You are on page 1of 10

Comparison of Hard Au versus Hard Au Flashed PdNi as a Contact Finish

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,

As the cost of Au spiked in the 1970s, Pd was pursued as


an alternative noble finish that could be deposited using
the high speed plating processes prevalent in the connector
industry.
Pd is not as noble as Au; it has catalytic characteristics,
and will react with chlorine containing environments to
form resistive films on contact surfaces where exposed.
This leads to a potential risk for frictional and/or fretting
polymerization generated insulating films being formed on
contact interfaces under organic vapor conditions [1]. An
issue inherent to electrodeposited pure Pd is the potential
incorporation of any hydrogen generated at the cathode
during the deposition process (e.g., at plating process
efficiencies less than 100%) leading to formation of
unstable beta phase Pd. Subsequent release of the
incorporated hydrogen causes the beta phase within the
deposit to transform to the more stable alpha phase. This
transition generates stress within the Pd deposit great
enough to exceed the yield point and cause spontaneous
microcracking of the deposit [2] [3] [4] [5]. This could
occur just after plating or some time afterwards depending
on the level of incorporated hydrogen and rate at which the
hydrogen evolves. These crack sites can lead to excessive
localized corrosion and inferior durability.
Through the 1980s, the connector and plating chemistry
industries worked to develop a high speed electrodeposited
Pd based alloy finish that would not exhibit microcracking
with a contact performance characteristics comparable to
hard Au. It was determined that adding sufficient levels of
Ni (a minimum of 10%) to the Pd electrodeposit
suppresses hydrogen uptake and the formation of the less
stable beta phase thereby suppressing the risk of
microcracking. Additionally, the Ni tends to suppress the
formation of frictional/fretting polymers sometimes
associated with the pure Pd deposits [6] [7] [8] and
possibly reduce porosity of the deposit as compared to hard
gold platings [9] [10]. Adding Ni to the deposit also
reduces the corrosion resistance of the deposit. Using PdNi
in the finish is not strictly a complete replacement for hard
Au.

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

Through the development of the PdNi finish, it was


determined that the use of a Ni underplate and a hard Au
flash overplate are required to get acceptable durability
performance [1] [4] [5] [11]. The Au flash also has the
added advantages of attenuating the potential risk of
generating chloride films and frictional polymers. In
addition, the Au flash greatly improves the solderability of
such deposits [12] [13] and improves fretting performance
[14]. The process of developing the PdNi deposits also
generated the recommendation to use a lubricant whenever
possible to further enhance durability as well as inhibit
corrosion and cause any frictional/fretting polymer that
may form to be non-adherent and therefore easily removed
with wipe [4] [5] [8] [9].
Because the alloy composition of high speed
electrodeposited PdNi can fluctuate with process variation,
the plating process requires a relatively large acceptable
composition range. The term PdNi as used in the
connector industry has come to mean the industry standard
of a nominal 20 10wt%Ni finish Pd alloy plating with a
hard Au flash top plate and a minimum 1.25 micron Ni
underplate. A minimum of 10wt% Ni to prevent
microcracking and a maximum of 30wt% Ni to allow for
process fluctuations but limit the effect of oxidation of any
exposed Ni within the Pd alloy [11] [13] [15].
A. PdNi high speed plating bath processes:
The dual metal high speed plating chemistries for PdNi
are inherently more complex and can be more difficult to
control in a production environment than the simpler hard
Au chemistries [16] [17] [18]. The initial high speed high
ammonia PdNi plating bath formulation used up into the
1990s were palladium chloride based and required a high
level of ammonia and a pH on the order of 8.0 [7] [12]
[16] [17] [18] [19]. These baths tended to corrode stainless
steel, the high pH could potentially lead to passivation of
the Ni underplate and adhesion problems, and ammonia
odors could be prohibitive to personnel if the air handling
systems were insufficient. This chemistry was used to
generate the samples for most of the PdNi connector finish
performance qualification work in the 1980s.
In the mid 1990s, the next generation, or low ammonia
PdNi high speed palladium sulfate plating chemistries were
introduced and have gained wide acceptance within the
industry. These chemistries require significantly lower
levels of ammonia, generally run at a lower pH (~ 7.0), and
have better process control characteristics [3] [20].
Therefore the risk of stainless steel corrosion and the
potential for nickel passivation/poor adhesion are no longer
such a potential problem. This is the bath predominantly
used in the industry at this point.
There is a no ammonia high speed plating chemistry
that runs at a pH on the order of 4.5 and is considered to
have none of the minimal risk for Ni passivation/adhesion
issues. It was introduced prior to the Pd price spike that

started just prior to 2000, but at that point the industry


switched back to mostly using hard Au finishes. Therefore,
at this time, this formulation is available, but has limited
connector production process history. Reference [21] has
some information comparing the plating bath formulations.
Other Pd alloy finishes were developed, but have not
gained acceptance for use in the connector industry. PdAg
formulations were pursued in the 1980s, but they didnt
prove to have stable enough performance for use in the
connector industry [8], though why was never fully
understood. A PdCo high speed formulation was
introduced in the 1990s [22]. What was really attractive
about PdCo is that it has none of the thickness
measurement issues associated with not being able to
determine the Ni/Pd deposit ratio over a Ni deposit.
Unfortunately, it did not prove to exhibit consistent enough
characteristics to be adopted by the industry before the
price of Pd spiked around 2000 [23] [24]. PdCo is
available through Enthone, but it is not industry accepted at
this point and is not proven for connector applications.
B. Alloy content variations and thickness measurement
limitations:
The wide range of acceptable Pd content (20 10wt%
Ni) and fluctuation across a part required by processing
degrades the capability of the X-ray Fluorescence (XRF)
technique to accurately measure PdNi deposit thickness,
much less over the required Ni underplate. The XRF
thickness measurement technique calculates thickness by
comparing the number of X-rays counts characteristic of
each element in the deposit to that of a set of known
thickness comparable standards with a specific PdNi alloy
content (e.g., 20wt%Ni). XRF techniques cannot
differentiate Ni atoms within the PdNi from the Ni atoms
in the Ni underplate to accurately determine the Pd content
of the PdNi plated over a Ni underplate. Deviations of the
Pd content of the PdNi layer, and Ni layer thickness, away
from the known standard set also degrade the accuracy of
such a measurement. This limitations issue is well known
in the industry, but XRF is still the available nondestructive high speed process control method and
necessarily used to generate the contacts for this study.
C. Reported PdNi contact performance:
As PdNi was introduced and marketed as a contact finish
using mostly the high ammonia deposition processes, the
suppliers reported either equal or superior contact
performance compared to the hard Au finishes [1] [7] [8]
[12] [19] [9] [10] [25]. This better durability
characteristic was attributed to the reported reduced
porosity, and that electrodeposited PdNi is inherently
harder than hard Au. A lot of the PdNi testing data
reported during this development and validation process
was done using normal forces in the range of 150 - 300
grams force higher than is typically used today.

Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010

incorporated connector design factors, production


processes, and data analysis.
Necessarily, there were two similar but separate test
groups: one lubricated and one unlubricated to
accommodate different durability levels. In order to
comparatively evaluate finish performance as a function of
finish, thickness, and finish mixing under corrosive gas and
durability exposures, beam finish and flat finish were
designated as 2 level attribute factors and total precious
III. TESTING PROCEDURES AND CONNECTORS
metal thickness and durability cycles were designated as
single centerpoint, 2 level continuous factors. TABLE I
The idea for this work was to compare Au and PdNi
shows the parameter ranges used. The various finish
finishes while limiting the influence of non-finish plating
combinations tested are listed as a 4 digit pattern (e.g., 11process and connector design factors: in a way that would
+). Patterns mean the combination of beam finish, flat
be most useful for the connector community. Therefore, a
finish, thickness, and durability. The first digit is the beam
testing procedure was developed using Lean Design for Six
finish and the second digit is the flat finish: 1 = Au or 2 =
Sigma (LDFSS) tools with input from various connector
PdNi. The third digit is the finish thickness level and the
engineering
interests
Development,
Product,
fourth digit is the durability level. Thickness (third digit)
Manufacturing, Technology, Testing, and Sales/Marketing.
and durability (fourth digit) are designated as either - =
The final DOE style/statistical analysis test procedure
Level 1, + = Level 2, or 0 = center levels.
TABLE I
TESTING FACTORS
Lubricated
Unlubricated
Literature and internal company contact performance
data from the end users were not as consistent and not
necessarily as positive [14] [16] [23] [24] [18] [26]. PdNi
has worked well in many applications. It is not clearly
understood if these different performance results have been
due to process, deposit characteristics, or other connector
design parameters.

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

c) Receptacle contact surface

d) Header connector

e) Header pin array

f) Header contact surface

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:

The test method is based on industry accepted


It was decided to use an existing 12x12 (total of 144
qualification procedures that noble metal finished product
replicate contacts per connector) array connector system
are required to pass in order to maximize the relevance of
(instead of lab created samples) to do this testing to make
the results to the connector community (an adapted form of
the results more useful to the engineering community
the finish relevant part of EIA 364 1000A.01A, test group
(figure 1). Each contact pair consists of a single formed
4 (TG4)) [27]. The degradation methods used to stress the
beam mated to a flat pin. Each contact has 2.77 mm wipe
finishes are durability and Class IIa Mixed Flowing Gas
at a nominal normal force in the range of 80-50 grams
(MFG) exposure. Thermal ageing was omitted because the
force, is press-fit mountable, and has an existing post
lubricants were to be evaluated in the as-applied state.
assembly lubrication method. Additionally, the header has
a relatively open pin array allowing for minimal gas
shielding in the unmated state.
TABLE II
EXPOSURE PROCEDURE
Lubricated

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

PRE Durability (100 cycles)


PRE Durability (50 cycles)
PRE Durability (20cycles)
PRE Durability (10 cycles)
Unmated Class IIA MFG, (5 days)
Post Durability (100 cycles)
Post Durability (50 cycles)
Post Durability (20 cycles)
Post Durability (10 cycles)
Number of boards

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

the statistical differences. This effect was most significant


for the thinner finish combinations.
A few of the center and thick finish combination data sets
exhibited significant differences between the outer row and
inner row data, but with a means difference on the order of
a fraction of a m. Based on these results showing the
statistical significance associated with the outer pin
positions, especially for the thin platings data, all outer row
data was excluded from for further analysis reducing the
data set size from 144 to 132 replicates.
Statistical analysis was also done to determine if the data
associated with any particular row parallel to the header
walls was significantly different. It was determined that
there was none, even for the 24 contacts located in the two
rows located adjacent to the housing walls for all the
sample types tested. Similarly, no statistical significance
associated with receptacle beam deflection direction was
found in the data. The Anova diamonds and Tukey-Kramer
circles in figure 2b show the data are statistically
indistinguishable.

A. Means comparison statistical analysis of the effect of


non-finish
contact
position
factors
after
durability/corrosive gas exposure

delta LLCR (mOhm)

delta LLCR (mOhm)

Statistical means comparison analysis was done to


determine if the effects of non-finish factors such as outer
edge header row position (increased relative corrosive gas
flow figure 1d white arrow), proximity to a header
housing wall (reduced corrosive gas flow Figure 1d), and
beam deflection direction (figure 1g) were significant.
Each test board set holds two connectors adjacent to
each other so each header has one outer edge of contacts
with no outside nearest neighbor (12 contacts total per
connector). Therefore, these outer edge pins experience a
greater flow of the corrosive gases within the MFG test
chamber than the inner pins in the unmated state. It was
determined that there was no statistical significance to
position among the inner pins; but there was an overall
statistical difference trend for the contacts located in the
outer positions. Figure 2a shows an example of such an
analysis showing that the outer row positions had
significantly higher delta LLCR values. The Anova
diamonds and the Tukey Kramer circles visually illustrate

a) outer row proximity comparison


- statistically different

b) header wall proximity / deflection direction


comparison no statistical difference

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

B. Means comparison statistical analysis of plating


combinations in the as-durability cycled (pre MFG
exposure) delta LLCR data and 1 cycle (5 days MFG total)
exposure delta LLCR data comparing lubrication states
and thickness
A similar means comparison analysis was done on the
as-durability cycled data to determine if the various thick
and thin PdNi and Au combinations are statistically
different prior to MFG exposure (figure 3). This type of
comparison was also done for the 1 cycle (5 day MFG)
delta LLCR data (figure 4). This statistical comparison
could not be done for any exposure greater than 1 cycle
(5 day MFG) exposure because of the level of open
LLCR data points in the unlubricated 2 cycle (10 days
MFG) exposure data.
Figures 3 shows there are statistically significant
differences between the different finish combinations for

both the thick and thin combinations in the as-durability


cycled state. The thin plating lubricated samples exhibited
a statistically lower delta LLCR than the unlubricated delta
LLCR data (figure 3a). There are also statistically
significant differences within the thicker plating delta
LLCR data (figure 3b), but there is no statistically lower
trend differentiation between the lubrication states. The
reality is that the level or range of these differences would
not be functionally significant in the vast majority of
connector applications. Comparison of the corresponding
1 cycle (5 day MFG) with durability cycling data in
figures 4a (thin) and 4b (thick) illustrates how dramatic an
effect the use of a lubricant can have on delta LLCR
performance after MFG exposure. There is also an
indication that the unlubricated PdNi mated to PdNi (22)
delta LLCR data is lower and not statistically different than
the lubricated data at this 5 day exposure for both the thin
and thick platings.

Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010

20 cycles durability

20 cycles durability

100 cycles durability

100 cycles durability


Lubricated

Unlubricated

Unlubricated

Lubricated

a) thin plating as durability cycled

b) thick plating as durability cycled

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)

200 cycles durability

200 cycles durability


Lubricated

L 22+

L 21+

L 11+

40 cycles durability
Unlubricated

Lubricated

22+

21+

12+

11+

Unlubricated

L 12+

delta LLCR (mOhm)

40 cycles durability

a) thin plating 1 cycle MFG with durability cycling

b) thick plating 1 cycle MFG with durability cycling

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)

The main conclusions that can be drawn from the


statistical comparisons of figures 3 and 4 are that Au and
PdNi perform similarly and lubrication has a strong effect
on improving delta LLCR performance. There may be a
statistical significance to PdNi improving delta LLCR
performance, but not to a level that could be engineered
into a design consistently.
C. Means comparison statistical analysis of the effect of
plating combinations for the lubricated 4 cycle (20 days
MFG) exposure delta LLCR data and mean and maximum
value comparison of the lubricated as-durability cycled, 5
day, 10 day, 15 day, and 20 day MFG delta LLCR data
Figure 5 shows the means comparison of all lubricated
delta LLCR data after the most severe 4 cycle (20 days
MFG total) exposure. The samples are labeled using their
pattern designation as described previously. Though
doing this means comparison of all the data sets at the
same time requires assuming an equal variance among the
data sets (not always true), it still gives statistical
comparison and doing so helps illustrate data trends.

In this worst case 20 day MFG exposure for all the


thickness and durability levels, there were 4 sets
(designated by patterns) that were significantly different
and higher than the rest of the data sets - distinguished in
figure 5 by arrows and a dotted box. The data sets
indicated by the arrows (Level 2 durability thick: Au beam
mated to a Au flat and Au beam mated to a PdNi flat)
exhibited a statistically significant increase in delta LLCR.
Whether that is good or bad depends on what level of
performance is needed in an application. The data sets
surrounded by the dotted box (thin PdNi beam mated to a
thin Au flat) exhibited an increase in the number if high
values (median and mean values diverge) a much worse
case for connector performance.
To get a more general view of these lubricated results
including the lower exposure levels, figure 6 shows a graph
showing all the maximum values for all the conditions and
exposure levels tested with a range of 0 - 10 ms. This
gives a near-far view for an overall comparison in the
context of a 10 m maximum delta LLCR limit. This
representation indicates a clear differentiation between the
thicker platings (thick and center) and the thin platings.

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++

delta LLCR (mOhm)

Beam: Au
Flat: Au

greater than 10 m maximum delta LLCR increases


associated with the thinner finishes in the 15 day and 20
day exposure states.

22+
22
2200

The thicker finish delta LLCR performances for the


different combinations and exposures are similar in the
context of most connector applications. Differences greater
than a couple of ms can only be seen within the
maximum delta LLCR thin finish data. There are some

(all lubricated data)


Figure 5 Anova and Tukey-Kramer means comparison of the lubricated delta LLCR data after 4 cycles (20 day MFG) exposure comparing
all data sets (Au/Au = 11, Au/PdNi = 22, PdNi/Au = 21, PdNi/PdNi = 22)

lubricated data
beam Au/Au flat

beam Au/PdNi flat

beam PdNi/Au flat

beam PdNi/PdNi 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

beam Au/Au flat


beam Au/PdNi flat

+ beam PdNi/Au flat


x beam PdNi/ PdNi flat

Figure 7: Cumulative ranking comparing the unlubricated 2 cycle (10 day MFG) delta LLCR data for the various combinations tested

D. Cumulative comparison plots for the unlubricated 10


day MFG exposure delta LLCR results
Because of the prevalence of LLCR opens (defined as
> 150 m) in the unlubricated delta LLCR data, it could
not be analyzed statistically. To compare relative finish
performance, figure 7 shows cumulative plot ranking of
this data. In this figure, all LLCR values of 150 m or
greater were entered as 150 m and considered to be
open: an upper ceiling associated with the LLCR
technique necessarily used in this testing for previously
discussed reasons.
The results for all the thick finish plating combinations
were similar for this unlubricated data with no durability
cycling.
There is clear differentiation between the combination
types for the thick and center thickness data with durability
cycling (20 and 40 cycles) with an indication that using
PdNi plated beams (header) may improve delta LLCR
performance after two cycles (10 days MFG) exposure in
the unlubricated state. When looking at the thin finish data,
the thick and center thickness trend appears to reverse in
that using Au as the beam (header) finish with durability
cycling may lead to better delta LLCR performance for the

thinner unlubricated deposits. Different applications have a


different assessment of what failure means. Maximum
delta LLCR requirements can be as wide as multiple Ohms
to as tight as 10 m. For the thin plating that experienced
40 durability cycles: neither of the PdNi beam plated
contacts would have passed if a 10 m maximum delta
LLCR was applied. What one calls failure will effect
conclusions about comparative performance.
E. Alloy content variation/thickness
limitation and implications:

measurement

To minimize PdNi plating process variability, both the


header and receptacle contacts were plated on one line over
the course of one day to maintain the chemistry as much as
possible. Because the surface area and geometries of the
header and receptacle contacts were significantly different,
the agitation and current density levels and distribution
were also different. These facts can lead to high speed
PdNi deposition process alloy content variation (20wt%Ni
10%) and further measurement issues as discussed
previously. TABLE III lists the thickness measurements
used to control the plating ESR process as the target
thickness levels were generated as would be done for
product. The XRF data shows reasonable correlation
between the measured XRF and targeted values.

Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010

Knowing that there are limitations to the accuracy of


XRF thickness measurement technique applied to PdNi
platings, limited Focused Ion Beam (FIB) analysis of the
PdNi layer thicknesses was done afterwards. FIB is a
destructive method used to make perpendicular cuts into a
surface under vacuum (~ of micrometers) from which
deposit thickness measurements can be made.FIB is not
widely available and is not appropriate for the production
environment. The FIB measurements show that there was
reasonable correlation between the XRF and FIB analysis
for the receptacle (beam) contacts, but not for the header

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)

(flat) contacts. All the header deposits were substantially


thicker according to the FIB analysis. This data shows that
conclusions that PdNi is more durable or less porous
may be more an indication of a thicker deposit. Since the
Pd content can vary across a single part and with the
different agitation and current density distributions across
different part geometries, the fact that the plating two
different geometries (receptacle and header) resulted in
different overall thickness ranges is not unexpected.

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

The purpose of this work was to compare finish related


performance factors with an understanding of how the
results could be affected by non finish and uncontrollable
factors. The main general conclusion that can be drawn
from this work, in the context of general connector
performance requirements, is that the different Au and
PdNi combinations exhibited at times statistically different
results but functionally similar performance. This data also
confirms the strong recommendation to use a lubricant
which has a strong positive effect on maintaining low
LLCR.
This work also helps explain the fact that there are
conflicting reports about relative performance of Au vs.
PdNi finishes. The influence of the difficulties in
measuring and controlling PdNi alloy levels in the
production environment cannot be ignored. The reality is
that one can try to exclude all non finish related factors
(e.g., processing and measurement), but they still will play
a role.
Even though there were processing related factors that
could not be completely controlled, the overall conclusion
of this work is that Au and PdNi are effectively equivalent
for most lubricated connector application requirements at
equivalent thickness.

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and


support of the personnel within the various organizations
of TE who assisted in getting this work done.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Antler, "The development and application of palladium
contact materials recent work on telecommunications
connectors," Platinum Metals Review, vol. 9, issue 1, pp.
13-19, Jan 1987.
[2] P. Wilkinson, "The replacement of gold by palladium-nickel
on connectors," Transactions of the Institute of Metal
Finishing, vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 33-37, 1987.
[3] K. Sandum, "Pallatech PdNi M2-HS Plating Bath
Evaluation," a publication of AMP Incorporated, RN #551,
1998.
[4] J H. Whitley, "Amp-Duragold plating," A publication of
AMP Incorporated, EN123, 1983.
[5] J H. Whitley, "Gold conservation and the use of palladium
on connector contacts," A publication of AMP Incorporated,
EN127, 1984.
[6] T. A. Uhrig, E. W, Gray, and G. F. Hohnstreiter, "Use of
palladium/nickel as a contact material," Proceedings of the
Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts, pp. 431-434,
1978.
[7] J. L. Martin, M. P. Tobin, and K. J. Whitlaw, "Palladium
and palladium alloy electrodeposits in the electronics
industry," Metal Finishing, pp. 39-41, Jan 1990.

Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010

[8] M. Antler, "Contact Materials for Electronic Connectors: a


survey of current practices & technology trends in the U.S.,"
Plating and Surface Finishing, vol. 78, No. 6 pp. 58-62,
1991.
[9] E. J. Kudrak and J. A. Abys, , A designed experiment to
determine porosity, Interconnection Technology, pp. 1825, June 1993.
[10] J. L. Chao and R. R. Gore, Investigations into gaseous
testing requirements for Pd-Ni alloy coatings of electrical
contacts, Plating and Surface Finishing, vol. 79, no. 9, pp.
56-61, 1992.
[11] M. Antler and M. Feder, "Friction and wear of
electrodeposited palladium contacts: thin film lubrication
with fluids and with gold," IEEE Transactions on
Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology, vol.
9, issue 4, pp. 485-491, 1986.
[12] E. J. Kudrak, J. A. Abys, H. K. Straschil, I. Kadija, J. J.
Maisano, "Palladium and palladium alloy plating for the
1990s," presented at Connectors 93, May 19, 1993.
[13] TE document 212-6, AMP Duragold, palladium and its
alloys.
[14] C. A. Morse, N. R. Aukland, N.R.; and H. C. Hardee, "A
statistical comparison of gold and palladium-nickel plating
systems for various fretting parameters," Proceedings of the
Forty-First IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts,
pp. 33-51, 1995.
[15] AMP document 112-49, Plating, Palladium-Nickel, 8020% Alloy, Electrodeposited.
[16] I. Wei, The process variation of palladium-nickel alloy
platings - a screening study, a publication of AMP
Incorporated, RN# 424, 1989.
[17] I. Wei, Guidelines for process control of palladium
plating, a publication of AMP Incorporated, RN# 450,
1991.
[18] T. Sullivan, "Palladium nickel alloy plating as a replacement
for gold at Harrisonburg, VA," A publication of AMP
Incorporated, RN #491, 1993.

[19] S. W. Updegraff, "Better than gold: A palladium-nickel


coating system for high reliability connectors," Proc. 33rd
Electronics Components Conference IEEE CHMT Soc., pp.
425-431, 1983.
[20] J. A. Abys, H. K. Straschil, I. Kadija, E. J. Kudrak, and J.
Blee, The electrodeposition and material properties of
palladium-nickel alloys, Metal Finishing, vol. 89, no. 7,
pp. 43-52, July 1991.
[21] W. Zhang, M. Clauss, J Guebey, and F. Schwager, "Lowammonia, high-speed palladium-nickel electroplating
process for connector applications," Metal Finishing, vol.
65, No. 1, pp. 33-37, March 2009.
[22] J. A. Abys, G. G. Breck, H. K. Straschil, I. Boguslavsky and
G. Holmbom, The electrodeposition & material properties
of palladium-cobalt, Plating and Surface Finishing, vol.
86, no. 1, pp. 108-115, 1999.
[23] Evaluation of the performance of new platings for
connector contacts, a test report from Battelle to AMP, Jan
1999.
[24] A. Sullivan, Characterization of the corrosion resistance
and tribological performance of a novel palladium-cobalt
system, a publication of AMP Incorporated, RN# 551,
1997.
[25] GXTTM plating is better than gold, a test report from FCI,
Jan 1999.
[26] I. Wei I and S. Keister, The process variation of sel-rex
palladex GV palladium-nickel alloy plating, a publication
of AMP Incorporated, RN# 432, 1989.
[27] EIA 364 1000.01A - Environmental Test methodology for
assessing the performance of electrical connectors and
sockets used in controlled environment applications, April
2006.

Proceedings of the 56th IEEE HOLM 2010 Conference on Electrical Contacts, September 2010

10

You might also like