Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marjorie Myers
Tyco Electronics, Harrisburg, PA USA
Abstract
This work addresses the comparison of hard Au versus
hard Au flashed PdNi contact finishes. Extensive
qualification and re-qualification data are available, but
this testing varies greatly and by definition is designed to
pass or fail a connector design. Since this type of testing
does not specifically compare variations in finish
parameters, the ability to directly compare such data sets
relative to finish performance is limited. In addition, PdNi
high speed plating chemistries have evolved since the
1980s when they were first developed and qualified in
response to increases in gold metal prices. Therefore, the
testing was done to provide product level data comparing
the two gold based finishes. To specifically compare finish
performance, as opposed to connector performance; using
current industry accepted testing conditions and finish
variations. To better understand the contact performance
implications of interchanging these two gold based
finished.
Keywords: Hard Gold, Palladium-Nickel, Low Level
Contact Resistance, Durability, Contact Performance
I. INTRODUCTION
The hard gold (Au) vs. hard gold flashed PalladiumNickel (PdNi) question is not a new one. There is
conflicting assessments of whether hard Au and PdNi
perform equivalently or not. Extensive qualification and requalification data is available, but this testing by definition
is designed to pass or fail a part and/or meet customer
demands not directly compare variations in finish
parameters. Also, this testing is done under a great variety
of conditions and finish parameters. In the literature, there
is seemingly conflicting data for testing done using many
different sample/testing combinations many times not
directly comparable. In addition, PdNi high speed plating
chemistry has evolved between the 1980s when the first
PdNi platings baths were developed in response to the
increase in gold metal price. Most of the data in the
literature was generated using these original PdNi plating
chemistries. The issue is that there was no set of finish
limited data that compares the finishes under conditions
current product has to meet.
II.BACKGROUND,
ISSUES
INDUSTRY
REQUIREMENTS,
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by
authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each
authors copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
Variables
Durability
precious metal thickness
Flat Finish
Beam Finish
Data Type
continuous
continuous
attribute
attribute
Level 1 (-)
0
0.25 m
Au
Au
Level 2 (+)
100
1.40m
PdNi
PdNi
Center (0)
50
0.83m
Level 1 (-)
0
0.25 m
Au
Au
Level 2 (+)
20
1.40m
PdNi
PdNi
Center (0)
10
0.83m
a) Receptacle connector
b) Housing
d) Header connector
g) Receptacle chicklet beam mating deflection 6 one way, 6 the opposite direction
Figure 1: header/receptacle connector system micrographs
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
B. Test Method:
A. Test Connector:
Test or Examination
(number denotes order in test sequence)
LLCR
Level 1
Level 2
1,3,5,7,9,
11
1,3,5,7,9,
11,13
Unlubricated
centerpoint
Level 1
Level 2
centerpoint
1,3,5,7,9,11,
13
1,3,5,7,
9,11
1,3,5,7,9
,11,13
1,3,5,7,9,
11,13
2
2
2
2,4,6,8
4,6,8,10
4,6,8,10
2,4,6,8
4,6,8,10
2
4,6,8,10
12
12
12
4
Exposure cycles
Four durability/5 day class IIa MFG LLCR measurement
cycles were done for the lubricated samples and two were
done for the unlubricated samples. All MFG exposures
were done in the unmated state to minimize the effect of
housing shielding. TABLE II shows the exposure
procedure used. The numbers in Table II represent
exposure sequence order.
C. LLCR measurement:
The main performance metric required by TE
customers in most precious metal plated signal contact
applications is low and stable Low Level Contact
Resistance (LLCR). LLCR current and voltage level
limitations avoid altering (e.g. reducing) the measured
resistance of the contact interface through electrical and/or
thermal breakdown. Using LLCR measurement exclusively
also leads to the risk of getting opens or unreadable
contact interfaces under LLCR conditions. This fact
limited subsequent data analysis options in some cases.
Delta LLCR (change in LLCR from initial values) is used
in the data analysis to exclude the variable bulk resistance
12
2
2
inherent to product resistance measurements (maximum ~
35 milliOhm (m)). Since the measurement system could
read no greater than 200 m in the LLCR state, any delta
LLCR readings above 150 m were considered to be
open.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
When possible, the following analysis was done using
Anova and Tukey-Kramer HSD means comparisons. To
determine if any differences in the delta LLCR
performance of the different finish combination/exposures
is statistically significant. This could be done with all the
lubricated delta LLCR data ( as-durability cycled, 5 day,
10day, 15day, and 20 day MFG exposures) and the asdurability cycled, 5 day, and 10 day exposure unlubricated
delta LLCR data. Data in the statistical comparisons are
represented as data points, quantiles centered on the
median (red boxes), and Means Anova (green diamonds),
and Tukey Kramer HSD (red circles).
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
Figure 2: Examples of means comparison statistical analysis of the lubricated, 4 cycle (20 day MFG), level 1 durability, delta LLCR data:
thin Au mated to thin Au comparing position factors
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
20 cycles durability
20 cycles durability
Unlubricated
Unlubricated
Lubricated
Figure 3: Means comparison of the as-durability cycled delta LLCR data for both the thin and thick platings: lubricated vs. unlubricated
(Au/Au = 11, Au/PdNi = 22, PdNi/Au = 21, PdNi/PdNi = 22)
L 22+
L 21+
L 11+
40 cycles durability
Unlubricated
Lubricated
22+
21+
12+
11+
Unlubricated
L 12+
40 cycles durability
Figure 4: Means comparison of the 1 cycle (5 day MFG) with durability cycling exposure data for both thin and thick plating delta LLCR
data: lubricated vs. unlubricated (Au/Au = 11, Au/PdNi = 22, PDNi/Au = 21, PdNi/PdNi = 22)
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
Beam: PdNi
Flat: PdNi
2100
22++
22+
21+
21+
21
Beam: PdNi
Flat: Au
1200
21++
Beam: Au
Flat: PdNi
12++
12+
12+
12
11+
11+
11
1100
11++
Beam: Au
Flat: Au
22+
22
2200
lubricated data
beam Au/Au flat
Figure 6 Mean and maximum value data comparison of lubricated delta LLCR data for all exposures and conditions 0 to 10 m range.
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
unlubricated data
Figure 7: Cumulative ranking comparing the unlubricated 2 cycle (10 day MFG) delta LLCR data for the various combinations tested
measurement
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
Hard Au ((
m)
thickness description
target thickness
average Au (XRF)
PdNi (
m )
thickness description
average PdNi (XRF)
average Au (XRF)
target thickness
average Au+PdNi (XRF)
average PdNi (FIB)
TABLE III
PLATING THICKNESS DATA
Measured Thickness values vs. target values (
m)
Receptacle
thick
center
thin
thick
1.40
0.83
0.25
1.40
1.41
0.97
0.26
1.46
Receptacle
thick
thick
center
thin
1.38
0.70
0.22
1.33
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
1.40
0.83
0.25
1.40
1.47
0.79
0.31
1.42
1.76
1.07
0.38
2.57
Header
center
0.83
0.65
Header
center
0.74
0.07
0.83
0.81
1.83
thin
0.25
0.33
thin
0.24
0.07
0.25
0.31
0.83
V. CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010
10