Abstract:
Method and apparatus for detecting failure in a piezoelectric element on a head suspension for a disk drive by clamping one end of the suspension, mechanically displacing and rapidly releasing the other end of the suspension, monitoring the electrical output of a piezoelectric element on the suspension and comparing the output with a predetermined output, using a clamp, motion actuator, and signal processor. The comparison may be with a predetermined voltage, and the output may be a natural frequency having a fundamental frequency corresponding to individual failure modes including adhesive fracture, piezoelectric element fracture, poling failure or a broken electrical connection.

Description:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION 
   This application is a division of application Ser. No. 09/941,477 filed Aug. 29, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,639,411, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/230,029, filed Sep. 5, 2000. The entire contents of application Ser. Nos. 09/941,477 and 60/230,029 are hereby incorporated by reference. 

   BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
   Microactuated suspensions are generally known and disclosed, for example, in the Krinke et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,888.  FIG. 1  is an illustration of one such microactuated suspension  30 . The embodiment shown in  FIG. 1  has an actuator or motor  32  formed by a pair of piezoelectric (PZT) elements  34 ,  36  for rotating or otherwise driving a load beam  38  with respect to a baseplate  40  in response to electric drive signals. Piezoelectric materials are also widely used as transducers of mechanical motion into electrical energy. 
   The piezoelectric elements are typically mounted to the suspension by adhesive. Adhesive fractures sometimes develop during the manufacturing process. As a result of these fractures, the piezoelectric elements are not properly mounted to the suspension, and will not function properly. Fractures are also sometimes present in the piezoelectric elements themselves, and can also prevent the microactuator from functioning properly. Still other microactuator failures occur when the piezoelectric elements are depoled, when the elements are oriented or electrically interconnected with the same polarity, and when the bonds between the drive signal lead wires and the element terminals are broken. 
   Known testing approaches for identifying motor failures include resistance and stroke tests. There remains, however, a continuing need for improved motor failure test methods and associated systems. Methods and systems which are capable of being efficiently performed and which can accurately identify a wide range of failures would be particularly desirable. 

   
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       FIG. 1  is a simplified plan view of a head suspension having microactuator motors to which the present invention is directed. 
       FIG. 2  is a schematic illustration of a microactuated suspension, together with a motor failure detection system according to the present invention. 
       FIG. 3   a  is an output waveform of a good part. 
       FIG. 3   b  is a graph of electrical signals produced by a properly functioning and mounted microactuator motor and a motor having an adhesive fracture. 
       FIG. 3   c  is an output waveform of a part with the wire disconnected between the motors. 
       FIG. 4  shows the output waveforms for a suspension with a right and a left motor fracture. 
       FIG. 5  shows the output waveform for a suspension that has a broken wire bond between the motors. 
       FIG. 6  shows the output waveform when both motors are depoled. 
       FIG. 7  is a histogram of good parts and parts with a cracked left motor. 
       FIG. 8   a  is a graph in the form of a histogram of signal characteristics of microactuator suspension failure tests for properly functioning suspensions and for suspensions having different failure modes. 
       FIG. 8   b  is a key for  FIGS. 8   c - 8   e.    
       FIG. 8   c  shows a section view along line A—A of  FIG. 8   b  with a wire  98  for a normal part. 
       FIG. 8   d  shows a section view along line A—A of  FIG. 8   b  for motors poled the same. 
       FIG. 8   e  shows a section view along line A—A of  FIG. 8   b  for motors with a broken wire bond. 
       FIG. 9  is a graph in the form of a histogram of signal characteristics of microactuator suspension failure tests for properly functioning suspensions and for suspensions having fractures in one of the piezoelectric elements. 
       FIG. 10  is a histogram of good parts and parts with various other defects. 
       FIG. 11  is a graph of signal levels from a series of tested components, some of which are properly functioning, and some of which have fractures in either a left or a right piezoelectric element. 
       FIG. 12  is a graph of signal levels from a series of tested components, some of which are properly functioning, and some of which have fractures in both piezoelectric elements. 
       FIG. 13  is a graph of electrical signals produced by a properly functioning and mounted microactuator motor and a suspension motor having failure modes in both piezoelectric elements. 
       FIG. 14  is a photograph of the piezoelectric elements of a suspension microactuator motor having a microcrack (not visible) before application of a sweep frequency signal in accordance with a certain aspect of the present invention. 
       FIG. 15  is a photograph of the motor of  FIG. 9  after application of a crack-expanding sweep frequency signal. 
   

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
   The present invention is based upon the recognition that a wide range of microactuator failure modes can be efficiently detected by causing relative movement between the suspension portions being driven with respect to one another by the motor  32 , and monitoring and evaluating the electrical signals produced by the motor. The characteristics of the electrical signals (e.g., shapes and levels) produced by a motor having a failure mode are sufficiently different than those of a properly functioning motor that the operational state can be accurately assessed. 
   The suspension design shown in  FIGS. 1 and 2  includes two PZT elements  34 ,  36  that act as the motor  32  and provide fine adjustment of a read/write head  37 . It is to be understood that the motor region  32  is the area on the suspension where the PZT elements  34 ,  36  are bonded. Damage to the motor region causes changes in the suspension&#39;s structural characteristics. An electrical charge is created by applying stress to the PZT elements  34 ,  36 . The method of the present invention, referred to as the “ringout” method, applies stress to the motor region  32  containing the PZT elements  34 ,  36  and monitors the resultant voltage across nodes  42 ,  44 . If the motor region  32  has a defect, the output voltage changes depending on the failure mode. In the design shown in  FIGS. 1 and 2 , the PZT elements  34 ,  36  carry a small percentage of the suspension gram load. 
   Ringout is a test method that may be used to detect motor structure damage such as adhesive delamination, broken wire bonds, depoled motors and some types of PZT fractures. One such type of fracture is a “hairline crack” i.e., a crack that permeates the top gold layer of a PZT element and can be enlarged by subjecting the top gold layer to a tensile stress. In contrast, as used herein, it is to be understood that a “microcrack” is a crack that does not permeate the top gold layer of the PZT element and cannot be observed by eye or microscope at any magnification even if the PZT element is stressed. 
     FIG. 2  is a schematic illustration of a microactuated suspension and a “ringout” motor failure detection system in accordance with the present invention. As shown, the motor failure detection system generally includes a clamp  46 , a motion actuator  48  and a signal processing system  50 . The suspension baseplate is clamped to a datum or fixed location by the clamp  46 . The motion actuator  48  engages a headlift (not shown) or other component of the load beam  38  or flexure  39  and raises or lowers (e.g., moves) the load beam  38  with respect to the baseplate  40  (within its range of elastic deformation). The motion actuator  48  then releases the load beam  38  or flexure  39 , thereby allowing the load beam to vibrate in a periodic manner at its natural frequency. The clamp  46  and motion actuator  48  of this embodiment of the invention thereby cooperate to cause relative movement between the suspension portions that are being driven with respect to one another by the piezoelectric elements  34 ,  36  of the motor  32 . 
   Referring to  FIGS. 3   a  and  3   b , as well as to  FIG. 2 , the electrical signal(s) produced by the motor in response to the movement on lines  42 ,  44  are monitored and evaluated by the signal processing system  50  to provide information representative of motor failure modes. Another embodiment of the invention (not shown) includes a motion actuator which engages a headlift on the suspension, and raises the suspension to its fly height before releasing the suspension and allowing the suspension to vibrate. The ringout method of the present invention takes advantage of this condition by applying stress to the PZT elements  34 ,  36  by lifting the part to flyheight while holding the base plate  40  stationary using a clamp  46 . The part is then released, and the suspension  30  is allowed to freely resonate about its bending mode. The suspension design shown has the two PZT elements or motors  34 ,  36  connected in parallel. The voltage  52  measured at the trace is the sum of the voltages from the individual motors. Since the motors are poled in opposite directions, bending stresses will produce opposite charges on each motor. This electromechanical relationship is illustrated in  FIG. 3   c  by disconnecting the wire between the two motors and displaying the output waveforms  54 ,  56  from each simultaneously as the part is tested. In this example, the peak voltage  58  from the right motor is approximately −5.7 v, compared to +4.9 v for the left motor peak voltage  60 , as shown in  FIG. 3   c . The differing peak voltages are due to the fact that more stress is applied to the right motor because of the asymmetrical characteristics of the design, which is caused by the flexure being attached to one side of the suspension as opposed to being attached to the center of the part. When the load beam  38  is lifted to flyheight, stress is applied to both motors. A motor region failure mode, such as a cracked PZT motor or adhesive delamination, will change the applied stress in relation to the size and location of the fracture. The change in stress causes a proportional change in peak output voltage, which indicates the part is defective. 
   Returning to  FIGS. 3   a  and  3   b , the voltage waveform  52  of the PZT elements during a ringout test of a good part may be seen at two magnification levels. The first peak voltage  62  is used to determine if a defect exists; however, the entire waveform  52  provides additional information about the failure mode and may be used for that purpose. Note that the fundamental frequency for a good suspension (of the type shown) at free state is approximately 315 Hz in  FIG. 3   a  and the first peak voltage measures −0.8 v (+/−0.2 v). A digitizing oscilloscope is connected to the PZT elements  34 ,  36  via the suspension trace and a 10× oscilloscope probe. A rigid shim holds the part at flyheight. The shim is removed from the part and the suspension  30  is allowed to resonate in bending. If possible, the headlift feature on the part is used to elevate the part to flyheight. However, if no headlift exists extreme care is taken to both elevate the part on the flexure  39  and to release the part by removing the shim from the flexure  39 . 
     FIG. 3   b  is an inverted and expanded scale graph of the electrical signals produced by a properly functioning and mounted microactuator motor (“no damage”) at waveform  52 .  FIG. 3   b  also shows a waveform  64  for a motor having an adhesive fracture on one of its piezoelectric elements (“right motor adhesive fracture”). As shown, the peak level  62  of the signal produced by the properly functioning motor is relatively low compared to the peak level  66  of the motor having the failure mode. 
     FIG. 4  shows the output waveforms  68 ,  70  for a suspension with a right and left motor fracture. A right motor fracture produces a positive peak voltage  72  indicating the right motor is generating less voltage than normal. Adhesive delamination of the of the right motor will produce a similar output waveform and peak voltage. The output waveform  70  for a left motor fracture produces a negative peak voltage  74  indicating the left motor is generating less voltage than normal. Note that the peak voltages for both a left and right motor fracture are outside the range of voltages observed for parts with no defects, which is −0.8+/−0.2 v. Adhesive delamination of the left motor will produce a similar output waveform and peak voltage. 
     FIG. 5  shows an output waveform  76  of a suspension that has a broken wire bond between the motors. An electrical connection remains between the trace and the right motor; hence, a resultant peak voltage  78  is similar to the result  58  shown in  FIG. 3   c  for the right motor. 
     FIG. 6  shows an output waveform  80  when both motors are depoled. When PZT motors are depoled, they output a significantly lower voltage as the motors are flexed compared to PZT motors that are not depoled. Notice that the waveform  80  shows a significant reduction in peak voltage, which is easily detectable. 
     FIG. 7  is a histogram  82  of good parts  84  and parts  86  with a cracked left motor which shows the separation/gap between the peak voltage of known good parts and the peak voltage of parts with a fractured left motor. 
   Testing has shown that the ringout method can reliably detect defects on this type of suspension.  FIG. 8   a  is a graph of a histogram illustrating the number (density) of occurrences and signal characteristics of microactuated suspension failure tests in accordance with the invention for properly functioning (“good”) suspensions (at  90 ) and suspensions having a number of different failure modes. The failure modes represented in  FIG. 8   a  include motors having broken wire bonds (at  92 ), having depoled piezoelectric elements (at  94 ) and having elements that are poled the same (at  96 ). As shown, the peak signal distributions for the properly functioning and specific failure mode motors are relatively tight and distinguishable from one another. In particular, the peak signal level of good motors is at least about 1 volt (e.g., from “depoled” motors), and up to at least about 7 volts (from “poled same”motors), different in magnitude than the levels produced by the motors having the various failure modes. The mean and standard deviation for each of the distributions shown in  FIG. 8   a  is listed in Table 1. 
   
     
       
             
             
             
           
             
             
             
           
         
             
               TABLE 1 
             
             
                 
             
             
               DISTRIBUTION 
               MEAN 
               STANDARD DEVIATION 
             
             
                 
             
           
           
             
                 
             
           
        
         
             
               90 
               1.05425 
               0.0605694 
             
             
               92 
               3.57375 
               0.468772 
             
             
               94 
               0.10655 
               0.0367325 
             
             
               96 
               −5.808 
               0.613837 
             
             
                 
             
           
        
       
     
   
     FIG. 8   b  is a key to  FIGS. 8   c - 8   e .  FIG. 8   c  shows a section view along line A—A of  FIG. 8   b  with a wire  98  for a normal part.  FIG. 8   d  shows a section view along line A—A of  FIG. 8   b  for motors poled the same, and  FIG. 8   e  shows a section view along line A—A of  FIG. 8   b  for motors with a broken wire bond. 
     FIG. 9  is a graph of a histogram illustrating the number (density) of occurrences and signal characteristics of microactuated suspension failure tests in accordance with the invention for properly functioning (“good”) suspensions and suspensions having motors with fractures in one of either the left or right piezoelectric elements. Distribution  102  is for good parts, distribution  104  is for parts with an adhesive fracture at the left motor, and distribution  106  is for parts with an adhesive fracture at the right motor. The mean and standard deviation for each of these distributions is shown in Table 2. 
   
     
       
             
             
             
           
             
             
             
           
         
             
               TABLE 2 
             
             
                 
             
             
               DISTRIBUTION 
               MEAN 
               STANDARD DEVIATION 
             
             
                 
             
           
           
             
                 
             
           
        
         
             
               102 
               1.05425 
               0.0605694 
             
             
               104 
               2.762 
               0.365921 
             
             
               106 
               −2.562 
               0.473926 
             
             
                 
             
           
        
       
     
   
   Referring now to  FIG. 10 , the separation between known good parts  108  and those with additional defects that the ringout method can detect may be seen. It is to be understood that the data for  FIG. 10  has a sign change because the data for  FIG. 10  was taken from a suspension intended for operation on the opposite side of a rotating magnetic disk. Furthermore, magnitude of the data for  FIG. 10  differs from the data in  FIGS. 8   a  and  9  because the data for  FIG. 10  was taken from a different model of suspension than that tested for  FIGS. 8   a  and  9 . Nevertheless, it can be seen that discrete, identifiable defects include “same pole”  110 , depoled parts  112 , broken wire bonds  114 , right motor adhesive failure  116  and left motor adhesive failure  118 . 
     FIG. 11  is a graph  120  illustrating the signal levels from a series of tested components which are properly functioning (“good parts”), or have fractures in either the left or right piezoelectric element of the motor. Good parts are indicated by a square  122 , left motor fracture parts by a diamond  124 , and right motor fracture parts by a triangle  126 . 
     FIG. 12  is a graph  128  illustrating the signal levels from a series of tested components which are properly functioning (“good parts” indicated by a square  130 ), or have fractures in both piezoelectric elements of the motor (indicated by a diamond  132 ). 
     FIG. 13  is a graph  134  illustrating the signal levels from a properly functioning suspension motor (at  136 ) and a suspension motor having failure modes in both its piezoelectric elements (at  138 ). As shown, in addition to the signal levels, the shape characteristics of the signal from the damaged motor (i.e., asymmetric, not a sine wave) are also sufficiently different than the shape characteristics of the signal from the properly functioning motor to enable detection of the failure mode by a comparison of the signals (e.g., electronically or visually). As indicated by circle  140 , the waveform  138  can show a bad part even if the peak voltage does not. It is to be noted that with respect to waveform  136  for a good part, the oscilloscope trigger was set at level  142 . Waveform  136  displays noise  144  until the part is released at  146 . 
   Microcracks 
   Turning to another type of failure, at this time, parts with micro cracks are not detectable using the ringout method alone. However, a method has been found to detect micro cracks by subjecting the motors to a high voltage electrical signal at a resonant frequency of the suspension (sway mode). The part must be rigidly held at the base plate with the suspension in an unloaded state. The vibration (actuation) created by this procedure causes the crack to propagate into a large fracture which is easily detectable. Investigation will determine effects of applying a high voltage sweep on PZT elements and the suspension assembly. 
   Tests have demonstrated that hairline and microcracks (i.e., very fine cracks) in the piezoelectric actuators can produce electrical signal characteristics which fall within the normal distribution of properly functioning motors. Cracks of these types typically extend through the gold layer, but are not visible under low magnification (e.g., 10×) unless the load beam is flexed. Microcracks located under the gold layer are generally not visible under any magnification, even if the load beam is flexed. However, very fine cracks of these types can be propagated into larger cracks which can be more accurately detected by the invention by applying a relatively large sweep frequency sine wave signal to the motor for a relatively short time period. The frequency range of the signal sweep preferably extends through at least one of the resonant frequencies of the suspension. As the suspension resonates, the very fine cracks will increase in size and propagate through the gold coating layer on the piezoelectric element. Arcing also occurs along the crack on the gold surface, thereby making the crack visible under low magnification. By way of example, tests of the invention have been performed by applying a 90 volt peak, 7 KHz-9 KHz sweep frequency sine wave of 750 msec duration. Although this signal is larger than the typical PZT motor operating voltage, it does not damage the PZT motor or the suspension (other than propagating existing cracks). 
   Following the application of this excitation signal, the suspension motor can be tested using the method described above.  FIG. 14  is a photograph of the piezoelectric elements of a suspension microactuator motor having a microcrack (not visible) before application of a sweep frequency signal in accordance with the method described above.  FIG. 15  is a photograph of the motor shown in  FIG. 14  after application of the crack-expanding sweep frequency signal, with the microcrack now visible through the gold surface of the motor. 
   Summary 
   The ringout test method can detect many types of structural damage to the PZT motors, such as a broken wire bond, delaminated adhesive bond, depoled motors, and some types of fractured motors. While micro cracks are not detectable by this method alone, there is a method to use in conjunction with ringout that has the ability to detect micro cracks. Table 3 lists the defects and change in peak voltage from a known good part, illustrating the significance of the methods of the present invention. 
   
     
       
             
             
             
           
         
             
                 
               TABLE 3 
             
             
                 
                 
             
             
                 
               Defect 
               Characteristics 
             
             
                 
                 
             
           
           
             
                 
               Right motor - micro crack 
               No change 
             
             
                 
               Left motor - micro crack 
               No change 
             
             
                 
               Right motor - hairline fracture 
                30% to 450% change 
             
             
                 
               Left motor - hairline fracture 
                60% to 250% change 
             
             
                 
               Right motor - large fracture 
               150% to 500% change 
             
             
                 
               Left motor - large fracture 
                60% to 400% change 
             
             
                 
               Right motor - adhesive delamination 
               350% to 600 % change 
             
             
                 
               Left motor - adhesive 
               200% to 400% change 
             
             
                 
               Broken wire bond 
               300% to 800% change 
             
             
                 
               Both motors depoled 
                80% to 130% change