Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T04:26:10.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fracture behavior and reliability of brazed alumina joints via Mo–Mn process and active metal brazing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

S. H. Yang  and
S. Kang
S. H. Yang
Affiliation:
School of Material Science and Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
S. Kang
Affiliation:
School of Material Science and Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
Get access

Abstract

Alumina/alumina and alumina/kovar/alumina joints were produced via two joining techniques: (i) a moly-manganese process and (ii) active metal brazing. These joints were heat treated at 400 °C for 100 h to evaluate their fracture strength, fracture behavior, and high-temperature reliability. Depending on the joining methods employed, the optimum microstructure of ceramics for joining is different. It was found in most cases, that the active metal brazing resulted in superior joint strength and reliability over the moly-manganese process. The fracture strength and reliability of alumina/kovar/alumina joints were lower than those of alumina/alumina joints and showed different fracture behaviors. After heat treatment, fracture strength and reliability decreased due to the formation of brittle phases at the joint interface. The fraction of brittle debonding at the interface increased with heat treatment, while that of fracture within the alumina decreased.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 15 , Issue 10 , October 2000 , pp. 2238 - 2243
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kang, S. and Selverian, J.H., J. Mater. Sci. 28, 5514 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Nicholas, M.G. and Mortimer, D.A., Mat. Sci. Tech. 1, 657 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Twentyman, M.E., J. Mat. Sci. 10, 765 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Twentyman, M.E. and Popper, P., J. Mat. Sci. 10, 777 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cole, S.S. and Sommer, G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 44(6), 265 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Pincus, A.G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 36(5), 152 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Kang, S., Dunn, E.M., Selverian, J.H. and Kim, H.J., Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 68, 1608 (1989).Google Scholar
8. Selverian, J.H., O'Neal, D., and Kang, S., Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 71, 1403 (1992).Google Scholar
9. Selverian, J.H. and Kang, S., Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 75, 1511 (1992).Google Scholar
10. Suganuma, K., ISIJ International 30, 1046 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Chang, W.H., Welding Journal, 35, 622 (1956).Google Scholar
12. Kobaschewski, O. and Alcock, C.B., Metallurgical Thermochemistry (Pergamon Press, Oxford, GB, 1983), pp. 380–381.Google Scholar
13. Peteves, S.D. and Nicholas, M.G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 79, 1553 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar