Alumiplate As A Cadmium Alternative

ALUMIPLATE AS A CADMIUM
ALTERNATIVE
Report to:
JSF ESOH Working Group
By
Keith Legg
John Sauer
Date: August 18 2004
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for Public Release. Distribution is unlimited.
Copyright 2004 - Rowan Technology Group

Contact information:
Dr. Keith O. Legg
Rowan Technology Group, 1590 South Milwaukee Ave, Suite 205, Libertyville, IL 60048
Tel: 847-680-9420, Fax: 847-680-9682
Email: [email protected]
Rowan Technology Group

Report #: AlumiPlate Final
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based upon the review of technical testing data and information from
actual application evaluations, Alumiplate shows excellent capability to
replace Cd plating for many aerospace specifications.
Testing reports from hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion
evaluations show equal to or better than property results in
comparison to typical Cd plating. Fatigue testing data to date is
inconsistent and further evaluations are in progress.
Applications such as fasteners and landing gear components have
been successfully plated and are currently showing excellent
service performance.
Amphenol electrical connectors (both Al and PEEK shells) have
passed all corrosion, conductivity and endurance tests. The Al
shell connectors have been qualified and assigned part numbers,
while the PEEK shells require a small amount of additional
corrosion testing.
The areas of remaining concern which must be addressed are:
Alumiplate is a sole source product and an expanded vendor base
through licensing or additional locations must be reviewed as part
of the Tech Transfer Plan.
Although Alumiplate is a closed loop process, our conversations
with depot personnel show that the use of toluene in the plating
process makes it highly unlikely that it would be accepted for
depot use. This is not important for electrical connectors, but it
would mean that if Al plated components are overhauled in the
depot, any replating of components would require shipping to
AlumiPlate or use of an alternative technology such as IVD Al.
Since the elimination of the pre-treatment Ni strike has been a
recent development, the current testing data base (mostly with Ni
strike) must be expanded to the validate the initial satisfactory
performance recently shown with no Ni strike data. Current
fatigue data are inadequate and contradictory.
Plans and programs are in progress to address these concerns at varied
end users in conjunction with the appropriate government agencies,
especially in the F-35 community.

Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................... ii
Table of Contents .......................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................. v
Document List ................................................................ v
1.
Introduction ................................................. 1
2.
The Al Electroplating Process ................... 2
2.1.
The AlumiPlate process................................................... 2
2.2.
Advantages and limitations ............................................... 5
2.3.
Repair of Al coatings ......................................................... 6
3.
Property and Performance Data ................ 7
3.1.
Basic materials properties ................................................. 7
3.2.
Fatigue .............................................................................. 8
3.2.1.
Summary Fatigue............................................................... 8
3.2.2.
Initial notch fatigue testing (1984) ...................................... 8
3.2.3.
Parallax Inc. testing.......................................................... 10
3.2.4.
Goodrich........................................................................... 12
3.3.
Hydrogen embrittlement .................................................. 12
3.3.1.
Summary-Hydrogen Embrittlement.................................. 12
3.3.2.
Parallax ............................................................................ 13
3.3.3.
NAVAIR............................................................................ 13
3.3.4.
CTC.................................................................................. 14
3.3.5.
Goodrich........................................................................... 14
3.3.6.
Boeing St. Louis HE EAC................................................. 15
3.4.
Corrosion......................................................................... 16
3.4.1.
Summary Corrosion Testing ............................................ 16
3.4.2.
B117 (Parallax) ................................................................ 16

Page iii
3.4.2.1.
CTC ASTM B117 and Modified SO2 Salt Fog .............. 18
3.4.2.2.
Goodrich ASTM B117 and G85 SO2 Salt Fog............. 20
3.4.3.
3.4.3.1.
Grade 8 Bolts ............................................................... 20
3.4.3.2.
4130 Steel Test Panels Nickel Strike .......................... 22
3.5.
Specific Application Testing ............................................ 22
3.5.1.
Connector testing ............................................................. 22
3.5.1.1.
Amphenol and Lockheed Testing................................. 22
3.5.1.2.
Boeing testing .............................................................. 29
3.5.1.3.
Bend and Pull Testing .................................................. 31
3.5.1.4.
Galling Evaluation ........................................................ 31
3.5.2.
4.
Corrosion Beach Exposure .............................................. 20
Eyebolts ........................................................................... 32
Feasibility Testing ..................................... 34
4.1.
Summary Feasibility Studies ........................................... 34
4.2.
Ti Fasteners .................................................................... 34
4.3.
Goodrich Landing Gear ................................................... 35
5.
Aerospace Qualifications ......................... 37
6.
Opportunities and Risks for F-35............. 39
6.1.
Potential applications on F-35 ......................................... 39
6.2.
Business risk availability and licensing......................... 40
6.3.
Technical risk .................................................................. 41
7.
Recommendations/Further Actions......... 43

Page iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Advantages and limitations of AlumiPlate...................................5
Table 2. Summary of electroplated Al properties*. ...................................7
Table 3. Endurance limits for Cd and for electro- and electroless Ni strike
+ Alumiplate on 4130 steel Parallax Phase II (different lot all with
Ni strike). 10 specimens per point condition....................................12
Table 4. Hydrogen embrittlement F-519 testing of AlumiPlate (Type 1b
notched specimen, 75%NTS). Nickel Strike....................................13
Table 5. Boeing St. Louis hydrogen embrittlement environmentally
assisted cracking. .............................................................................15
Table 6. Effect of Ni strike and chromate on B117 corrosion of
AlumiPlate. .......................................................................................18
Table 7 B117 Salt Fog Corrosion Ratings of AlumiPlate Compared to
Cd and IVD Al. (Rating 10 = 0% corroded; Rating 0 = >75%
corroded.) .........................................................................................19
Table 8 Amphenol/Alumiplate Testing ...................................................23
Table 9 ASTM B117 1000 hour Salt Spray Testing................................24
Table 10 ASTM B117 1000 hour Salt Spray Testing with Shell to Shell
Conductivity Testing ........................................................................25
Table 11 SO2 salt fog with shell to shell conductivity. ...........................26
Table 12 Durability Test Results............................................................28
Table 13 Alumiplate Qualification Data..................................................37
Table 14. Some potential applications for AlumiPlate on the F-35. ........39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Alumiplate production line. ........................................................2
Figure 2. F-22 main landing gear inner cylinder after AlumiPlating. .........3
Figure 3. Auxiliary anode arrangement for F-22 landing gear inner
cylinder axle........................................................................................4
Figure 4 Fatigue Testing for Siemens 1984 Evaluation...........................9
Figure 5 Fatigue Testing Specimen for Siemens 1984 Evaluation...........9
Figure 6. Fatigue data, 1984 evaluation. ................................................10
Figure 7. Fatigue of Ni strike + 0.0003" Al on 4130 (RR Moore, R=-1).
These data were replotted from the Parallax report to show all data
point..................................................................................................11

Page v
Figure 8. Comparison of Ni + AlumiPlate with Cd. AN3XX = Ni + 0.410.56 mil Al + chromate; SAN3XX = AN3XX Scribed; C22XX = 0.35
mil Cd + chromate; SC22XX = C22XX Scribed................................17
Figure 9. Comparison of chromated AlumiPlate with Ni strike (left 2
groups) and without (right 2 groups). AN22X = Ni + 0.56-0.63 mil Al
+ chromate; SAN22XX = AN22XX Scribed; A22X = 0.65-0.69 mils Al
+ chromate; SA22XX = A22X Scribed..............................................17
Figure 10. Comparison of non-chromated AlumiPlate with Ni strike (left)
and without (right). AN21X = Ni + 0.54-0.58 mils Bare Al; SAN21XX
= AN21X Scribed; A21X = 0.62-0.64 mils Bare Al; SA21XX = A21X
Scribed. ............................................................................................18
Figure 11. AlumiPlated bolts after 6,600 hrs beach exposure. ...............21
Figure 12. Corrosion pit through Al after 3420 hrs..................................21
Figure 13 Sample #4 after ASTM B117 1000 hour Salt Spray Testing ..24
Figure 14 SO2 salt fog samples after testing ..........................................27
Figure 15. AlumiPlated connectors 1A and 1B after 506 hr salt fog test.29
Figure 16. Connector shell to backing plate resistance for materials
shown in the table. Mounted on 7075-T7351 aluminum plate with
Class 1A chemical film. ....................................................................30
Figure 17. AlumiPlated Jackscrew/jackpost resistance as a function of
torque after salt fog testing. Specimens have same numbering as in
Figure 16. .........................................................................................31
Figure 18 M119A1 Howitzer Eyebolt after 21,480 hours of Field
Evaluation at Fort Campbell, Kentucky ............................................32
Figure 19 Microstructure of Thread Area Showing .00035Alumiplate
Thickness ......................................................................33
Figure 20. Screw Thread Tip 0.00015 electroless Ni / 0.00075 Al
1000X SE. ........................................................................................35
Figure 21
F/A 22 Main Landing Gear Piston ........................................35
Figure 22 MLG and NLG Pins ...............................................................36

Figure 23 AlBeMet Electronics Backplane'............................................38
Figure 24 Amphenol composite connectors coated with AlumiPlate and
qualified for F-35 use........................................................................38
Figure 25
M50 High Strength Steel (HSS) Rotor Hub Housing ............38
Figure 26 HSS Eyebolts ........................................................................38

Figure 27 AlBeMet Gyro Housings ........................................................38

Page vi
DOCUMENT LIST
Document 1 TNO Report, 1984 ...............................................................7
Document 2 Parrallax feasibility study, 1998...........................................7
Document 3 Parallax progress report on AlumiPlate, June 2003. ...........8
Document 4 Parallax fatigue testing. .......................................................8
Document 5 Parallax report on hydrogen embrittlement. ......................12
Document 6 Parallax ASTM B117 corrosion testing..............................16
Document 7 Parallax Grade 8 bolt beach exposure corrosion testing...16
Document 8 Parallax 4130 steel panel beach exposure testing............16
Document 9 Connector testing at Lockheed-Martin and Amphenol. .....22
Document 10 Connector testing at Boeing. ...........................................22
Document 11 Parallax testing of eyebolts. ............................................32
Document 12 Parallax testing of Ti fasteners. .......................................34

Page vii
1. Introduction
The AlumiPlate process was originally reviewed in our report titled
Cadmium Replacement Alternatives for the JSF, dated December 2000.
Our main conclusions were that the material appeared to have good
technical performance, but that it was a sole source product that could not
be used in the depots. There were also concerns with the Toulene based
component of the process.
Since that time, the process has proved to have high potential as an
alternative to Cd in several existing and potential F-35 applications, and
has recently been approved for Amphenol connectors and for one F-22
landing gear component. There has been success with the elimination of
the pre-treatment Ni-strike. Unfortunately the majority of the data
currently available is with the Ni strike so more evaluation is needed.
The purpose of this report is to provide as complete an update as
possible of the data available on AlumiPlate performance and to assess
the potential benefits and risks to the F-35 program.

Page 1
2. The Al Electroplating Process

2.1.
The AlumiPlate process

Aluminum electroplating is
done using a toluene-based
organic solution, and is
based on technology
patented by Siemens in the
Netherlands1,2. The solvent
is aprotic, i.e. there are no
free protons and therefore
little or no propensity for
hydrogen embrittlement in
the Al plating process itself.
(Hydrogen could, of course,
be generated during
ancillary processes such as
cleaning and activation,
although the amount of
hydrogen produced in these
processes should be much
lower than in a plating
process.)
Unlike standard aqueous
electroplating, the organic
plating solution must be kept
free of oxygen and water,
which necessitates the use
of a completely enclosed
plating line (Figure 1). This Figure 1. Alumiplate production line.
line is completely sealed in a
steel tank that contains an inert atmosphere. Items to be plated are
inserted into the system (individually for large items or racked for small
items) through a load-lock at one end and are then picked up and carried
by a traveling crane. Each bath (activation, plating, rinsing, etc.) is
isolated by a gate valve, which is opened to admit the workpiece, then
closed for the duration of the operation. All of these movements and
process are computer controlled.
Size
The Al plating tank is 20"x23"x31" high. This, together with the weight
1
US Patent # 4759831, Electroplating apparatus particularly for electrodeposition of aluminum, 1988.
US Patent # 4145261, Electrolyte-liquid for the electrodeposition of aluminum,

1979.

Page 2
limitation of the crane and the size of the load lock chamber defines the
maximum size and weight of objects that can be processed. For
example, the process can just accommodate an F-22 main landing gear
inner cylinder (Figure 2). The process itself is not inherently size-limited
larger items would require a larger plating line and more plating current.
However, this does mean that the entire line must be scaled, not just the
plating bath.
Figure 2. F-22 main landing gear inner cylinder after AlumiPlating.

Page 3
General Processing
Pretreatment
Prior to plating items are cleaned in a standard aqueous cleaning line and
given either an electroplated Ni strike or a grit blast for adhesion. In the
past a Ni strike was always used. However, working with Goodrich
AlumiPlate has developed a grit blast surface preparation method that
works well. Electroless Cu has also been used instead of a Ni strike on
aluminum and composite connectors. A preparation method for direct
plating of Alumiplate on aluminum connectors has also been developed.
Plating
Once in the plating line the surface is chemically activated in a semiaqueous bath and any water rinsed off prior to plating.
Simple objects can be plated using a standard anode arrangement.
However, complex items requiring an even plate on all surfaces must be
plated using conformal anodes or multiple anodes, as in any other
electroplating process. Figure 3 shows the arrangement of auxiliary
anodes used to obtain uniform plating around the complex areas of an F22 gear.
Figure 3. Auxiliary anode arrangement for F-22 landing

gear inner cylinder axle.
Post Processing
Unlike IVD Al (which requires glass bead peening for adhesion and
porosity), electroplated Al requires no post-processing since the material
is dense and adherent as-deposited. In many applications it does require
a chromate treatment, just as with any other Cd alternative. (As with
other Cd alternatives, chromate treatments are likely to be replaced over
the next few years with non-chromate corrosion inhibition packages.)
For threaded sections of fasteners and connectors a solid lubricant is
required because of the tendency of Al to gall. Typically this is MoS2 in a
Page 4
polymer binder.
2.2.
Advantages and limitations

The primary advantages and limitations of the AlumiPlate technology are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Advantages and limitations of AlumiPlate.
Advantages
Limitations
Meets MIL-DTL-83488 (the IVD Al

spec)
Enclosed system is expensive (~$5

million) and limits size of items that
can be plated (tank size 20"x23"x31")
High quality Al meets most corrosion Toluene bath not acceptable for most
test requirements
DoD depots
Good throwing power able to coat
complex objects
Requires solid lubricant film for

threads and threaded fasteners
High plating rate typical 0.001 or

less thickness requires <15 min
Still requires chromating (or

alternative), in common with all other
Cd alternatives
Able to coat non-line-of-sight areas by

using internal electrodes
Currently available only from

AlumiPlate in the US and Aluminal in
Europe. Can be licensed from
AlumiPlate
Does not require post-deposition

peening (as does IVD Al)
Detailed data are provided in Section 3 on Properties and Performance.
In most tests so far AlumiPlate has performed very well. The coating has
higher quality than IVD Al and does not need to be peened to tighten the
structure. The previous requirement for a Ni strike has now been
replaced with a grit blast for items such as landing gear.
The primary limitation of the technology is the size of items that can be
coated a limitation imposed by the size of the equipment available. At
the same time, however, the enclosed tank serves not only to keep
oxygen out of the process, but also to keep toluene vapor out of the
production environment. There is no leakage and therefore no direct
ESOH hazard from the solvent. Nor is any toluene carried out of the
plating process on the component since it is rinsed after deposition in a
rinse bath within the enclosed line. Therefore the only likely ESOH
problem (apart from a leak) would be personnel coming in contact with
the solvent during bath recharging or cleaning.
However, all DoD repair depot personnel with whom we have discussed
AlumiPlate state that a toluene process is not acceptable in the depot
Page 5
that in fact most depots are trying to eliminate toluene and that an attempt
to install a toluene-based process would be a non-starter with their
environmental and safety offices simply because of the on-site inventory
of toluene.
For DoD vendors a principal limitation is the limited availability of the
plating service. At present AlumiPlate is a sole source in the US.
Aluminal in Germany licenses the same patents and sells a similar
service. We do not know if the process quality and processing methods
would be equivalent at both companies probably they are not since
AlumiPlate, at least, has modified parts of the process over the past year
or so in response to DoD needs.
The issue of AlumiPlate being a sole source will remain for the
foreseeable future. The company is willing to license users, and is even
considering supplying the service in a manner that would avoid any
potential user contact with the solvent. The company has also expressed
a willingness to set up a plating plant adjacent to any large user.
However, these options require a fairly high usage rate to make good
business sense.
2.3.
Repair of Al coatings
There are a number of ways to repair aluminum coatings, which have
been covered in our JSF report Field Repair of Chrome and Cadmium
Replacements3. The following primary methods already exist or are
likely to become available:
Brush Zn-Ni or Sn-Zn this approach has been successfully
tested for IVD by Boeing.
Arc spray Al this is simple and readily available. Because of the
roughness of the as-coated surface the material would
presumably have to be smoothed by sanding after coating.
Cold spray Al this method is also simple, with the advantage of
lower heat input but the disadvantage of limited availability and
lack of aerospace process specifications. Inovati has recently
developed a small and simple gun designed for on-site use that is
currently used to repair electronics racks. They have begun an
SBIR to develop the method that is supported by the ESOH
Working Group.
SermeTel coatings these coatings can be brushed or sprayed
on, but must be heat treated after deposition.
Field Repair of Chrome and Cadmium Replacements, Rowan Technology

Group, July 2001.

Page 6
3. Property and Performance Data

This section will cover the following topics:
3.1.
Basic Material Properties

Fatigue
Hydrogen Embrittlement
Corrosion
Specific Application Testing and Evaluation
Basic materials properties

Document 1 TNO Report, 1984
Document 2 Parrallax feasibility study, 1998.
Basic properties of the coatings are shown in Table 2, mostly from

measurements made on the original Siemens material in 1984
(Document 1) and reconfirmed by the Parallax study (Document 2) which
both involved the use of the Ni strike.
Table 2. Summary of electroplated Al properties*.
Property
Value
Property
Value
Thickness
0.00010.010
Microhardness
19-25HV
Anodized
450-650HV***
usually
<0.001
Density
2.65 gm cm-3
(bulk = 2.70)
Residual stress
9-18 N mm-2
(low)
Smoothness (on
5 substrate)
12 at
0.0001 thick
Throwing power
(tip/root thickness
on connector
threads)
0.7/0.25**
Thermal
conductivity
200-220
30 at
0.001
Electrical resistivity
2.9-3.2
cm
j.s-1.m-1.K-1
* Primary source of data original measurements made for Siemens

material by TNO in the Netherlands, 1984.
** Original data, under improvement
*** Process variation could result in lower values

Page 7
3.2.
Fatigue
Document 3 Parallax progress report on AlumiPlate, June 2003.
Document 4 Parallax fatigue testing.
3.2.1.
Summary Fatigue
The original data taken in 1984, which was notch fatigue using the
rotating bend method, showed a slight improvement of fatigue for
AlumiPlate with a Ni strike. More recent data taken by Parallax and by
Goodrich are confused. The Ni strike does seem to produce a fatigue
debit (although not in all cases) and there is only limited data (Goodrich)
on AlumiPlate without the strike, which is the way it will be used on
landing gear and other high strength steel components.
There is insufficient data to draw a definitive conclusion.
3.2.2.
Initial notch fatigue testing (1984)
In the initial 1984 study by Siemens (Document 1), a combined hydrogen

embrittlement-notched fatigue test was run. The comparison involved
the use of three coating conditions:
Baseline bare bars
Alumiplate bars
Chrome plated bars
For the chrome plated bars, no bake after processing was performed.
The testing logic indicated this allowed for direct comparison of the
processes since Alumiplate should logically not involve any hydrogen
embrittlement. A notched bar was also selected for the purposes of
evaluating hydrogen embrittlement.
In reality, the testing essentially involved a rotating fatigue test (Figure 4)
with a notched test specimen (Figure 5). A Type 34 (.34% carbon)
CrNiMo 6 German steel was used that had been processed to a 340 HV
hardness. The chromium plating was .0003 thick as compared to the
Alumiplate thickness (with a nickel strike) of .0006. The testing was
performed according to Fatigue Bend Testing Standard DIN 50130.
Results are shown in Figure 6. The Alumiplate data shows good
comparison to the baseline specimens with the chrome plated specimens
exhibiting a definite fatigue debit. Fracture analysis of the chrome plated
specimens showed initiation in the plating layer at multiple sites
supporting possible hydrogen embrittlement. This was not the case with
the Alumiplate specimens thus indicating both the absence of hydrogen
embrittlement and satisfactory fatigue performance.
With the test methodology, the only real conclusion that can be drawn is
that the bending fatigue resistance was comparable. This was not a
Page 8
conventional hydrogen embrittlement evaluation and therefore should not

be considered as such. More definitive embrittlement testing and more
conventional fatigue work is shown in subsequent sections of this
summary.
Figure 4 Fatigue Testing for Siemens 1984 Evaluation
Figure 5 Fatigue Testing Specimen for Siemens 1984 Evaluation

Page 9
Figure 6. Fatigue data, 1984 evaluation.
3.2.3.
Parallax Inc. testing
In 2003, fatigue testing was carried out for non-shot peened 4130 steel
(heat treat 38-42Rc) by Parallax Inc. (Document 3 and Document 4) using
the rotating beam method (which is less well-controlled than axial testing).
Unfortunately the data have several issues that make them highly suspect
1. On the first set of data the specimens sent to AlumiPlate had
begun to corrode when received. They were reworked, leaving
their surfaces in a different condition and making baseline
comparison meaningless.
2. The second set was taken from a different lot and only included
data for AlumiPlate with a Ni strike, which is not what is now used
for most aircraft components. The data for this second test are
plotted in Figure 7, and resulting endurance limits derived by
Parallax are tabulated in Table 3. It is important to note that
this data is for AlumiPlate with a Ni strike.

Page 10
Phase II fatigue testing

150
140
Bare - Baseline
Load (ksi)
130
Ni + 0.3 mils Al + HCC

Ni + 0.3 mils Al
120
Ni + 0.3 mils Al + Stress Relief + HCC

Electroless Ni + 0.3 mils Al + HCC
110
Shotpeen + Ni + 0.3 mils Al + HCC
100
90
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
100,000,000
Cycles to failure
Figure 7. Fatigue of Ni strike + 0.0003" Al on 4130 (RR Moore, R=-1). These data were
replotted from the Parallax report to show all data point.
Given the small number of data points, within the test accuracy the
AlumiPlate with the electroless Ni strike and the AlumiPlate with the
electroplated Ni strike and non-chromated surface (purple and yellow
triangles) are not really distinguishable from the bare material. Several of
the other curves appear to show a debit of about 10% in the fatigue limit.
From this second lot of material Parallax extracted endurance limits
(Table 3). They concluded that, while Cd does not affect fatigue,
AlumiPlate with a Ni strike does appear to create a fatigue debit of
about 10% (and for the thicker coating 20%). As one would expect,
shot peening prior to plating restores the debit. In reality any fatiguecritical aerospace component would be shot peened in any case (which
would, of course, raise the baseline also). Note that by stress relief the
authors of the data mean a hydrogen bake at 375F. However, given the
very few high-cycle points from which the endurance limits are drawn,
there are insufficient data to make a definitive conclusion.
The first set of data cannot be relied upon because of the differences
between the AlumiPlated and baseline specimens. The second
contained no testing of AlumiPlate without a Ni strike (which is the way it
is now deposited). Most users in the aerospace industry rely on tensile
fatigue testing rather than rotating beam (which tends to have a wider
scatter), and use high strength steel (4340, 300M, etc.) test specimens.
We cannot make a definitive conclusion until the coating is retested
using tensile testing of standard fatigue bars of high strength steel
(4340 or 300M) that directly compares baseline (bare and Cd-plated)
and AlumiPlated specimens with no Ni strike.

Page 11
Table 3. Endurance limits for Cd and for electro- and electroless Ni strike + Alumiplate on 4130
steel Parallax Phase II (different lot all with Ni strike). 10 specimens per point condition.
Material Condition
(AISI 4130, HRC 38-42)
Material Heat 2
Endurance
Strength
(KSI)
Degradation
From
Baseline
(%)
Improve
-ment
Over
Baselin
e (%)
Avg. Ni
Thickness/
TIRa (mils)
Avg. Al
Thickness/
TIR
(mils)
Bare AISI 4130 Steel Baseline
103.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ni + 0.3 mils Al + HCCb
91.0
12
0.140/0.039
0.572/0.113
Ni + 0.3 mils Al (no HCC)
99.0
0.162/0.057
0.609/0.168
Ni + 0.3 mils Al + Stress Relief

+ HCC
92.0
11
0.109/0.037
0.550/0.237
83.0
19
0.080/0.071
1.66/0.300
Electroless NI + 0.3 mils Al +

HCC
98.0
0.081/0.014
0.652/0.045
Shotpeen + Ni + 0.3 mils Al +

HCC
108.0
0.124/0.135
0.653/0.133
a. TIR = total potential indicator runout on bar due to plating thickness variation assuming
substrate bar diameters are totally concentric. Four measurements were taken 90o apart
and averaged.
b. HCC = hexavalent chrome conversion.
3.2.4.
Goodrich
Goodrich has recently done very limited strain-controlled axial fatigue

testing of AlumiPlate with a Ni strike (3 specimens with shot peening and
3 without) to be sure that there are no major issues. The AlumiPlated
specimens all fell on or above the baseline unpeened 300M. While
encouraging, these statistics are of course far too limited to be definitive
and Goodrich will be doing more extensive testing using a Cd plated
baseline for ultimate decision making.
3.3.
Hydrogen embrittlement
Document 5 Parallax report on hydrogen embrittlement.
3.3.1.
Summary-Hydrogen Embrittlement
The testing to date does not show any signs of hydrogen embrittlement
for the Alumiplate process for OEM parts. However, some concern is
warranted for the stripping process when MRO re-processing may be
performed.
Page 12
3.3.2.
Parallax
In ASTM F-519 testing in 1998, reported by Parallax, AlumiPlated

specimens ( Table 4) showed no embrittlement (Document 2).
Table 4. Hydrogen embrittlement F-519 testing of AlumiPlate
(Type 1b notched specimen, 75%NTS). Nickel Strike
Specimen #
Treatment
Time to Failure (h)
100222
None
>8,000
100223
None
>8,000
100235
None
>8,000
100221
0.3 mil Al
>8,000
Broken on Loading
100224
0.3 mil Al
100225
0.3 mil Al
>8,000
100226
1.2 mil AL + anodize
>8,000
100230
>8,000
100231
>8,000
100232
0.3 mil AL + chromate
>8,000
100233
>8,000
100234
>8,000
3.3.3.
NAVAIR
NAVAIR has recently performed a hydrogen embrittlement test. The

specimens tested by Craig Matzdorf at NAVAIR4 using ASTM F519 and a
modified rising step load method passed all embrittlement tests, as
follows:
Test:
ASTM F519
Bar:
Type 1a notched
Matzdorf, C., AlumiPlate Embrittlement Test Data, Naval Aviation Systems

Command, Unpublished Data, 26 November 2001.
Page 13
Material:
4340 high strength steel
Coating:
Ni Strike then 0.001 AlumiPlate and 0.001 AlumiPlate
+ chromate conversion. No hydrogen bake.
Test duration: 200hr at 75% notch tensile strength.
A total of only 4 bars were tested:
1 bar 0.001 AlumiPlate 200 hrs at 75% NTS
1 bar 0.001 AlumiPlate + chromate conversion 200 hrs at 75% NTS
1 bar 0.001 AlumiPlate 24 hrs at 75% NTS + step load to failure
1 bar 0.001 AlumiPlate + chromate conversion 24 hrs at 75% NTS
+ step load to failure
All four bars passed the test. The rising step load (RSL) portion of the
test did not follow ASTM procedures. Note: for embrittlement testing,
which is very variable, these are very poor statistics. More testing is
needed to generate a reasonable level of confidence.
3.3.4.
CTC
The CTC results were taken for specimens that had been Ni plated,
aluminum plated, stripped, and re-plated (without a hydrogen bake). The
4340 Rockwell C 51-53 specimens failed the F519 test. The data must
therefore be discounted since it probably represents embrittlement due to
stripping and Ni strike conventional plating rather than the Alumiplate
process. However, it does strongly suggest the need for a standard
hydrogen bake after stripping the coating. (see Document 3 and
Document 5).
3.3.5.
Goodrich
Goodrich has performed some limited embrittlement testing on the

following conditions with no nickel stike:
Plated with Alumiplate
Plated with Alumiplate and Stripped
Plated with Alumiplate, Stripped, and Baked
Plated with Alumiplate, Stripped, Baked , and Re-plated
Some limited failures were encountered with the stripped sets which were
attributed to stress corrosion cracking and not hydrogen embrittlement.
However, with the limited data to date, Goodrich has chosen to include a
bake cycle for stripped parts in their processing specification. Although
the initial data does not indicate a problem, the inclusion of a bake cycle
was mandated more by lack of statistical data than the likelihood for
hydrogen embrittlement concerns.

Page 14
3.3.6.
Boeing St. Louis HE EAC
In conjunction with Alumiplate, Boeing St. Louis (Table 5) has been

conducting hydrogen embrittlement environmentally assisted cracking
(HE EAC), or Re-embrittlement testing (ASTM F-519). This tests for
embrittlement that may occur due to corrosion of the AlumiPlate or
substrate in service.
Results to date have shown no tendency for re-embrittlement to occur
with AlumiPlate, and the final data will be included in the next summary
revision.
Table 5. Boeing St. Louis hydrogen embrittlement environmentally assisted cracking.
No of
Specimens
Coating
Method
Post
Treatment
Wet*
Notch
Solution
Dry**
Notch
Solution
Test
Method
Load
Test
Duration
Status
Alumiplate
with Ni
Strike
Type II
None
175o F
Distilled
Water
for 60
minutes
Dry
Notch
75%
NFS
200 hrs
Pass
Alumiplate
with Ni
Strike
Type II
Distilled
Water
None
Wet
Notch
45%
NFS
150 hrs
Pass
Alumiplate
with Ni
Strike
Type II
3.5%
NaCl
None
Wet
Notch
45%
NFS
150 hrs
Pass
Alumiplate
without Ni
Strike
Type II
None
175o F
Distilled
Water
for 60
minutes
Dry
Notch
75%
NFS
200 hrs
Pass
Alumiplate
without Ni
Strike
Type II
Distilled
Water
None
Wet
Notch
45%
NFS
150 hrs
In
Progress
Alumiplate
without Ni
Strike
Type II
3.5%
NaCl
None
Wet
Notch
45%
NFS
150 hrs
In
Progress
* Notch exposed to corrodant throughout test.

** Notch exposed prior to test, then tested dry.

Page 15
3.4.
Corrosion
Document 6 Parallax ASTM B117 corrosion testing.

Document 7 Parallax Grade 8 bolt beach exposure corrosion testing
Document 8 Parallax 4130 steel panel beach exposure testing.
3.4.1.
Summary Corrosion Testing
In ASTM B-117 Salt Fog testing, Alumiplate is superior to Cd plating and

other replacement processes. For the SO2 modified salt spray test, the
jury is still out as Cd baseline performed very poorly in this test when
treated with the NAVAIR TCP treatment. (See Section 3.4.2.1). However,
AlumiPlate passed SO2 salt fog testing for connectors (Section 0).
Goodrich will be performing more corrosion work.
3.4.2.
B117 (Parallax)
Parallax has carried out extensive B117 salt fog testing (Document 6),
using specimens with various combinations of Ni strike, Al, and chromate
conversion. Tests were for a total of 5,240 hours maximum.
Test:
B117 salt fog
Substrate: 4130 steel

Life:
undefined (usually defined as time to red rust).

Page 16
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
AN3XX
SAN3XX
C22XX
SC22XX
Figure 8. Comparison of Ni + AlumiPlate with Cd. AN3XX = Ni + 0.41-0.56

mil Al + chromate; SAN3XX = AN3XX Scribed; C22XX = 0.35 mil Cd +
chromate; SC22XX = C22XX Scribed.
6000
5240 5240 5240
5240 5240
5240 5240 5240
5000
4119
4119
3807
4000
3261
3000
2000
1000
0
AN22X
SAN22XX
A22X
SA22XX
Figure 9. Comparison of chromated AlumiPlate with Ni strike (left 2 groups)

and without (right 2 groups). AN22X = Ni + 0.56-0.63 mil Al + chromate;
SAN22XX = AN22XX Scribed; A22X = 0.65-0.69 mils Al + chromate; SA22XX =
A22X Scribed

Page 17
3000
2520
2500
2187 2187
2187
1906
2000
1640
1500
1208 1163 1163
1163
944 944
1000
500
0
AN21X
SAN21XX
A21X
SA21XX
Figure 10. Comparison of non-chromated AlumiPlate with Ni strike (left)

and without (right). AN21X = Ni + 0.54-0.58 mils Bare Al; SAN21XX = AN21X
Scribed; A21X = 0.62-0.64 mils Bare Al; SA21XX = A21X Scribed.
The data are averaged and summarized in Table 6. Clearly, the Ni strike
is less important to performance than the chromate conversion coating.
In fact, when not scribed two of the three specimens without a Ni strike
survived the entire 5,240 hour test (Figure 9). This is important since for
most aerospace applications the Ni strike is eliminated and grit blasting
used instead. However, there was a clear reduction in performance
when scribed. The performance of non-chromated Al without a Ni strike is
a little over 1,000 hours, and is not much affected by scribing.
Table 6. Effect of Ni strike and chromate on B117 corrosion of AlumiPlate.
Condition
Ni+Al+Chromate
Al+Chromate
Ni+Al
Al
Not scribed
>5,240
4,866
2,251
1,178
Scribed
>5,240
3,729
1,884
1,017
3.4.2.1.
CTC ASTM B117 and Modified SO2 Salt Fog
CTC (Document 3) performed salt fog (ASTM B117-94) and SO2 modified
salt spray (ASTM D1654-92) corrosion testing of AlumiPlate on AISI
4130 steel panels and compared the results to that of equivalent

Page 18
thickness Cd plating and ion vapor deposited (IVD) Al.5 This was part of
a much larger project to evaluate alternative coatings to Cd and
alternative conversion coatings to standard hexavalent chromate
conversion (HCC). The properties evaluated were appearance,
thickness, unscribed and scribed salt fog corrosion resistance, adhesion
(bend), HE susceptibility, and unscribed and scribed SO2 salt spray. All
36 of the panels submitted by Parallax, Inc. were AlumiPlated with a
target thickness of 0.45 mils of Al. Eighteen of the panels were given an
HCC conversion coating and 18 were given NAVAIRs proprietary
trivalent chromate pretreatment (TCP).
The panels were tested in the same chamber with the control Cd and IVD
Al plated test panels. The panels were inspected every 24 hours and
rated on a scale of zero to ten for signs of white and red rust with a goal
of none (rating of ten) in 96 hours of exposure. A panel received a zero
rating with over 75 percent of the area exhibiting rust.
All of the control panels and all of the AlumiPlated panels, regardless of
conversion coating and regardless of scribed or unscribed, received a
rating of zero; i.e., total failure in the SO2 modified salt spray test. This is
not unusual for this test.
The average ratings for the B117 test (i.e. without SO2) are shown in
Table 7.
Table 7 B117 Salt Fog Corrosion Ratings of AlumiPlate Compared to Cd
and IVD Al. (Rating 10 = 0% corroded; Rating 0 = >75% corroded.)
Part Description
Scribed Panels
Unscribed
Panels
Avg. Rating
Avg. Rating in
Scribed Area
8
Avg. Rating in
Unscribed Area
9
AlumiPlate +
TCP
Cd + HCC
10
Cd + TCP
IVD Al + HCC
IVD Al + TCP
10
10
AlumiPlate +
HCC
10
From this test the following conclusions can be drawn:
AlumiPlate with HCC performed somewhat worse than Cd but

somewhat better than IVD Al with HCC on the scribed area and
roughly equivalent to IVD Al and Cd on the unscribed panels.

Page 19
TCP appears to have performed slightly worse than HCC in the

scribed areas of Cd and AlumiPlate. TCP appears to have
performed significantly worse on Cd in the unscribed areas and on
the unscribed panels. Much worse performance on the unscribed
material than on the scribed does not appear to make sense, but
photographs of the panels and other raw data are not readily
available.
AlumiPlate performance with HCC was roughly equivalent to Cd

with HCC.
3.4.2.2.
Goodrich ASTM B117 and G85 SO2 Salt Fog
Goodrich has perfomed limited testing ASTM B117 work on Alumiplate

(with no nickel strike) with satisfactory results. Modified SO2 testing is
currently in progress.
3.4.3.
3.4.3.1.
Corrosion Beach Exposure

Grade 8 Bolts
Parallax has evaluated bolt corrosion (Document 7) in an atmospheric

test facility (the NSWCC South Florida Test Facility at Dania, Florida). In
this facility the specimens are washed with sea water for 10 minutes
every hour, 24 hours/day.
Test items:
-11x3 hex head Grade 8 bolts + nuts and washers
Coating:
Ni flash + 0.0003 AlumiPlate + chromate conversion
Maximum test time: 6,600 hours.

All the bolts passed the test, including post-test proof loading to 27,100
lbs per SAE Handbook guidelines. At the end of the test the nuts were
removable by hand. The specimens are shown in Figure 11 after testing.
After 3420 hours the Al had corroded in some areas down to the Ni flash
(Figure 12), and after 6,600 hours thread root corrosion 0.004 thick was
found in thread root areas where electrical contact for plating had been
made, leaving them improperly coated, but not in most areas.
It would seem that for this application, the Ni flash was important, since
that is where the corrosion tended to stop, so it provided protection after
loss of the Al.
Although there were no Cd-plated controls in this test, Parallax concluded
that AlumiPlate on bolts is reasonably competitive with other plating
systems for protection of iron base alloys from corrosion.

Page 20
Figure 11. AlumiPlated bolts after 6,600 hrs beach exposure.
Aluminum
Corrosion Pit
Aluminum
Layer
Nickel Flash
Figure 12. Corrosion pit through Al after 3420 hrs.

Page 21
3.4.3.2.
4130 Steel Test Panels Nickel Strike
A parallel study is in progress on 4130 steel substrate panels to compare

the resistance of Alumiplate with Cd plating in a salty environment similar
to that experienced by the United States Coast Guard and Navy Aircraft.
The testing regime is identical to that used for the Grade 8 bolt
evaluation.
Parallax reports that, as of August 2003 (Document 8) they were still
carrying out comparative corrosion testing (10,000 hr duration) of
AlumiPlate vs, Cd on corrosion panels at the NSWC Florida test facility.
As of that time, the AlumiPlate was performing better than Cd.
AlumiPlate with SafeGard CC-3400 with a sealer was performing better
than AlumiPlate with chromate or Alodine 5200.
Some interesting observations are:
Two sets of Cd plated specimens have been evaluated in the
10,000 time frame with all Cd samples failing the test
The bare Al is surviving as well as any of the conversion coatings.
With the length of the test and seasonal changes , a gold colored
coating has formed on some the parts that appears to be
enhancing corrosion performance (i.e. reducing pitting) by serving
as a barrier.
An update will be provided in the next revision of this summary.
3.5.
Specific Application Testing
3.5.1.
Connector testing
Document 9 Connector testing at Lockheed-Martin and Amphenol.

Document 10 Connector testing at Boeing.
Use of AlumiPlate on connector shells has been tested by Boeing and by

Amphenol and Lockheed-Martin.
3.5.1.1.
Amphenol and Lockheed Testing
For F-35 qualification, there has been a collaborative effort (Document 9)

between Amphenol/Alumiplate ( testing to Mil-DTL-38999K) and
Lockheed with varied performance evaluations. The current work has
centered around the Model 38999K Series III Group W because this was
considered one of the most challenging dynamic applications per
specification requirements. Both 6061 aluminum (with Ni Strike) and
PEEK composite substrates (proprietary Amphenol A and B underplates)
Page 22
were included for the evaluation process. A variety of post treatments as

shown in Table 9 were also evaluated.
Amphenol/Alumiplate testing has involved:
Table 8 Amphenol/Alumiplate Testing
Testing
Description
Acceptance
Reference
Comments
ASTM B117
General salt spray to 1000 hrs
Pass
Table 9
and
Figure 13
FIX
General salt spray to 1000 hrs

with shell to shell conductivity
measurements at varied time
increments
Pass
Table 10
FIX
G85 (336 hr SO2 salt

fog)
SO2 salt fog with shell to shell

conductivity measurements at
varied time increments
Pass
Table 11
and
Figure 14
Conductivity
Shell to shell conductivity per

MIL-STD-1344 Method 3007
Pass
Durability, including
assembly/disassemb
ly
Each mating pair of samples is

mated/unmated for 500 cycles
and then examined visually for
wear and defects
Pass
Fluid Exposure
Testing in de-icing fluids
Pass
Ink marking
Dry erase test and exposure to

varied solutions per
MILSTD-202 Method 215
Pass
Coupling
Samples are mated/unmated

for a given number of cycles
and then coupling torques
measured
Pass
Table 12
The final results showed that the Alumiplate processed connectors

passed all testing requirements.
Testing at Lockheed has included work such as lightning strike analysis
and other evaluations. This data can be obtained from Robert Trice at
Lockheed upon written request.
For service, Amphenol has now qualified AlumiPlate-coated metallic
connectors for use in the F-35, and has assigned part numbers. Work is
also continuing to qualify other connectors for the F-35 namely the Model
5015 and Model 38999 Series I designs for qualification in late 2004.

Page 23
Table 9 ASTM B117 1000 hour Salt Spray Testing
Figure 13 Sample #4 after ASTM B117 1000

hour Salt Spray Testing
Page 24
Table 10 ASTM B117 1000 hour Salt Spray Testing with Shell to Shell
Conductivity Testing

Page 25
Table 11 SO2 salt fog with shell to shell conductivity.
Notes: For samples 3.8-3.12 and 5.6, conductivity variation was caused by hand
lubrication process which has since been automated (see detailed report for more
information).
Measurements defined as conductivity are actually measurements of resistance.

Page 26
Figure 14
SO2 salt fog samples after testing

Page 27
Table 12 Durability Test Results

Page 28
3.5.1.2.
Boeing testing
In 2001 (Document 10) Boeing, working with NAWC China Lake,

evaluated various options for connectors for use in missiles and other
shipboard applications. Some of this testing included aluminum and
CRES connectors coated with 0.0003 of AlumiPlate with a Class 1A
chemical film.
3.5.1.2.1.
Corrosion vs. Electrical resistance and

Assembly Torque
The connectors are

shown in Figure 15 at
the end of B117
testing, showing very
little corrosion.
Figure 16 shows the
resistance between
an aluminum backing
plate and the
connector shell as a
function of time
during salt fog
testing. Note that the
AlumiPlated
Figure 15. AlumiPlated connectors 1A and 1B
after 506 hr salt fog test.
connectors are
curves 1A and 1B,
which show good performance with some increase in resistance at the
end of the test, which was attributed to oxidation of the mounting plate.
The Zn-Ni plated connectors showed significantly more corrosion but no
change in contact resistance.
Measurement of the resistance between the jackscrews and posts after
salt fog testing and disassembly are shown in Figure 17.

Page 29
Figure 16. Connector shell to backing plate resistance for materials shown in the table.
Mounted on 7075-T7351 aluminum plate with Class 1A chemical film.

Page 30
Figure 17. AlumiPlated Jackscrew/jackpost resistance as a function of torque after

salt fog testing. Specimens have same numbering as in Figure 16.
The conclusion of the evaluation was that AlumiPlate with a

Class 1A chemical film provided excellent corrosion protection on
aluminum connectors and excellent protection against galvanic corrosion
when applied to CRES connectors mounted on aluminum base plates.
The use of AlumiPlate was recommended for use on aluminum connector
components for corrosion protection, and on CRES connector
components to prevent galvanic coupling.
3.5.1.3.
Bend and Pull Testing
AlumiPlated and ZnNi electroplated 6061 aluminum and 321 CRES

surfaces were also adhesion tested by bend testing and pull testing. The
AlumiPlate did not delaminate in bend testing, and the pull testing showed
failure in the epoxy (i.e. no coating failure). In contrast the ZnNi was nonuniform and very porous, and it was recommended that it only be used in
conjunction with a sealant to prevent galvanic coupling.
3.5.1.4.
Galling Evaluation
Galling was tested by a 10-cycle assembly/disassembly of coated CRES

jackscrews and jackposts. Run-in torque measured <1/2 in-oz during the
first two cycles, and was negligible on subsequent cycles. The
conclusion was that galling was not an issue.

Page 31
3.5.2.
Eyebolts
Document 11 Parallax testing of eyebolts.
In early January 2000,

twelve inch diameter by six inch long steel eyebolts were plated with
AlumiPlate for corrosion resistance and placed into a field evaluation.
Parallax, Inc. placed five of these on M119A1 Howitzers stationed at the
Armys Ft. Campbell, Kentucky post, and the Armys Tank and
Automotive Command (TACOM) placed the remainder of these on
M119A1 Howitzers stationed at the Armys Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
post for the field evaluation.
In June 2002 after 21,480 hours of service or approximately 2 years,
these bolts were removed and inspected. All but one of the removed
bolts was re-installed on a battery of guns at Schofield Barracks. No
evidence of rust was found on any of these bolts. One bolt was retained
for further in-depth evaluation (Figure 18). This bolt was examined to
determine how well the Al was withstanding the gun corrosive and wear
environment (Figure 19).
The conclusions from this examination were:
1) The surface finish of the bolt exhibited evidence of severe
machining chatter damage, and the resulting roughness
exaggerated the Ni pre-strike thickness and Al thickness
variations.
2) The plating had been worn off at the pitch line of the thread under
the nut, but the Al in near proximity to the worn area was still
galvanically protecting the bolt from corrosion.
3) The Ni pre-strike was so thick on the outer diameter of the threads
that the Al had been removed by the nut interference but the Ni
and Al in the near proximity were still protecting the bolt from rust.
Figure 18 M119A1 Howitzer Eyebolt after 21,480 hours of Field Evaluation at Fort
Campbell, Kentucky
Another field evaluation was started in June 2002. Six AlumiPlated, six
Cd plated, and six ZP plated eyebolts were placed on M119A1 guns at
Fort Campbell and the same number installed at Schofield Barracks for a
comparison field evaluation.
In December 2002, an inspection was performed after approximately

Page 32
4,200 hours of exposure on the new installation ( 25,500 hours of

exposure on the older units). The newer Cd plated bolts and all of the
AlumiPlated bolts were still in excellent condition. The newer ZP plated
bolts were starting to show rust.
Updates will be made to this report during the next revision of this
summary.
Figure 19 Microstructure of Thread Area Showing .00035Alumiplate

Thickness

Page 33
4. Feasibility Testing
Document 12 Parallax testing of Ti fasteners.
4.1.
Summary Feasibility Studies

Al electroplating has proven to be very feasible in most applications, even
with difficult geometries. Some problems have been reported with control
of the Ni strike layer, when required. There has also been some variation
with the Alumiplate thickness but this has mostly been related to initial
trials where the process has not been fully optimized.
In many cases, special anodes will be required for complex geometries
(see Figure 21, for example). Goodrich has noted that blind holes are a
particular issue since the closed loop system does not allow an operator
to turn parts to pour out the solution from the blind areas. Care must
therefore be taken in design of components and plating fixturing when the
Alumiplate process is to be specified.
4.2.
Ti Fasteners
In the 2001 time frame, the USCG/ARSC in Elisabeth City, North Carolina
supplied 25 sets of Ti alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) prevailing-torque screws and
captive nuts to evaluate the feasibility of plating them with AlumiPlate
(Document 12). The screws were 1 long by 3/16 diameter by 32
threads/inch. The reason for AlumiPlating the fasteners is to prevent
galvanic corrosion of the components mating with the fasteners.
Three different methods of plating were tested: 1) Plating directly on the
Ti, 2) Plating on an electrolytic Ni pre-strike, 3) Plating on an electroless
Ni pre-strike. Method 1 was not successful. Method 2 did not provide a
uniform strike thickness, especially under the nut plate tabs and in the
screw threads. Method 3 was successful with good adhesion, and
uniform thickness and coverage.
This evaluation clearly demonstrated that this Ti alloy could be
electroplated with Al when an electroless Ni flash is applied first.

Page 34
Nickel Flash
Aluminum Layer
Figure 20. Screw Thread Tip 0.00015 electroless Ni / 0.00075 Al 1000X SE.
4.3.
Goodrich Landing Gear

A feasibility study has been conducted with Goodrich concerning the F/A
22 Main Landing Gear Piston and the MLG and NLG Pins with
substrates of Aeromet 100 and 300M respectively. A very critical aspect
of this study was the effort to plate without a nickel strike pre-treatment.
Figure 21
F/A 22 Main Landing Gear Piston

Page 35
Various parts of the evaluation have involved fatigue, hydrogen

embrittlement testing, and corrosion testing.
The conclusions drawn at this point are:
The parts were successfully plated without a Nickel underplate
Plating was accomplished over a Cr run-out area with no breakthrough
All parts presented difficult geometric conditions (i.e. very small
internal diameters) which were successfully processed without
problems
Goodrich is continuing their evaluation and results will be published when
available.
Figure 22 MLG and NLG Pins

Page 36
5. Aerospace Qualifications
Table 13 shows the AlumiPlate qualified parts and the work in progress
Table 13 Alumiplate Qualification Data
APPLICATION
PURPOSE
Lockheed Martin
1- Copper Grounding Straps
Lockheed Martin
2- Stainless Steel Fuel Mesh

Screens
1- Stainless Steel Carriers for
Radar Arrays
2- AlBeMet Electronics
Backplane (Figure 23)
3-4330V HSS MLG Torque
Assembly Apex Pin
Corrosion Resistance,
Bonding, Grounding,
& Conductivity Performance
Corrosion Resistance
PROGRAM
MANUFACTURER
AlumiPlate Finish Qualified & Approved*
F-16 Fighting
Falcon
F-22 Raptor
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
Goodrich Landing Gear &
Lockheed Martin
F-35 Joint Strike

Fighter
Lockheed Martin & Northrop

Grumman & BAE Systems
Lockheed Martin & Northrop
Grumman & BAE Systems
V-22 Osprey
Boeing & Bell Helicopter
AH-1 Super Cobra
Bell Helicopter
M119A Howitzer
TACOM US Army
RQ-4 Global Hawk
Northrop Grumman
Pluto Black
Missile Program.
Raytheon
Raytheon
In Qualification Process
F-22 Raptor
F-35 Joint Strike

Fighter
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin
C-130J Hercules
Lockheed Martin
F-16 Fighting
Falcon
Lockheed Martin

1- 6061 Al & PEEK composite

Model 38999 Electrical
Connectors (Figure 24)
2-HSS Structural Applications Aermet-100 & 300M Landing
Gear Components (Goodrich
LG) Goodrich Spec LGPS
1105
1- M50 High Strength Steel
(HSS) Rotor Hub Housing
(Figure 25)
1- M50 High Strength Steel
1- HSS Eyebolts (Figure 26)
1- 6061 Al Mirrors for
Targeting Optical System
1- AlBeMet Gyro Housings
(Figure 27)
2- Missile Cone
1- HSS Structural Applications
for Goodrich Landing Gear
Part
1- Vehicle Management CPU
(VMC) & Electrical Boxes
& Connectors
2- HSS Structural Applications
(particularly Goodrich LG)
3- Many & Various Cadmium
Plating Alternative Applications
1- Many & Various Cadmium
Plating Alternative Applications
1- Rivets & Small Threaded
Fasteners
& Conductivity Performance
Thermal Management
& Non-Embrittling
&Conductivity Performance
& Non-Embrittling
& Non-Embrittling
& Non-Embrittling
& Non-Embrittling
Optical / Diamond Turning
Properties
& Non-Embrittling
&Conductivity Performance
& Non-Embrittling
& Non-Embrittling
& Non-Embrittling
Page 37
Figure 24 Amphenol composite connectors coated with

AlumiPlate and qualified for F-35 use.
Figure 23 AlBeMet Electronics
Backplane'
Figure 25 M50 High Strength Steel

Figure 26 HSS Eyebolts
Figure 27 AlBeMet Gyro

Housings
Page 38
6. Opportunities and Risks for F-35

6.1.
Potential applications on F-35

Given the prevalence of corrosion issues on the F-35, there are a great
many potential applications of AlumiPlate on the aircraft, where it would
appear to be an excellent replacement for Cd on many components.
Since it is an electroplating process it can in principle be used anywhere
that Cd is currently used, including non-line-of-sight areas such as small
internal diameters and lugs. A few potential applications are shown in
Table 14, although there are, of course, many individual components
where it can be used.
Table 14. Some potential applications for AlumiPlate on the F-35.
Application
Testing required
Electrical connector shells
None - qualified
Pins for landing gear, actuators,

etc.
Component-level corrosion and

endurance testing
Fasteners
Torque-tension, breakaway torque,

etc.
Wing-fold
Galvanic coupling isolation,

endurance
Landing gear outer cylinders, etc.

endurance testing
Pilot seat components

endurance testing
High strength steel components

(hook toe pin, etc.)

endurance testing
Weapons systems & components

endurance testing
Electronics boxes (vehicle

management CPU, etc.)
Final electrical performance

characterization
For any components that involve threaded or sliding connections it will

probably be necessary to add a solid lubricant layer (such as an MoS2filled polymer) for adequate lubricity.
For applications that have the potential for sliding wear or abrasive
damage it is in principle possible to create a hard surface by anodizing
the AlumiPlate. This would give a hard outer layer, just as it does with
bulk aluminum alloys. However, the AlumiPlate would have to be thicker
to accommodate the layer, and there is the danger that with these thin
coatings one would create a hard layer on a substrate too soft to support
Page 39
it, which would allow the outer layer to be easily broken through. On the
other hand the very thinness of the soft Al underlayer may limit the
deformation of the anodized layer and so prevent damage. The concept
is therefore worth testing as it would expand the capabilities of the
coating.
6.2.
Business risk availability and

licensing
The primary issue for the F-35 program is the availability of the coating.
At the present time it comes from a sole source, although the company is
willing to license the technology. AlumiPlate Inc. is a small company,
which appears to be stable and well-run. However, there is always the
possibility with a sole source that the company may go out of production
due to business difficulties, fire, or other causes, leaving vendors with no
source. Although the plating solution is totally enclosed in the process,
and the company is well-versed in handling the chemicals and has never
(as far as we know) had a fire, fire or explosion is an obvious concern
because of the flammability of the solvent, and the possibility of accident
or leakage.
This danger of loss of production capacity can be mitigated in several
ways:
1. AlumiPlate may license the technology to large users. This is
quite possible with companies such as Amphenol and Goodrich.
However, at this point neither of these users are licensed, and
even if they are it will take some time before they would have
equipment operational.
2. A second site of operations would mitigate the danger of fire or
other catastrophe at the present site.
3. The only other source of the technology is Aluminal GmbH in
Germany. The difficulty here is both the need for the company to
be aerospace-qualified on F-35 components, and the difficulties of
shipping for US vendors.
4. Since AlumiPlate is qualified to MIL-DTL-83488, which does not
specify the deposition method, then it should be possible
(although far from ideal) for the material to be deposited by IVD.
There may, however, be both technical and quality level concerns
Although this might be a viable option for ODs, it is limited to IDs
above about 3 at the present time.
A sole source in the US also poses a problem for our European and
Australian suppliers, who will not in general be able to use the technology
because of the cost and complexity of shipping. If Aluminal could be
qualified for aerospace, or better, if AlumiPlate could set up a European
operation, this problem could be largely solved. It would also be a fallback for a loss of production in the US.

Page 40
AlumiPlate Inc. is willing (and even eager) to license their technology to

both end users and to high quality commercial plating operations
worldwide. They have had preliminary discussions in Europe and the US
with both end users interested in setting up an aluminum electroplating
line within their own captive facility as well as commercial plating
businesses interested in building an aluminum electroplating facility. As
the business demand grows, these discussions are likely to result in
additional sourcing for the technology.
6.3.
Technical risk
Given the data that are now available, the technical risk of the process is
low:
It has been demonstrated to have corrosion performance that is
usually better and more reliable than Cd. The conversion coating
has, however, been found to be an important part of the protection
system. Corrosion testing on Cr-free treatments is necessary, if it
has not been done by Lockheed or Goodrich. There may well be
applications where a conversion layer is unnecessary.
It has been demonstrated that a grit blast provides good adhesion,
which eliminates the need for a Ni strike, which always used to be
an issue.
AlumiPlate coatings that have a Ni strike appear to have a fatigue
debit, although there is a paucity of data. If AlumiPlate is to be
used with a Ni strike instead of a grit blast for adhesion this must
be taken into account in the design. There is no reliable data for
AlumiPlate without a strike, but it is unlikely that so soft a coating
would cause a significant debit. It is essential that more data be
taken to properly characterize the fatigue, especially without a
strike, which is the way the coating will be used on fatigue-critical
components.
The available data show no hydrogen embrittlement from the
process. However, the publicly available data are very limited and
need to be verified. Embrittlement could also arise from cleaning,
activation, or other pre-plating processes, as well as from stripping
of mis-plated parts. Embrittlement should be carefully checked,
and it is important that systems be put in place to prevent
accidental process embrittlement.
Experience with IVD aluminum shows that it is possible for Al to
corrode rapidly in some service and overhaul situations, where it
is attacked by alkalis. The attack of aluminum is exacerbated by
the natural porosity of IVD Al. This can cause field or service
embrittlement (sometimes referred to as hydrogen reembrittlement). With AlumiPlate's lack of porosity, this tendency
should be reduced. This has been addressed by the Boeing St.
Louis HE EAC work to some degree. However, processes such
as alkali cleaning, or stripping in manufacturing or overhaul
Page 41
situations that could lead to alkali attack should be avoided. We

believe there have been occasional service conditions in which
IVD has been attacked (Ogden ALC).
Note that unlike Cd, Al will not embrittle the steel of a landing gear
axle due to overheating from an aborted takeoff. Cd is known to
melt and embrittle the steel on some aborted takeoffs.
Because AlumiPlate is not naturally lubricious it requires a
lubricious coating to operate on threaded parts. Since the loss of
this coating represents another failure mode it is important that
any such layer be properly tested as part of the coating system.
In most cases loss of such a lubricating layer will not endanger the
component but will lead to loss of functionality.

Page 42
7. Recommendations/Further
Actions
The following recommendations/action items should be considered:

Alumiplate should be considered for replacement of most Cd
plating applications in aerospace environments.
More testing should be performed with no Ni strike to validate the
initial satisfactory performance. This is being addressed in many
program plan evaluations by end users and the F-35 technical
personnel.
MRO Consideration should be given to where and how
AlumiPlated items are to be repaired since depot repair with
AlumiPlate is unlikely to be an option.
Repair A satisfactory coating repair method remains to be
established, although SermeTel, brush Sn-Zn and cold spray Al
have all been tested and appear likely to be viable.
Serious discussions must be held with Alumiplate personnel about
licensing and expansion of the supply base. This may be part of
the Tech Transfer Plan.
The Alumiplate process should be reviewed and plans made to
address:
Toulene usage concerns
Part size/blind hole/special anode issues
Other potential process limitations.
A Best Practice document is suggested for use of Alumiplate to

educate the potential users in the design community on the
correct application and limitations of the process.

Page 43

Alumiplate As A Cadmium Alternative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alumiplate As A Cadmium Alternative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alumiplate As A Cadmium Alternative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALUMIPLATE AS A CADMIUM

Date: August 18 2004

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for Public Release. Distribution is unlimited.

Copyright 2004 - Rowan Technology Group

Rowan Technology Group

Rowan Technology Group

The Al Electroplating Process ................... 2

The AlumiPlate process................................................... 2

Advantages and limitations ............................................... 5

Repair of Al coatings ......................................................... 6

Property and Performance Data ................ 7

Basic materials properties ................................................. 7

Initial notch fatigue testing (1984) ...................................... 8

Parallax Inc. testing.......................................................... 10

Hydrogen embrittlement .................................................. 12

Boeing St. Louis HE EAC................................................. 15

Summary Corrosion Testing ............................................ 16

B117 (Parallax) ................................................................ 16

Rowan Technology Group

CTC ASTM B117 and Modified SO2 Salt Fog .............. 18

Goodrich ASTM B117 and G85 SO2 Salt Fog............. 20

Grade 8 Bolts ............................................................... 20

4130 Steel Test Panels Nickel Strike .......................... 22

Specific Application Testing ............................................ 22

Connector testing ............................................................. 22

Amphenol and Lockheed Testing................................. 22

Boeing testing .............................................................. 29

Bend and Pull Testing .................................................. 31

Galling Evaluation ........................................................ 31

Corrosion Beach Exposure .............................................. 20

Feasibility Testing ..................................... 34

Summary Feasibility Studies ........................................... 34

Goodrich Landing Gear ................................................... 35

Aerospace Qualifications ......................... 37

Opportunities and Risks for F-35............. 39

Potential applications on F-35 ......................................... 39

Business risk availability and licensing......................... 40

Technical risk .................................................................. 41

Rowan Technology Group

Rowan Technology Group

F/A 22 Main Landing Gear Piston ........................................35

Figure 22 MLG and NLG Pins ...............................................................36

M50 High Strength Steel (HSS) Rotor Hub Housing ............38

Figure 26 HSS Eyebolts ........................................................................38

Rowan Technology Group

Rowan Technology Group

Rowan Technology Group

2. The Al Electroplating Process

The AlumiPlate process

US Patent # 4759831, Electroplating apparatus particularly for electrodeposition of aluminum, 1988.

US Patent # 4145261, Electrolyte-liquid for the electrodeposition of aluminum,

Rowan Technology Group

Figure 2. F-22 main landing gear inner cylinder after AlumiPlating.

Rowan Technology Group

Figure 3. Auxiliary anode arrangement for F-22 landing

Advantages and limitations

Table 1. Advantages and limitations of AlumiPlate.

Meets MIL-DTL-83488 (the IVD Al

Enclosed system is expensive (~$5