. In addition to dealing with completely new head, media and channel designs, head manufacturers have to quickly anticipate the type of failures they will see from new head designs in volume production environments and be ready to cost effectively screen out those failures. This presentation will concentrate on the challenges of testing these new head technologies, the type of solutions that are currently available and future requirements. Also a cost effective test strategy will be presented for discussion. Abstract

  3. Outline • GMR/LMR head technology overview • TMR/PMR head technology overview • Conventional quasi-static testing (QST) • Specific problems for PMR/TMR heads • Can QST testing address these specific problems for TMR/PMR heads? • Dynamic testing an alternative or complement to QST testing • Advantages/disadvantages of dynamic vs. QST testing • Proposed cost efficient model for electrical head test • Conclusion

  4. GMR/LMR Heads

  5. TMR/PMR

  6. LMR vs. PMR Recording • LMR head sees zero field between transition and either a positive or negative field during transition • PMR head sees either positive or negative field between transitions and zero field during transition

  7. LMR Transition Field Component Structure of media stray field and read-back pulse for longitudinal recording

  8. PMR Transition Field Component Media stray fields for perpendicular media with soft under-layer U-Shape bending caused by Perpendicular Stray Field

  9. Low Frequency Cut-off in PMR Read-back of low density perpendicular square wave pattern with different LF cut-off frequency: Signal shape distortions

  10. Conventional QST Testing of both GMR/LMR and TMR/PMR Heads • High/Low resistance • Low amplitude • High asymmetry • Barkh jump, hysteresis • Low SNR • Instability • ESD damage (pin-layer-reversal)

  11. QST Transfer Curve Parametrics extracted from QST Transfer Curve

  12. Field Induced Instability Soft Kink at 160 Oe

  13. Field Induced Instability @ 150 Oe

  14. Field Induced Instability @160 Oe

  15. Field Induced Instability @ 170 Oe

  16. Spectral Maximum Amplitude Noise (SMAN) Test Soft Kink at 160 Oe Patent: US6943545

  17. Spectrum Analysis

  18. Pin-Layer-Reversal due to ESD damage

  19. QST has good track record at conventional testing. Can QST testing address TMR/PMR Specific Problems?

  20. PMR/TMR Specific Problems and Using QST Test Strategy • Pin-holes and µSmearing on insulating spacer • Instability with lower cut off frequency • Weak pin-layer • Stray side field sensitivity and larger shield geometries • Writer pole problems

  21. Problem: Pin-Hole & µSmearing Issues • Both Pin-Holes and µSmearing occur during manufacturing of TMR stacks with extremely thin insulation layer • Both Pin-Holes and µSmearing disrupt the tunneling mechanism and essentially create a short across the insulation layer • When Pin-Holes are present, some of the Bias current flows through the created shorts, and SNR is deteriorated • Additionally these shorts cause higher operating temperature of the TMR sensor which in turn causes reliability issues Pin-Holes or µSmearing

  22. QST Solution: Pin-Hole & µSmearing Issues • By raising the TMR sensor temperature either through Bias Source or external means, and measuring the Resistance change, both Pin-Hole & µSmearing can be detected • DeltaR/R, Transfer Curve, Hysteresis, and Slope of Transfer Curve are also good indicators of Pin-Hole or µSmearing presence

  23. Problem: Lower Frequency Instability • Since PMR heads see more low frequency component and are exposed to multiple state magnetic fields between transitions, the probability of magnetic field induced instability is increased • This type of instability can cause high BER or losing servo in the drive

  24. QST Solution: Lower Frequency instability • By lowering the cut-off freq to 100Khz from typical 3-5Mhz and using industry standard Spectral Maximum Amplitude Noise (SMAN) tests these unstable heads can be effectively screened out

  25. Problem: Weakly Pinned Heads • If pinned layer is weak, the magnetization angle between pinned layer and free layer is compromised causing degraded DeltaR/R, SNR degradation and sensor instability

  26. QST Solution: Weakly Pinned Heads • By testing heads at high magnetic fields and various angles, weakly pinned head can be screened out by QST • Weakly pinned heads might require additional re-initialization before final QST test

  27. Problem: Stray Side Field sensitivity and New Larger Shield Geometries • Stray side field sensitivity can cause sensor saturation and transition shifts as caused by adjacent tracks • Larger shields absorb much of external magnetic field to shield the sensor and can also become magnetized causing sensor instability

  28. QST Solution: Stray Side Field sensitivity and New Larger Shield Geometries • By testing QST with different magnetic field orientation, stray side field sensitivity can be simulated and sensitive heads can be screened out • By applying larger magnetic fields (typ: TMR/PMR – 500 to 600 Oe) the larger shields can be saturated to conventionally exercise the sensor

  29. Problem: Writer Pole Design • Vertical Pole heads have poor write gradient • Write distortions when head is skewed with respect to track direction • Thin pole heads exhibit pole remnance problems due to magnetic domains in the pole tips (sometimes overwriting servo patterns)

  30. QST Solutions: Writer Pole Design • With current technology QST is not capable of detecting this failure • Currently through improved writer pole material and geometry design, this issue is getting resolved

  31. ISI Quasi-Static Testing Portfolio

  32. Available Electrical Test Technologies • Dynamic Testing • Quasi-Static Testing

  33. Dynamic Head Test Advantages • Tests both writer and reader • Resembles closely final head/media arrangement • Extensive tests such as MRR, Amp, Asym, NLTS, SNR, OW, PW50, MRW, MWW, ATE, BER

  34. Dynamic Head Test Disadvantages • High capital cost ($$$) • Low UPH (typical 30-40) • Media quality/flying height variation • Difficult to separate writer vs. reader failures • Can only be done at HGA level, high scrap cost • High operating cost • Larger and higher class cleanroom required • Higher ESD danger due to more handling • Poor correlation to final HDD yield

  35. QST Head Test Advantages • Low capital cost ($) • High UPH (typical 1000) • Can be done at row level (early test equals lower scrap cost) • Very detailed and effective reader testing with and without various stresses • Good correlation to final reader related HDD Yield • Low ESD risk due to automation • Low operating cost • Less clean room space and lower class cleanroom required

  36. QST Head Test Disadvantages • Cannot characterize writer • Cannot predict head/media interface problems since there is no flying • No off-track analysis

  37. Conventional Electrical Test Flow Model 100% Bar/Slider QST 100% Dynamic Head Test 100% Head Stack Actuator QST 100% Final HDD Test/Burn-in

  38. Conventional Electrical Test Cost Model

  39. Proposed Electrical Test Flow Model Sampling or NO DET Testing 100% Bar/Slider QST 5% Dynamic Head Test 100% Head Stack Actuator QST 100% Final HDD Test/Burn-in

  40. More Cost-Effective Test Cost Model

  41. Conclusion • Even though the final HDD yield is lowered in the Proposed Test Model the total cost of annual DET cost and rework cost combined is: $147M vs. $580M in the Conventional Test Model • Quasi-Static Test is the cost effective test solutions for current and future TMR/PMR design heads • Can 100% DET testing be cost-effective?

  42. References • Alexander Taratorin, “Magnetic Recording Systems and Measurements”, San Jose Research Center, HGST • Bryan Oliver, Qing He, Xuefei Tang, and J. Nowaka), “Dielectric breakdown in magnetic tunnel junctions having an ultrathin barrier”, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS VOLUME 91, NUMBER 7 • Sangmun Oh1, K. Nishioka2, H. Umezaki3, H. Tanaka1, T. Seki1, S. Sasaki1, T. Ohtsu2, K. Kataoka2, and K. Furusawa1 “The Behavior of Pinned Layers Using a High-Field Transfer Curve”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 41, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2005 • H. Patland, W. Ogle, “High Frequency Instabilities in GMR Heads Due to Metal-To-Metal Contact ESD Transients”, EOS/ESD Symposium 2002 • Integral Solutions Int’l, “Quasi 97”, “Blazer-X5B” and “QST-2002” Tester

More Related