NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

9991

EVALUATION OF A PROPRIETARY IRON SULFAMATE PLATING BATH

Technical Report

To

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards1 was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. Today, in addition to serving as the Nation’s central measurement laboratory,

the Bureau is a principal focal point in the Federal Government for assuring maximum application of the physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. To this end the Bureau conducts research and

provides central national services in three broad program areas and provides central national services in a fourth. These are: (1) basic measurements and standards,

(2) materials measurements and standards, (3) technological measurements and

standards, and (4) transfer of technology.

The Bureau comprises the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials

Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, and the Center for Radiation Research.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the

United States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement, coor- dinates that system with the measurement systems of other nations, and furnishes

essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout

the Nation’s scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists

of an Office of Standard Reference Data and a group of divisions organized by the

following areas of science and engineering

:

Applied Mathematics—Electricity—Metrology—Mechanics—Heat—Atomic Physics—Cryogenics2—Radio Physics2 —Radio Engineering2—Astrophysics2—Time

and Frequency.2 THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to methods, standards of measurement, and data needed by industry, commerce,

educational institutions, and government. The Institute also provides advisory and

research services to other government agencies. The Institute consists of an Office of

Standard Reference Materials and a group of divisions organized by the following areas of materials research:

Analytical Chemistry—Polymers—Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Physical

Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides for the creation of appropriate opportunities for the use and application of technology within the Federal Government and within the civilian sector of American industry. The primary functions

of the Institute may be broadly classified as programs relating to technological meas- urements and standards and techniques for the transfer of technology. The Institute

consists of a Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Information,3 a Center for

Computer Sciences and Technology, and a group of technical divisions and offices organized by the following fields of technology:

Building Research—Electronic Instrumentation — Technical Analysis — Product

Evaluation—Invention and Innovation— Weights and Measures — Engineering

Standards—Vehicle Systems Research.

THE CENTER FOR RADIATION RESEARCH engages in research, measurement,

and application of radiation to the solution of Bureau mission problems and the

problems of other agencies and institutions. The Center for Radiation Research consists of the following divisions:

Reactor Radiation—Linac Radiation—Applied Radiation—Nuclear Radiation.

1 Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted ; mailing address Washington, D. C. 20234.

2 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.

3 Located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

NBS PROJECT

3120642 February 10, 1969

NBS REPORT

999 1

EVALUATION OF A PROPRIETARY IRON SULFAMATE PLATING BATH

T echnical Report

May 1, 1968 to January 1, 1969

By

Jacob Smit and Fielding Ogburn

Electrolysis and Metal Deposition Section

Metallurgy Division

To

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

IMPORTANT NOTICE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ST

for use within the Government, and review. For this reason, th whole or in part, is not autho Bureau of Standards, Washingt

the Report has been specifically

Approved for public release by the

Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) on October 9, 2015

iss accounting documents intended

subjected to additional evaluation

! listing of this Report, either in

le Office of the Director, National by the Government agency for which

:opies for its own use. <NBS>

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

EVALUATION OF A PROPRIETARY IRON SULFAMATE PLATING BATH

J. Smit and Fielding Ogburn

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 2023*+

SUMMARY

Iron deposits from the Allied Research Company's iron sulfamate

plating hath were found to be extremely weak and brittle. The

specimens were 1 to 40 mils thick and were deposited at a number of

different operating conditions.

I. INTRODUCTION

The ideal iron plating bath would produce thick, strong, unstressed ductile and adherent deposits at rapid rates at or near

room temperatures without the use of a corrosive electrolyte. Such

a bath, of course, would be of great interest to the Bureau of

Engraving and Printing. Practically, however, room temperature

baths tend to produce brittle unusable deposits. The proprietary

bath discussed in this report was described in the supplier's

literature as producing "ducti l.e" deposits when operated at or near

room temperature. As such it was of interest to the Bureau. The

work reported here is an evaluation of that bath to determine its

potential usefulness to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

*Allied Research Products, Inc.

II. MAKE-UP OF THE IRON BATH

Two baths were prepared at different times essentially in accordance with the suppler's (Allied Research Products, Inc.) instructions. The first bath was made up of:

3.6 1 ferrous sulfamate concentrate

180 g sodium chloride

120 ml LP 9310 Fe (proprietary addition agent)

36 ml Snap L (proprietary wetting agent)

152 g sulfamic acid

200 ml 30# ammonium hydroxide

Distilled water to make 6 1

The bath pH measured 1.9 » the specific gravity 1.240. For this

2 bath the anode (submersed area 10 1/2 in ), tank, filter unit, etc.,

were rinsed with a 5 % sulfamic acid solution. The filter cartridge

and anode bag were seasoned in the same solution for 48 hours. Just

prior to combination and dilution the ferrous sulfamate concentrate

was filtered to remove accumulated oxidation products.

The bath was operated at 48°C. The temperature was maintained

by an external water bath. The pH of the bath was raised to 3*0 by

the addition of ammonium hydroxide to comply with the pH limits, 2.5

to 3.3, set by the supplier. The solution, which had been a clear

green prior to the addition of ammonium hydroxide, developed a yellow

cast and became turbid from a yellow red precipitate, presumably a

ferric compound. Continuous filtration did not remove any significant quantity of the turbidity , nor did dummying for 5 hours at

1/2 ampere.

2

Several sample deposits of iron were obtained from this turbid

bath. These will be described later.

To clean up the bath, the pH was raised with ammonium hydroxide

to 3.5* Filtration through Watman #2 filter paper removed all turbidity. The pH was then reduced to 2.5 by sulfamic acid. The addition of 3 g of iron powder seemed to reduce the remaining ferric

ions inasmuch as the color became slightly bluer or less yellow.

At this stage the solution was clear. To retard oxidation,

a plastic cover sheet was placed over the pyrex container and

argon was bubbled through the bath so as to keep an inert layer of

gas over the solution. The argon supply was maintained at all times

day and night— during the subsequent operations.

The make-up of the second bath was the same as the first, except that 180 g of ammonium sulfamate were used instead of the sulfamic acid and the ammonium hydroxide. This bath behaved in the

same manner as described for the first bath. In operation this bath

differed in that the anodes were not bagged and also were increased

in size to 27 1/2 sq.in. of surface area. The bath was also operated

through a broader temperature range. When a test specimen was not

being deposited a dummy was kept plating at a low current density,

7 asf

III. BATH OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

The pH of the bath increases during operation and must be adjusted continually with sulfamic acid. At low current densities.

3

about 7 asf, the bath can be operated for days without becoming turbid though a yellow-brown precipitate, probably containing ferric

ion, will gradually accumulate on the side of the container, on the

anodes and anode bags and in the filter. This precipitate does not

dissolve readily in sulfamic, sulfuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid,

but will dissolve rapidly in phosphoric acid.

Raising the temperature or increasing the current density increases the rate of accumulation of brown precipitate. In one instance an increase in bath temperature from 55°C to b5°C produced a

virtually opaque bath in a very short time. When a clear bath is

in operation above 7 asf it becomes turbid quickly. The bath will

also become turbid on standing if it is not closed to the atmosphere.

Deposits from a turbid bath ma^ be smooth and of good appearance.

With the accumulation of precipitate, however, the tendency for

nodular growth and treeing increases.

IV. SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND HANDLING

All deposits were made on coupons of either 0.010 inch or

0.040 inch thick copper. The surfaces to be plated were pumiced

and bright dipped (l part HNO^, 2 parts C^H^O^, 3 parts H^PO^)

until water-break free and rinsed with distilled water just prior

to immersion in the bath. The current densities used were 7, 11,

15, 30, 60 and 70 asf (10-100 asf recommended by supplier). Deposits were made at temperatures ranging from 45° to 65°C and for

times ranging from 4 to 166 hours.

4

V. CHARACTER OF DEPOSITS

All deposits had the same qualitative characteristics; good adhesion, high internal stress (substrates plated on one surface were

always significantly warped), generally smooth with semi-bright

surface, and poor ductility (the iron plate cracked when the cathode

was slightly bent). The foils obtained by dissolving the copper substrate in chromic acid could not be bent double without breaking.

They were obviously brittle. Heating the foils at 190°C for one hour

reduced the brittleness to a significant degree, but they were still

brittle. A marked improvement in ductility was observed after heating at 400°C for one hour (grain growth of pure iron begins at 200°C)

Thick deposits , deposits in excess of 10 mils , were machinable

with care. These deposits could be sawed, milled and hand filed,

however they exhibited a high degree of brittleness and may be compared to cast iron in this respect.

The test to determine the tensile strength of the iron deposited

from this bath was in a strict sense abortive. The specimen fractured in the process of setting the holding jaws and applying the

holding load which reached 25 lbs at fracture. Knowing this one

could say that the tensile strength was less than 1500 psi. This

was the second specimen deposited for tensile testing. The first

specimen fractured during the machining operation. Deposits produced at 12 asf and 19 asf were harder (Rockwell B63 and B89 , respectively) than the material now used by the Bureau of Engraving

and Printing (Rockwell B57 )

5

VI. DISCUSSION

These experiments indicate that this iron plating hath is not

a promising one because of the weakness of the iron.

We encountered some difficulty in maintaining the bath in good

condition. We feel that this could be a problem with continued use.

The bath has a tendency, even with filtration, toward turbidity and

can assume an almost opaque appearance in a relatively short time

,

particularly at elevated temperatures.

Additional information about sulfamate baths can be found on

pages 1^5, 6 and 7, in the February 1968 issue of Plating in comments by Harold J. Read.

We have requested the supplier to send us some typical iron

deposits which can be compared to ours. He has agreed to do soj

however, in the ensuing six months they have not been forthcoming.

6