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.

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 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 type 321 stainless steel (AMS 5570) pressure-tube assembly that contained a brazed reinforcing liner leaked during a pressure test. Fluorescent liquid-penetrant inspection revealed a circumferential crack extended approximately 180 deg around the tube parallel to the fillet of the brazed joint. The presence of multiple origin cracks was indicated on the inside surface of a fractured portion of the crack surface. The cracks had originated adjacent to the braze joining the tube and the reinforcing liner and propagated through the wall to the outer surface. The residues on the inner surface of the tube were identified as fluorides from the brazing flux by chemical analysis. The nature of the crack, potential for corrosion due to residual fluorides and residual swaging stress in the tube prior to brazing, confirmed that failure of the tube end was due to stress-corrosion cracking. Stress relief treatment of tube before brazing and immediate cleaning of brazing residual fluorides was recommended to avoid failure.

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.

Waspaloy (AMS 5586) fabricated inner ring of a spray-manifold assembly failed transversely through the manifold tubing at the edge of the tube and support sleeve brazed joint. The assembly was brazed with AWS BAu-4 filler metal (AMS 4787). Fatigue beach marks propagating from extremities of a granular gold-tinted surface region adjacent to the tube-to-sleeve brazed joint and extending circumferentially were revealed by microscopic examination. Embrittlement of the tube caused by molten braze metal penetration along grain boundaries was evidenced by micrographs of a granular portion of the fracture. It was revealed by the initial fracture profile that fatigue cracks begun as an intergranular separation and subsequently became transgranular. It was concluded that failure of the tube was caused by excessive alloying between the braze metal and the Waspaloy. Reduced temperatures during torch debrazing or rebrazing were recommended to minimize molten braze metal penetration.

A copper condenser dashpot in a refrigeration plant failed prematurely. The dashpot was a long tubular component with a cup brazed at each end. Stereomicroscopic examination of the fracture surface at low magnification revealed a typical ductile mode of failure. The failure was attributed to insufficient component thickness, which made the dashpot unable to withstand internal operating pressure, and to extensive annealing in the heat-affected zones of the brazed joints. It was recommended that the condenser dashpot design take into account the annealing effects of brazing. Hydrostatic testing at a pressure times greater than the maximum operating pressure prior to placing the component in service was also suggested.

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).

Airfoil-shape impingement cooling tubes were fabricated of 0.25 mm (0.010 in.) thick Hastelloy X sheet stock, then pulse-laser-beam butt welded to cast Hastelloy X base plugs. Each weldment was then inserted through the base of a hollow cast turbine blade for a jet engine. The weldments were finally secured to the bases of the turbine blades by a brazing operation. One of the laser beam attachment welds broke after a 28-h engine test run. Exposure of the fracture surface for study under the electron microscope revealed the joint had broken in stress rupture. Failure was caused by tensile overload from stress concentration at the root of the laser beam weld, which was caused by the sharp notch created by the lack of full weld penetration. Radiographic inspection of all cooling-tube weldments was made mandatory, with rejection stipulated for joints containing subsurface weld-root notches. In addition, all turbine blades containing cooling-tube weldments were reprocessed by back-brazing. Back brazed turbine blades were reinstalled in the engine and withstood the full 150-h model test run without incident.