The various methods of furnace, torch, induction, resistance, dip, and laser brazing are used to produce a wide range of highly reliable brazed assemblies. However, imperfections that can lead to braze failure may result if proper attention is not paid to the physical properties of the material, joint design, prebraze cleaning, brazing procedures, postbraze cleaning, and quality control. Factors that must be considered include brazeability of the base metals; joint design and fit-up; filler-metal selection; prebraze cleaning; brazing temperature, time, atmosphere, or flux; conditions of the faying surfaces; postbraze cleaning; and service conditions. This article focuses on the advantages, limitations, sources of failure, and anomalies resulting from the brazing process. It discusses the processes involved in the testing and inspection required of the braze joint or assembly.

A 321 stainless steel radar coolant-system assembly fabricated by torch brazing with AWS type 3A flux, failed at the brazed joint when subjected to mild handling before installation, after being stored for about two years. It was revealed by visual examination of the failed braze that the filler metal had not covered all mating surfaces. Lack of a metallurgical bond between the brazing alloy and stainless steel and instead mechanical bonding of the filler metal to an oxide layer on the stainless steel surface was revealed by examination of the broken joint at the cup. It was indicated by the thickness of the oxide layer that the steel surface was not protected from oxidation by the flux during torch heating. It was concluded that the failure was caused by lack of a metallurgical bond between the brazing alloy and the stainless steel. Components made of 347 stainless steel (better brazeability) brazed with a larger torch tip (wider heat distribution) and AWS type 3B flux (better filler-metal flow) were recommended for radar coolant-system assembly.

A pressure probe assembly comprised of type 347 stainless steel housing, brazed with AMS 4772D filler metal to the pressure probe, failed due to detachment of a rectangular segment from the housing. The presence of a large brazing metal devoid region in the pressure probe-housing joint was revealed by visual examination. Fatigue marks, emanating from multiple crack origins on the inside surface of the housing at the brazed joint were revealed by further study of the fracture. A poor metallurgical bond was confirmed by the presence of large irregular voids, flux trapped braze metal and separation between braze and housing.

Persistent leakage was experienced from copper tube heaters which formed part of dairy equipment. Metallurgical examination of the brazed joints showed them to have suffered a preferential corrosion attack. This resulted in the phosphide phase of the brazing alloy being corroded away, leaving a weak, porous residual structure. The brazing alloy was of type CP 1 as covered by BS 1845. Header and tube materials were basically copper-nickel alloys for which the use of a phosphorus bearing brazing alloy is not recommended owing to the possibility of forming the brittle intermetallic compound, nickel phosphide. The use of a brazing alloy containing phosphorus was unsuitable on two counts and a quaternary alloy containing silver, copper, cadmium and zinc, such as those in group AG1 or AG2 of BS 1845 would be more suitable. However, because corrosive problems experienced in these units indicated severe service conditions, a proprietary alloy similar to AG1, but containing 3% nickel, was recommended.

A failed laser mirror and another complete mirror of the same construction were analyzed. The laser mirror consisted of three layers of material brazed together to form channels through which the cooling water flows. Samples were analyzed with light optical and scanning electron microscopy. The corrosion product contained molybdenum and copper with a trace of gold. The base material was analyzed as molybdenum with negligible alloying additions. The primary mode of corrosion attack on the base material appeared to be intergranular, although uniform corrosion was evident also. It was concluded that corrosion attack sufficiently weakened the base material and the brazed joints, allowing catastrophic failure of the mirror due to the pressure of the cooling water. It was recommended that the mirrors be cleaned of all corrosion products present as a result of past service conditions and proof tested. It was recommended that the water system consisting of deionized water and formaldehyde be replaced with water having a low oxygen content and a cathodic inhibitor (oxygen scavenger).

When a steam turbine was put out of service, cracks were noticed on many of the blades in the low pressure section round the stabilization bolts and perpendicular to the blade axis. The blades were made from chrome alloy steel X20-Cr13 (Material No. 1.402). When the bolts were brazed into the blades inadmissible localized overheating of the steel must have occurred, which resulted in transformation stresses and hence reduced deformability. The cracks arose as a consequence of careless brazing. Whether the cracks should be considered as stress cracks over their entire extent or partially as fatigue cracks produced by vibration in the operation of the turbine as a result of steplike growing of microcracks could not be deduced from the fracture surfaces. Microfractography showed that the cracks developed in stages.