TY - JOUR
T1 - Micromagnetic simulation of recording write heads a comparison of various micromagnetic software
AU - Tsukamoto, Toshio
AU - Kanai, Yasushi
AU - Koyama, Kazuya
AU - Yoshida, Kazuetsu
AU - Uehara, Yuji
AU - Shimizu, Koichi
AU - Greaves, Simon
AU - Muraoka, Hiroaki
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge the use of LLG micro-magnetic software from Central Research Laboratory, Hitachi Ltd., and the use of JMAG, FEM Software, from JSOL Ltd. This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under Grant in Aid 21 560 374, and in part by the Storage Research Consortium (SRC), Japan.
PY - 2012/2
Y1 - 2012/2
N2 - The performance of three micromagnetic software were compared: (a) originally developed by Hitachi and refined at Kogakuin Univeristy and Niigata Institute of Technology, (b) developed by Fujitsu, and (c) Magpar, a free, public domain software. A perpendicular write head was modeled to compare the performance of these software. It was found that the finite-difference method (FDM) based micromagnetic software (a) had difficulties with complex structures but required less RAM, while finite-element, boundary integral method (FEM-BIM) based micromagnetic software (b) and (c) could handle complex structures but required more RAM. We derived the quasi-static recording field distributions and the dynamic recording field responses to high-frequency currents of up to 2.0 GHz. We found that there were no major differences in the head field distributions and responses, while FEM-BIM was superior to the FDM for observing magnetization vector rotation as FEM-BIM can handle complex structures with fine meshes in regions of interest.
AB - The performance of three micromagnetic software were compared: (a) originally developed by Hitachi and refined at Kogakuin Univeristy and Niigata Institute of Technology, (b) developed by Fujitsu, and (c) Magpar, a free, public domain software. A perpendicular write head was modeled to compare the performance of these software. It was found that the finite-difference method (FDM) based micromagnetic software (a) had difficulties with complex structures but required less RAM, while finite-element, boundary integral method (FEM-BIM) based micromagnetic software (b) and (c) could handle complex structures but required more RAM. We derived the quasi-static recording field distributions and the dynamic recording field responses to high-frequency currents of up to 2.0 GHz. We found that there were no major differences in the head field distributions and responses, while FEM-BIM was superior to the FDM for observing magnetization vector rotation as FEM-BIM can handle complex structures with fine meshes in regions of interest.
KW - Micromagnetic analysis
KW - parallel computing
KW - perpendicular magnetic recording
KW - single-pole-type (SPT) head
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856373040&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856373040&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/TMAG.2011.2172398
DO - 10.1109/TMAG.2011.2172398
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84856373040
SN - 0018-9464
VL - 48
SP - 311
EP - 314
JO - IEEE Transactions on Magnetics
JF - IEEE Transactions on Magnetics
IS - 2
M1 - 6136485
ER -