4.7 Review

Joining of engineering ceramics

Journal

INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS REVIEWS
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 283-331

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/174328009X461078

Keywords

Engineering ceramics; Metal/ceramic joints; Joining; Thermal expansion mismatch; Dissimilar interatomic bonding; Review

Funding

  1. Churchill College, Cambridge

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Engineering ceramics such as alumina, zirconia, silicon nitride and silicon carbide can now be manufactured reliably with reproducible properties. As such, they are of increasing interest to industry, particularly for use in demanding environments, where their thermomechanical performance is of critical importance, with applications ranging from fuel cells to cutting tools. One aspect common to virtually all applications of engineering ceramics is that eventually they must be joined with another material, most usually a metal. The joining of engineering ceramics to metals is not always easy. There are two main considerations. The first consideration is the basic difference in atomic bonding: the ionic or covalent bonding of the ceramic, compared to the metallic bond. The second consideration is the mismatch in the coefficient of thermal expansion. In general, ceramics have a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than metals and, if high tensile forces are produced in the ceramic, either as a consequence of operating conditions or from the joining procedure itself, failure can occur. The plethora of joining processes available will be reviewed in this article, placing them in context from both an academic and commercial perspective. Comment will be made on research reporting advances on known technology, as well as introducing 'newer' technologies developed over the last 10 years. Finally, reviews and commentary will be made on the potential applications of the various joining processes in the commercial environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available