Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 46, Issue 16, pp 5305–5323 | Cite as

Overview of transient liquid phase and partial transient liquid phase bonding

  • Grant O. CookIIIEmail author
  • Carl D. Sorensen
Open Access


Transient liquid phase (TLP) bonding is a relatively new bonding process that joins materials using an interlayer. On heating, the interlayer melts and the interlayer element (or a constituent of an alloy interlayer) diffuses into the substrate materials, causing isothermal solidification. The result of this process is a bond that has a higher melting point than the bonding temperature. This bonding process has found many applications, most notably the joining and repair of Ni-based superalloy components. This article reviews important aspects of TLP bonding, such as kinetics of the process, experimental details (bonding time, interlayer thickness and format, and optimal bonding temperature), and advantages and disadvantages of the process. A wide range of materials that TLP bonding has been applied to is also presented. Partial transient liquid phase (PTLP) bonding is a variant of TLP bonding that is typically used to join ceramics. PTLP bonding requires an interlayer composed of multiple layers; the most common bond setup consists of a thick refractory core sandwiched by thin, lower-melting layers on each side. This article explains how the experimental details and bonding kinetics of PTLP bonding differ from TLP bonding. Also, a range of materials that have been joined by PTLP bonding is presented.


Bonding Temperature Bonding Time Transient Liquid Phase Isothermal Solidification Bond Region 

Transient liquid phase (TLP) bonding

Transient liquid phase (TLP) bonding is a joining process that was developed to improve upon existing bonding technologies. Specifically, this process was patented by Paulonis et al. in 1971 [1] to overcome deficiencies of then current bonding techniques in joining Ni-based superalloys [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. TLP bonding’s main advantage is that resulting bonds have a higher melting point than the bonding temperature. This bonding process characteristically lies between diffusion bonding and brazing—for this reason, it is commonly called diffusion brazing. The process is also referred to by names such as transient insert liquid metal bonding [7] and is sometimes mistakenly referred to as diffusion bonding (which by definition relies solely on solid-state diffusion). See reference [8] for a detailed history of TLP bonding and its many names.

TLP bonding process

The TLP bonding process involves the following steps:
  • setting up the bond

  • heating to the specified bonding temperature to produce a liquid in the bond region

  • holding the assembly at the bonding temperature until the liquid has isothermally solidified due to diffusion

  • homogenizing the bond at a suitable heat-treating temperature.

Bond setup usually consists of placing a thin interlayer between the substrates, but the interlayer material is occasionally placed outside the joint to flow in by capillarity [6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] as is done in many brazing processes. The interlayer material can be in many different formats:
A pressure is usually applied to the bonding assembly to keep the substrates aligned and to promote bonding; specific pressures are categorized in Table 1 by their nearest order of magnitude. For example, pressures in the nearest order range of 10 MPa [log(10) = 1] lie between 3.1623 MPa [log(3.1623) = 0.5] and 31.623 MPa [log(31.623) = 1.5]. Occasionally, the substrates are held a fixed distance apart rather than applying a pressure, but this tends to cause porosity in the final bond [6, 19, 43].
Table 1

Fixturing pressures used during TLP bonding

Nearest order

Freq. (%)


1 kPa


[89, 93, 98, 114, 115, 116]

10 kPa


[66, 117, 118, 119]

100 kPa


[23, 24, 25, 33, 61, 68, 72, 88, 90, 99, 113, 120]

1 MPa


[3, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 65, 69, 70, 71, 73, 97, 102, 103, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128]

10 MPa


[17, 28, 32, 35, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 67, 74, 94, 95, 96, 100, 110, 111, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133]

100 MPa


[110, 112, 134]

Heating of the bond assembly and homogenizing of the bond is performed with many different equipment setups and can occur by the following methods:

The bonding process is usually confined in a vacuum [3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 38, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157], although an inert atmosphere, such as argon, can be used [6, 11, 14, 32, 33, 43, 45, 60, 67, 74, 75, 90, 111, 121, 134, 158, 159]. On rare occasions, TLP bonding is performed under a different atmosphere, such as nitrogen [44], hydrogen [160], nitrogen and hydrogen [18], or open air [129]. The vacuum pressures used in the experiments referenced above are normally distributed about 0.1 μmHg (millitorr) with minimum and maximum values of 0.00015 and 34 μmHg, respectively.

TLP bonding kinetics

TLP bonding kinetics are generally divided into the following discrete stages [2, 8, 25, 56, 62, 86, 90, 99, 105, 138, 141, 157, 161, 162] for ease of comprehending and modeling the process:
  • melting of the interlayer

  • dissolution of the substrate material

  • isothermal solidification

  • homogenization of the bond region.

Figure 1 is a schematic of TLP bonding kinetics for a binary system with complete solid solubility.1 The concentration profiles in the lower part of the figure are numbered according to the current temperature of the bond, which is shown in the phase diagram above them. The following analysis assumes that (1) the interlayer and substrate materials are pure elements (2) the bond region has a uniform temperature as it is being heated (3) the diffusion rates of liquid metals are infinite, and (4) the substrate melts back and solidifies as a plane. The second assumption is likely true since the interlayer is quite thin and generally composed of metallic elements that characteristically have moderate to high thermal conductivities. The third assumption is based on liquid diffusivity data often being orders of magnitude greater than solid diffusivity data [163]. The fourth assumption is necessary to characterize the process in one dimension.
Fig. 1

A schematic binary system with complete solid solubility and associated concentration profiles. These profiles illustrate the interlayer element’s concentration during the TLP bonding process

Concentration profile 1 (CP1) in Fig. 1 shows the TLP bonding setup at room temperature. The interlayer element (i) is sandwiched between two pieces of the substrate material element (s). The thickness of the bond region in Fig. 1 has been exaggerated to display changes in the concentration profile. The interlayer can be composed of a single element, an alloy, or a multi-layer combination of elements and/or alloys.

Interlayer thicknesses for TLP bonding are summarized in Table 2. Besides the frequency of each range, common thicknesses are also included for those ranges derived from at least ten references. These common thicknesses comprise at least one-third of the specified range and include plus or minus two percent to account for differences between metric and English units (e.g., 0.004 inches equals 101.6 μm and should be categorized with 100 μm). The most common interlayer thickness is 50 μm, comprising almost 90% of the 40–60 μm range, or about 20% of all reported TLP bond thicknesses.
Table 2

Interlayer thicknesses for TLP bonding

Thickness range (μm)

Common thickness(es) (μm)

Freq. (%)





[35, 103, 130]


1, 2


[20, 21, 35, 54, 62, 63, 64, 102, 105, 107, 108, 114, 118, 129, 130, 144, 164, 165]


20, 25


[5, 8, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 39, 44, 48, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 87, 89, 105, 107, 110, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 131, 134, 137, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 150, 152, 155, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171]




[2, 5, 20, 26, 27, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 42, 46, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 87, 88, 90, 101, 115, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 136, 145, 148, 149, 153, 155, 157, 166, 167, 172]


75, 100


[4, 5, 11, 14, 17, 18, 22, 29, 31, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 53, 78, 86, 87, 109, 125, 134, 135, 147, 151, 155, 159, 162]


200, 500


[6, 16, 55, 77, 95, 96, 97, 100, 104, 140, 158, 159, 162, 171]




[65, 97]

As the bond assembly is heated, the interlayer begins to diffuse into the substrate materials (CP2). The amount of diffusion that occurs is dependent upon the interdiffusion coefficient between the substrate and interlayer materials as well as the heating rate.


Upon reaching the interlayer element’s melting point (CP3), the pure portion of the interlayer liquefies (L). Heating of the bond region continues until the bonding temperature has been reached. The bonding temperature is usually well above the interlayer’s melting point to ensure complete melting of the interlayer and to increase the rate of diffusion (see Optimal bonding temperature).


During heating past the melting point, the concentrations of the liquid region follow the solidus (c4,S) and liquidus (c4,L) lines of the phase diagram (CP4). This causes the liquid region to melt back, or dissolve, the substrate material to conserve mass. The movement of the solid–liquid interface continues until the bonding temperature has been reached (CP5a); at this point the liquid has attained its maximum width and has consumed some of the diffused solute. The amount of melt-back is dependent upon the solidus (c5,S) and liquidus (c5,L) compositions for the given material system at the bonding temperature (see Optimal bonding temperature). The main two effects that lower melt-back distance are (1) significant diffusion of the interlayer material into the substrate before melting (see Critical interlayer thickness) and (2) loss of liquid due to wetting of the substrate’s sides [44] or a high bonding pressure that squeezes liquid out [22, 44, 62, 134, 165].

Many materials that are joined by TLP bonding have carefully designed microstructures to achieve certain mechanical properties. Too much melt-back of the substrate by the liquid interlayer can have detrimental effects on the final bond in addition to lengthening the isothermal solidification time (see Critical interlayer thickness). And, in some systems melt-back can reach five to fifteen times the original interlayer thickness [43, 121, 146]. To prevent drastic melt-back that can adversely affect the microstructure, the interlayer should be thin [57, 62], of a eutectic composition [85], or of a composition similar to the substrate material [19].


After the liquid interlayer has reached its maximum width, the interlayer material diffuses into the substrates at a rate somewhere between the diffusivity of the liquid and solid [25, 43, 85, 163]. As this diffusion occurs isothermally, the liquid region contracts (CP5b) to conserve mass as the solidus and liquidus concentrations are now fixed. Isothermal solidification occurs until all of the liquid has disappeared (CP5c). At this point, the TLP bonding process can be stopped if desired [71]. The bond already has an elevated remelting temperature (T5) compared to the melting temperature of the interlayer (T3).


In most cases TLP bonding is continued in order to homogenize the bond. This can be an extended time in the same heating apparatus or a post-bond heat treatment applied at some other time [14]. Furthermore, if the substrate material’s microstructure is extremely sensitive, this stage can be conducted at a lower temperature [2, 9]. In either case, the bond undergoes homogenization for some predetermined time which causes smoothing of the solute peak (CP5d) that remained at the end of isothermal solidification (CP5c). The resulting remelting temperature of the bond in this case is TR,P. If the peak concentration (c5,P) is within the room-temperature solid-solubility limit of the binary system, the precipitation of strength-reducing intermetallic compounds upon cooling will be avoided [12, 110, 147, 150, 160].

If the bond is homogenized for a sufficient amount of time, there is no gradient in the concentration profile (CP5e) and the bond’s remelting temperature is even higher (TR,F). However, despite the increases in bond remelting temperature that can be achieved by complete homogenization, an adequate homogenization time is usually determined by a sufficiently high bond strength [2, 24, 26, 42, 83, 103, 122, 123, 146, 150] or economic considerations that limit furnace time [77, 125, 173]. Nonetheless, the bond’s remelting temperature is often hundreds of degrees (°C) above the melting point of the interlayer and can be about 1000 °C higher if refractory metals such as Ir, Mo, Nb, Os, Re, Ta, or W are used as the substrate or if low melting-point metals such as Al, Ga, In, Mg, Pb, Sb, Sn, or Zn are used as the interlayer.

Time frame of TLP bonding

The time frame of TLP bonding is highly dependent on the material system (e.g., phase diagram particulars, diffusion coefficients, grain size [18, 25, 142]) and the experimental parameters (e.g., interlayer thickness, bonding pressure, bonding temperature). The duration of each discrete stage of TLP bonding lies within the following ranges:
  • Heating to the bonding temperature, CP1–5a: less than a minute to about an hour; dependent on the method of heating, the heating rate of the heating apparatus, and the substrate material’s thermal properties

  • Melting of the interlayer, CP3: less than a second [121, 124, 138] to several seconds [19, 43, 77]

  • Melting back of the substrate, CP3–5a: seconds [11, 71, 73, 77, 124, 138, 161, 174] to minutes [7, 36, 37, 43, 71, 73, 85, 121]

  • Isothermal solidification, CP5a–5c: minutes [7, 25, 36, 37, 56, 74, 77, 95, 96, 105, 121, 125, 153] to hours [7, 11, 33, 36, 37, 43, 57, 58, 105, 146, 157, 175], although it can occur in less than a minute [73, 161] or take more than a day [12]

  • Homogenization, CP5c–5e: hours [33, 43, 88, 109, 121] to days [88, 175] or, in a few cases, minutes [73].

The general trend is that initial melting of the interlayer occurs an order of magnitude faster than melting back of the substrate, which occurs an order of magnitude faster than isothermal solidification, which occurs an order of magnitude faster than complete homogenization. Isothermal solidification ends up being the limiting, or controlling, time in producing a successful TLP bond [12, 36, 104, 125, 135, 138, 166, 167]. While the homogenization stage takes longer if carried to completion, it rarely is. As previously stated, homogenization can be performed during a subsequent heat treatment or skipped in some cases; it can even occur once the part is in service.

The foregoing explanation of TLP bonding kinetics also applies to eutectic systems when the interlayer is a eutectic composition alloy. The kinetics are slightly different (and more importantly, TLP bonding takes much longer) for a eutectic system when pure elements are used. (See references [19, 44] for particulars of eutectic system kinetics). Tuah-Poku et al. [43] reported a drastic decrease in time to isothermally solidify by changing the interlayer: 200 h when using the pure element as compared to 8 h when using the eutectic composition. This occurs because (1) the interlayer has to undergo a certain amount of solid-state diffusion with the substrate at the bonding temperature before any liquid appears and (2) melt-back of the substrate is then greater.

Critical interlayer thickness

During initial heating, the interlayer element diffuses into the substrates. The magnitude of diffusion depends upon the specific material combination, but all solid-state diffusion rates increase as the temperature rises. Depending on the heating rate and the thickness of the interlayer, the amount of diffusion can significantly decrease the interlayer’s width. In fact, for a combination of high diffusion rate, slow heating, and/or thin interlayer, it is possible to diffuse all of the interlayer material into the substrate before reaching the interlayer melting point [114, 173], although this is a rare occurrence. Because TLP bonding requires the formation of a bulk liquid phase [9, 109, 114] to create a consolidated, void-free bond while also increasing diffusion rates, the interlayer must exceed a minimum, or critical, thickness [105, 114].

In addition to the parameters listed above, the critical interlayer thickness has been shown to depend on other variables such as applied clamping force, solid/liquid surface tension, surface roughness of the substrate, and intermetallic formation [18, 94, 114]. In short, experiments must be conducted for each material combination to empirically reveal its critical interlayer thickness.

On the other hand, analytical models of TLP bonding indicate that the isothermal solidification process time is roughly proportional to the square of the interlayer thickness [9, 18, 19, 25, 36, 44, 86, 104, 110, 114, 124, 138, 161, 173, 175, 176]; experimental data often corroborates this trend [3, 26, 43, 44, 71, 86, 88, 153]. Therefore, to minimize bonding time, an interlayer slightly thicker than the critical thickness is ideal.

Optimal bonding temperature

The bonding temperature is sometimes completely limited by the microstructural stability of the substrate material [7, 9, 87, 125]. If, however, the substrate material allows flexibility in selecting an optimized bonding temperature, a minimum isothermal solidification time (and therefore bonding time) can be achieved at a certain temperature.

If phase diagram and diffusion data are available for the material system in question, the isothermal solidification time can be characterized with respect to temperature. However, it is usually the case that experiments are the only way to discover this relationship. In general, the relationship is parabolic, yielding a minimum isothermal solidification time at a given intermediate temperature (between the melting points of the interlayer and substrate materials) [9, 18, 43, 50, 78, 79, 159, 162]. And yet, in some cases the variables of the system yield either (1) a monotonically increasing time, in which case the optimal bonding temperature is just above the interlayer’s melting point, [6, 9, 43, 114, 158, 162] or (2) a monotonically decreasing time, in which case the optimal bonding temperature is as high as the substrate material allows [4, 104, 114, 135, 141].

The behavior of this trend is highly system dependent and results in part from the interplay of the diffusion rate and the phase diagram of the system [19, 43, 50]. As the temperature is increased, the rate of diffusion increases exponentially. In addition, intermetallic regions, which tend to slow down the rate of diffusion [60, 110], can often be avoided by raising the temperature. As shown in Fig. 2, Pb diffusing into Pd at 400 °C (T1) would pass through five intermetallic regions. T2 and T3 are ideal temperatures for passing through just two and one intermetallic regions, respectively. T4 completely avoids the intermetallic regions while still providing a wide solubility range for the liquid to solidify.
Fig. 2

Pb–Pd binary system [177] illustrating bonding temperatures (dotted lines) that avoid intermetallic regions

In addition to intermetallics, the shape of the solidus and liquidus lines plays an important role in TLP bonding kinetics and the optimal bonding temperature. Figure 3 demonstrates extremes of solidus and liquidus lines in a binary system with complete solid solubility. The composition profiles below each set of phase diagrams demonstrate the initial melting and isothermal solidification behavior of the interlayer for each case. It is assumed that all four systems (1) have the same diffusion coefficient and (2) are heated instantaneously. The latter assumption is accurate for many material systems since complete melt-back often consumes much of the solute that has diffused into the substrate (see CP5a in Fig. 1). The top concentration profiles illustrate initial melt-back of a pure interlayer—the dotted line is the initial interlayer and the solid line is the molten interlayer. The bottom concentration profiles illustrate isothermal solidification for all four systems after a set time.
Fig. 3

Four binary systems (a–d) with complete solid solubility and associated concentration profiles. These profiles illustrate the initial condition (dotted line), initial melt-back of the substrate, and resulting concentrations after a set amount of TLP bonding has occurred in all four systems. Partition coefficient values are also shown for all four systems at the given bonding temperature

The partition coefficient (k) is included in the diagram and is defined as:
$$ k = {\frac{{c_{\text{S}} }}{{c_{\text{L}} }}} $$
where cS and cL are the solidus and liquidus compositions of the interlayer element.

Systems a and b in Fig. 3 have the same convex-shaped liquidus line and therefore experience the same amount of melt-back (see the top concentration profiles). The same is true for the concave-shaped liquidus line in systems c and d. Systems a and c have the same partition coefficient (0.9). The same is true for systems b and d (0.4).

A few principles of TLP bonding kinetics can be gleaned from this figure. First, the convex-shaped liquidus line (a and b) prevents melt-back from occurring to a large extent, whereas the concave-shaped liquidus line (c and d) causes much more melt-back. Second, isothermal solidification occurs faster in systems with a higher partition coefficient (a and c). To conserve mass, the volume of solidified liquid is equal to the change in the concentration profile of the solid region. The width of isothermal solidification in an arbitrary time period is equal to the ratio of this volume to the difference between the liquidus and solidus compositions, or, written another way:
$$ V_{\text{liq}} = (c_{\text{L}} - c_{\text{S}} )w_{{{\text{isoth}} . {\text{ solidif}} .}} $$
Although systems a and c have the same partition coefficient, because the liquidus and solidus compositions of system c are closer to zero, they are also closer to each other, causing isothermal solidification to occur slightly faster (see Fig. 3).

If the substrate material has a sensitive microstructure that could be damaged by significant melt-back, then phase diagrams such as systems c and d should be avoided. Systems b and d will take much longer to isothermally solidify, raising operating costs.

Systems a and c are quite similar in rate of isothermal solidification. Because the solidus composition of system c is closer to the completely homogenized composition (shown as an x on the gray line), homogenization of the solute peak after isothermal solidification will likely proceed more rapidly than in system a. However, because the solidus line of system a has a convex shape, increases in bond remelting temperature due to homogenization will likely occur faster and be larger in this system.

Modeling of TLP bonding

Analytical models have been developed by many researchers for the four stages of TLP bonding to provide quick estimates or general trends, such as those illustrated in the previous section. Equations for and descriptions of TLP bonding analytical models are included in references [8, 19, 162, 178]. Assumptions made for these models are similar to those made in this article (see TLP bonding kinetics). In some cases these equations provide good results, but for many systems these simplified, binary-system approaches do not supply accurate estimates [5, 8, 38, 78, 79, 86]. This is due in part to the diffusion coefficients being assumed independent of composition.

Some complexities of TLP bonding are quite difficult to model. For example, grain boundaries can cause isothermal solidification to occur at a different rate than that predicted by analytical models using a bulk diffusion coefficient [25, 36, 37]. Indeed, grain boundary diffusion is faster than bulk diffusion in a certain temperature range (based on the alloy’s melting point) [173]. Grain boundary diffusion rates also increase as the substrate material’s grain size decreases [179]. Further, grain boundaries can be penetrated by the liquid to cause a non-planar solidification front, thereby increasing the area over which diffusion occurs [5, 11, 18, 138]. See references [180, 181] for more information on the effect of grain boundaries in TLP bonding.

Another interesting deviation is that isothermal solidification can occur in two different “regimes” [38, 50, 138]. The faster solute element of a multi-component interlayer controls the rate of solidification for the first regime. Then, a second solute element controls the rate of solidification during the second regime, resulting in complex concentration–time profiles.

Numerical models can account for some of the complexities of TLP bonding to accurately predict bonding kinetics [7, 8, 161, 162, 168, 173, 176, 179, 182, 183] and can even be extended to multi-component systems [174, 184]. Despite the complexities and extra time required in numerical modeling, especially for multi-component systems, the limiting factor is most often the lack of necessary diffusion data [7, 8, 178]. But, when the necessary data is available, modeling of TLP bonding can drastically reduce the number of experiments required to determine optimal bonding parameters [37, 162, 166].

Advantages and disadvantages of TLP bonding

The most distinctive advantage of TLP bonding is that the resulting bond can operate at the bonding temperature or higher temperatures. In other words, materials can be bonded at a temperature equal to or lower than what the assembled part will experience in service. This is especially important for temperature-sensitive materials whose microstructures can be damaged by too much thermal energy input [117] and therefore need to be joined at lower temperatures.

Another advantage is that the resulting TLP bonds often have microstructural, and therefore mechanical, properties similar to the properties of the base materials [7, 12, 13, 14, 24, 32, 42, 49, 61, 62, 75, 77, 81, 95, 105, 109, 115, 119, 123, 141, 149, 153, 166, 175]. In fact, in some cases the bond area becomes indistinguishable from other grain boundaries [18, 35, 37, 68, 108, 109, 130, 185] due to significant diffusion at high temperature. Such bonds are often as strong as the bulk substrate material [14, 164], or stronger, causing the joined assembly to fail in the substrate material rather than in the bond [14, 31, 71, 76].

Advantages of TLP bonding include:
  • the process is highly tolerant to the presence of a faying surface oxide layer [2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 21, 42, 47, 48, 56, 67, 80, 93, 136, 147, 148, 149, 186] and therefore requires less joint preparation and no fluxing agents [11, 18, 42, 173, 187]; in a few rare cases surface oxides are actually beneficial to the process [129]

  • fixturing pressures are much lower than those used in other joining processes like diffusion bonding [11, 14, 19, 24, 25, 33, 37, 42, 43, 49, 62, 68, 78, 136, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149]

  • little melting of the substrate material occurs, as compared to fusion welding processes [42, 64]

  • many joints can be fabricated in one pass [11, 147]

  • the liquid formed during TLP bonding fills voids on uneven mating surfaces, making costly finishing processes unnecessary [2, 14, 18, 19, 33, 49, 161]

  • overaging of temperature-sensitive materials can be avoided [80, 140, 186, 188].

For some material systems, bond properties and performance capabilities that are difficult or impractical to achieve using conventional joining methods are more accessible [189].

However, TLP bonding is a specialized bonding technique that can be time-consuming and expensive compared to other joining methods—the time required for isothermal solidification and sufficient bond homogenization can be unfeasibly long and/or uneconomical [36, 37, 104, 141]. TLP bonding is not always suitable, specifically in the following cases:
  • significant melt-back of a material with a specifically designed microstructure [7, 62, 141]

  • the formation of a thick layer of intermetallic compounds in the bond that tend to lower its strength and ductility [9, 36, 87, 110, 141, 146, 157, 158, 167]

  • the segregation of particles in metal matrix composites at the joint centerline, leaving a distinct weakened band in the joint microstructure [19, 33, 39, 42, 54, 105].

See reference [7] for examples of specific difficulties that occur in TLP bonding applications. Although many disadvantages of TLP bonding can be overcome by optimized bonding parameters, the optimization process often requires much experimentation.

Applications of TLP bonding

Since TLP bonding was developed, it has successfully been applied to join a broad range of materials and structures including the following:
TLP bonding is often used in high-stress, high-temperature applications where brazing, welding, and diffusion brazing cannot be used for various reasons (e.g., low melting temperature bond, insufficient resulting mechanical properties, unacceptable plastic deformation) [4, 11, 12, 14, 19, 44, 49, 50, 51, 69, 85, 86, 92, 119, 130, 136, 141, 146, 149, 164, 186]. Specific applications are the repair of Ni-based superalloy turbine blade components [7, 9, 39, 74, 104, 105, 135, 142] and the joining of heat-resistant alloys that are inherently susceptible to hot cracking or post-weld heat treatment cracking [5, 11, 20, 38, 59, 78, 80, 135, 136, 140, 173]. Table 3 presents a spectrum of TLP bonds as of now, including bonds of dissimilar materials.
Table 3

A spectrum of materials joined by TLP bonding




Ni-based alloys


MBF-30, MBF-50

[3, 68, 79, 82]

Inconel 600

NB 150


Inconel 617

BNi-3, BNi-6

[147, 156]

Inconel 625



Inconel 713C



Inconel 718



Inconel 738

NB 30, NB 150, BNi-3, MBF-60, MBF-80, DF-3

[5, 38, 45, 66, 78, 80, 86, 87, 159, 162, 178]

Inconel MA758

Ni–B, Ni–Cr–Si–Fe–B, MBF-80

[24, 108, 125, 141]

Inconel MA760

Ni–Cr–P, Ni–Cr–Si–Fe–B


Inconel 939

F20, F24, F25, F26, F27, MBF-80



F20, F24, F25, F26, F27, MBF-80


Nimonic 80A

Ni|NB 125|Ni


René N5

Ni–Ge, Ni–Mn, Ni–Mn–Si, D-15

[6, 16, 158]

Udimet 700




NB 150

[38, 50, 178]




Ni–15Cr–11.5Al–3 W–0.2Hf–0.1Si–0.1Mn (γ/γ′/β type)

MBF-80, Ni–Cr–B–Ce (various combinations)


Al-based alloys

Al A356.0



Al 5052



Al 6060

Al–Cu, Al–Si–Cu


Al 6061

Ag, Al–Si, BAg-8

[17, 27]

Al 6082

Cu, Ga

[21, 129, 164]

Al 7475






Fe-based alloys

304 SSc

Ni–Cr, 304L SSc, BNi-2

[77, 99]

304L SSc

NB 51


Duplex SSc

Cu, Fe–B–Si, Ni–Si–B, MBF-20, MBF-30, MBF-35, MBF-50, MBF-80

[25, 47, 61, 76, 153, 169]

Carbon steel

Cu, Fe–B

[36, 37, 74]


Ni–B–Cr–Si (various combinations)


Incoloy MA956

B, Fe–B–Si

[35, 63, 65, 130]

Incoloy MA957

Fe–B–Si, BNi-1a, BNi-3

[62, 63, 126]

Low carbon steel

Fe–B–Si, BNi-2

[67, 75]

ODSc steel (Fe–Cr–W–Y2O3–Ti)



PM2000 (Fe–Cr–Al)

B, Fe–B–Si

[35, 63, 130]

T91 steel

Fe–B–Si, Fe–Ni–Cr–Si–B, BNi-2


Ti-based alloys


Cu–Ti, Ni–Ti, Ti–Cu–Zr

[97, 134]




Ti–6Al–4 V



Ti–22Al–25Nb (a)



Miscellaneous alloys

AZ31 (Mg–Al–Zn)

Al, Cu

[121, 150]

K640 (Co–Cr–Mo)



Co alloy (unspecified)



Cu (ODSc)

Cu | Sn | Cu

[110, 151]


Cu | Sn | Cu



Sn–Bi, Bi–Sn (various combinations)


Single crystals





F24, MBF-80

[26, 70, 71]


D-15, MBF-80

[9, 26]

IC 6 (with and without B)



PWA 1483 (Ni–Cr–Co–Ta–Ti–W–Al–Mo)


[6, 158]






Ni (glaze), BNi-3

[84, 113]


Ti | Cu, Ti | Ni, Ti | Fe


Ti–45Al–2Nb–2Mn (a) + 0.8 vol.% TiB2

Ti–Cu–Ni, Cu–Ni | Ti | Cu–Ni


γ-TiAl [Ti–47Al–2Cr–2Nb (a)]

Tini 67


Ti–48Al–2Cr–2Nb (a)

Cu, Cu & Ti–Al–Cr–Nb, Cu & TiAl

[94, 96, 100, 197]

Gamma Met PX

Cu & Gamma Met


Pure metals


Cu, Ag–Cu

[8, 43, 44]


Ag, Cu, Ga, Al–Cu, Al–Si–Cu

[22, 129, 148, 164, 165, 186]


Au–Sn, Sn, In, Ti | In

[102, 152, 198]


Ag, Sn, Ag–Cu, BiIn, BiIn2, BiSn, InSn, NB 51

[15, 18, 44, 114, 139, 160, 187, 192, 198]


Sb, Fe–P, Fe–B

[137, 140]


Ti, Zr, V



B, Cu, Hf, BNi-3, BNi-6, MBF-60, MBF-80

[4, 81, 88, 117, 138, 162, 167, 168]




Metal matrix composites d


Ag, Cu, Al–Cu, Cu–Ti

[22, 42]


Cu, Ni


Al 2124/SiC



Al 2618/SiC

Al–Ag–Cu, Al–Ag–Cu–Ti

[93, 98]

Al 6061/Al2O3


[39, 105, 145, 146]

Al 6061/SiC


[33, 90]

AZ91D (Mg–Al)/TiC

Al, Cu

[122, 123]

Haynes 230/Al2O3

Haynes 230 doped with B


Ti–6Al–4 V/SiC





Al, Al & SiO2, B2O3

[118, 143, 170, 199]





Oxynitride glass





Dissimilar metals

Al 7075

Ti–6Al–4 V




Mar-M247 (directionally solidified)



AZ31 (Mg–Al–Zn)

316L SSc




Cu–Cr–Zr and Cu (ODSc)

Cu | Sn | Cu



Cu–W composite








304 SSc




304L SSc



Br.Kh. (Cu–Cr)

12Kh18N10T (Fe–Cr–Ni)

Cu–Mn|Ni, Cu–Ag|Ni



Inconel 738 and 939

BNi-3, Niflex-110, Niflex-115

[136, 149]

DD98 (Ni–W–Co–Mo–Ti–Al–Ta–Hf)

M963 (Ni–W–Co single crystal)



Inconel 718

Inconel X-750






[12, 55, 57, 58]


NiAl-Hf (single crystal)

Cu, NiAl & Cu, Ni3Al & Cu

[55, 56, 57, 92, 101]



Cu, BNi-3

[12, 55, 57, 58, 69, 115]

Low carbon steel




SSc 321

Zircaloy-4 (Zr–Sn)




304L SSc



TS7 (Ti alloy)

5VMTs (Nb alloy) with W, Mo, & Zr; and TV10 (Ta alloy) with W




Ti 6242

Ti|Cu, Cu|Ti


Ti–6Al–4 V

Ti–45Al–2Nb–2Mn (a) + 0.8 vol.% TiB2

Cu–Ni, Ti–Cu–Ni


Metals to Metal matrix composites d

Al 6082

Al 359/SiC



Ti–6Al–4 V

Ti–6Al–4 V/SiC



Metals to Ceramics

Kovar (Fe–Ni–Co)


Ni–Si | Mo


ODSc Fe alloy (Fe–Cr–Al–Y2O3)




W18Cr4 V tool steel

TiC–Al2O3 composite



Inconel 718





Ti(C,N) (50%TiC & 50%TiN)







Metal matrix composites d to ceramics

Al 6061/Al2O3



[39, 54]

aSubstrate material compositions are in weight percent, unless specified by an (a) for atomic percent

bInterlayer material compositions are notated as either (1) X–Y–Z where X is the base element and Y and Z are alloying elements of at least one weight percent in order of descending composition or (2) one of the following braze alloy designations in weight percent: BAg-8 (Ag–28Cu), D-15 (Ni–15.3Cr–10.3Co–3.5Ta–3.5Al–2.3B), DF-3 (Ni–20Co–20Cr–3B–3Ta), F20 (Ni–21.6Cr–17.6Co–3.1 W–2.8Al–2.2B–1.3Ta), F24 (Ni–10.8Co–8.8Cr–3.9 W–3Al–3Ta–2.5B), F25 (Ni–9.8Co–8.6Cr–8.2 W–2.4B), F26 (Ni–9.2Co–8.6Cr–4.9Al–3.6B–2.7Ta), F27 (Ni–9.8Co–7.5Cr–3.3B–1.9 W), BNi-1a (Ni–14Cr–4.5Fe–4.5Si–3B), MBF-20 or BNi-2 (Ni–7Cr–4.5Si–3.2B–3Fe), MBF-30 or BNi-3 (Ni–4.5Si–3.2B), MBF-35 (Ni–7.3Si–2.2B), MBF-50 (Ni–19Cr–7.3Si–1.5B), MBF-60 or BNi-6 (Ni–11P), MBF-80 (Ni–15.2Cr–4B), NB 30 (Ni–19Cr–10Si), NB 51 (Ni–25Cr–10P), NB 125 (Ni–14Cr–4.5Fe–4.5Si–3.13B), NB 150 (Ni–15Cr–3.5B), Niflex-110 and Niflex-115 (proprietary), Ticusil (Ag–26.7Cu–4.5Ti), Tini 67 (Ti–33Ni)

cODS oxide dispersion-strengthened, SS stainless steel

dMetal matrix composites are notated as X/Y where X is the matrix material and Y is the composite fiber material

Variants of TLP bonding

A few variants of TLP bonding also exist:
  • Temperature gradient TLP bonding: the application of a temperature gradient causes a non-planar bond interface which tends to result in stronger bonds [8, 21, 164, 186, 194]

  • Wide-gap TLP bonding: gaps of 100–500 μm can be bonded or repaired by the use of a melting and a non-melting constituent (multiple layers or mixed powders) [7, 16, 57, 92, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 136, 149, 173, 195]. This technique can also be used in conventional TLP bonding to accelerate isothermal solidification [13, 99, 140]

  • Active TLP bonding: a ceramic and metal can be joined by a multi-component interlayer; at least one constituent reacts with the ceramic while another diffuses into the metal to cause isothermal solidification [28, 42, 52, 54, 116, 132, 196]

  • Partial TLP bonding (see next section).

Bonds made using temperature gradient, wide-gap, and active TLP bonding have been included in Table 3.

Partial transient liquid phase (PTLP) bonding

Partial transient liquid phase (PTLP) bonding is a variant of TLP bonding mainly used to join ceramics. PTLP bonding overlaps both wide-gap and active TLP bonding, although articles defining PTLP bonding predate the other two techniques by a few years. Many advantages of conventional TLP bonding carry over to PTLP bonding [188]. The ensuing sections focus on how PTLP bonding differs from TLP bonding.

PTLP bonding process

In PTLP bonding, the interlayer consists of thin layers of low-melting-point metals or alloys on each side of a much thicker refractory metal or alloy layer [188, 200, 201, 202, 203]. Figure 4 presents a general, three-layer PTLP bond setup. (In some cases, there can be multiple thin layers on each side of the refractory core (see Table 4), but the general principles of the process remain the same.) Upon heating to the bonding temperature, a liquid is formed (through melting or a eutectic reaction with the refractory core [202, 203, 204, 205, 206]) by each thin layer. The liquid that is formed wets each ceramic substrate while concomitantly diffusing into the solid refractory core. As in TLP bonding, the liquid regions solidify isothermally and homogenization of the entire bond region leads to a refractory bond.
Fig. 4

A general PTLP bonding setup

Table 4

A spectrum of materials joined by PTLP bonding


Interlayera Combination(s)




Cr | Cu | Ni | Cu | Cr, Cu | Nb | Cu, Cu | Ni | Cu, Cu | Ni–Cr | Cu, Cu | Pt | Cu, In | Ag ABAc | In, In | Cusil ABAc | In, In | Incusil ABAc | In, Ni | Nb | Ni, Ti | Al | Ti

[143, 188, 189, 201, 207, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221, 222, 230, 232]


Au | InBi | Au



Al | Ti | Al, Au | Ni–Cr | Au, Cu–Au | Ni | Cu–Au, Co | Nb | Co, Co | Ta | Co, Co | Ti | Co, Co | V | Co, Cu–Au–Ti | Ni | Cu–Au–Ti, Cu–Ti | Pd | Cu–Ti, Ni | Ti | Ni | Ti | Ni, Ni | V | Ni, Ti | Au | Cu | Au | Ni | Au | Cu | Au | Ti, Ti | Cu | Ti, Ti | Cu | Ni | Cu | Ti, Ti | Ni | Ti, Ti | Ni | 304SSc | Ni | Ti, Ti | Ni | Kovarc | Ni | Ti, V | Co | V

[117, 202, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 217, 223, 224]


C | Si | C, Cu–Au–Ti | Ni | Cu–Au–Ti, Ni–Si | Mo | Ni–Si, Ti | Au | Cu | Au | Ni | Au | Cu | Au | Ti

[116, 210, 212, 213, 227]


Zn | Pd | Zn


Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2

Al | Ni | Al, Ni | Nb | Ni

[216, 231]

ZrO2-toughened Al2O3

Ni | Nb | Ni


Composites b

Al / SiC

Cu | Ni | Cu


Si3N4 / TiC

Ti | Ni | Ti


Al 6061 / Al2O3

Cu | Ni | Cu


C / C

Ti | Ni | Ti


Metals to ceramics

FA-129 (Fe3Al alloy, Fe–Al–Cr–Nb)


Cu–Ti (ABAc) | Cu | Cu–Ti (ABAc), Cu–Ti | Cu | Ni | Al

[202, 204, 205]



Ni | Ti | Ni




Ti | Ni | Ti




Ti | Cu | Sn | Au | Cu


aInterlayer material compositions are notated as either (1) X–Y where X is the base element and Y is the minor alloying element or (2) one of the following braze alloy designations, in weight percent: Cusil (Ag–28Cu), Incusil (Ag–27.3Cu–12.5In–1.3Ti), and Ticusil (Ag–26.7Cu–4.5Ti)

bComposites are notated as X/Y where X is the matrix material and Y is the composite fiber material

cABA active brazing alloy, Kovar Fe–Ni–Co alloy, SS stainless steel

The refractory core tends to be a foil that is 20–30 μm [143, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214] or 100–127 μm thick [116, 188, 189, 201, 207, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222], although it can be in the 200–1000 μm range [202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 223, 224, 225]. The refractory core element is often Ni [144, 189, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 218, 224, 226, 227]; other elements (and an alloy) that have been used include Au, Co, Cu, Nb, Ni–Cr, Pd, Pt, Si, Ta, Ti, and V [117, 188, 189, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 222, 227, 228, 229]. The thin layers can be most of the formats used for TLP bonding interlayers (see TLP bonding process) and are often in the 1–10 μm thick range. The ratio of the thin layer thickness over the refractory core thickness is usually 1–5% [143, 188, 189, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 230, 231], although it can be 6–20% [207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 219, 221, 223], and some PTLP bond experiments have utilized a ratio of 50% or higher [116, 144, 208, 214, 226].

PTLP bonding kinetics

Figures 5 and 6 depict the two ends of the PTLP bonding process. The following additional assumptions are made in this analysis: (1) thin layer A (tlA), the refractory core (rc), and thin layer B (tlB) are different pure elements (2) there is no diffusion into the ceramic substrates (3) the ternary system (tlA–rc–tlB) can be approximated by the two associated binary systems (tlA–rc and rc–tlB), and (4) the interlayers wet the substrate with a thin layer of intermetallic formation that conserves the amount of liquid and results in a refractory intermetallic.
Fig. 5

A schematic binary system with complete solid solubility and associated concentration profiles for one half of the PTLP bonding process (thin layer A [tlA] and refractory core). These profiles illustrate the thin layer A element’s concentration during the PTLP bonding process, starting with the initial condition (CP1A) and ending with the completely homogenized bond (CP5fA)

Fig. 6

A schematic binary system with complete solid solubility and associated concentration profiles for one half of the PTLP bonding process (refractory core and thin layer B [tlB]). These profiles illustrate the thin layer B element’s concentration during the PTLP bonding process, starting with the initial condition (CP1B) and ending with the completely homogenized bond (CP5fB)

The second and fourth assumptions highlight the major differences between TLP and PTLP bonding. First, the multi-layer interlayer used during PTLP bonding has been termed “self-contained” [215] because the liquid phases must diffuse into the rc, rather than the much larger substrate materials, to induce isothermal solidification. Second, the liquid phases must wet the ceramic substrates to create a strong bond. This tends to be difficult due to the chemical inertness of ceramics [117, 180, 196, 216] and usually requires the use of active elements such as Al, Cr, Hf, Nb, Ni, Sc, Ta, Ti, V, or Zr [65, 117, 187, 189, 198, 200, 201, 202, 206, 215, 216, 218, 222, 228, 232, 233]. Also, when analyzing the critical interlayer thickness of the thin layers, a portion of the liquid that forms from those thin layers will react with the ceramic substrate and add to the critical thickness.

The PTLP bonding setup at room temperature is shown in Figs. 5 and 6 as concentration profiles 1A and 1B, CP1A and CP1B, respectively. Both binary systems exhibit complete solid solubility. As the temperature of the bond is raised to the melting points of each thin layer (T4 for tlA and T3 for tlB), both thin layers diffuse into the rc (see CP2A and CP3A as well as CP2B). Despite the small amount of liquid that initially forms from tlB due to its high diffusivity (CP3B), the liquid drastically melts back the rc on further heating (CP4B) due to the concave shape of the liquidus. This melt-back continues until the assembly is heated to the bonding temperature (T5) shown in CP5aB. On the other hand, the liquid formed from tlA (CP4A) widens slightly to be about the same width as the original thin layer (CP5aA) due to that system’s convex liquidus.

At this point, isothermal solidification occurs on both sides of the multi-layer interlayer. It proceeds much faster for tlB due to its high partition coefficient and diffusivity. In fact, isothermal solidification is complete for tlB (CP5bB) when the other liquid region has only solidified about halfway (CP5bA), despite the considerable melt-back of the rc.

The liquid formed from tlA eventually solidifies isothermally (CP5cA). On the other side of the bond, the solute peak has been smoothed due to homogenization (CP5cB), and the remelting temperature on that side has increased to TR,P.

Further homogenization causes the remaining gradient in the tlB element to disappear (CP5dB), thereby raising the remelting temperature of the bond next to substrate B to its final value, TR,F. A similar melting temperature increase (to TR,P1) simultaneously occurs on the other side of the bond due to smoothing of its solute peak (CP5dA).

Prolonging the homogenization process continues to raise the remelting temperature of the left side of the bond. However, once its remelting temperature has reached TR,P2 (CP5eA), which is higher than TR,F for the right side of the bond, further homogenization will have little effect on raising the bond’s remelting temperature. From an optimization standpoint, homogenization should be stopped at this time. However, real-world considerations usually determine the homogenization time, which can be less than—or greater than—the optimized time due to various factors, such as cost, microstructural considerations, or resulting bond strength.

The time frame of PTLP bonding is very similar to that of TLP bonding. Isothermal solidification and homogenization times for TLP bonding depend on high-diffusivity elements diffusing into “infinite” substrate materials. In PTLP bonding, the elements tend to have lower diffusivities, but the maximum diffusion path is on the order of 100 μm, resulting in similar bonding times.

Advantages and disadvantages of PTLP bonding

The “self-contained” [215] nature of the PTLP bonding multi-layer interlayer provides benefits and impediments. Specific advantages include the following:
  • the dual nature of the multi-layer interlayer combines some beneficial properties of brazing and diffusion bonding [117, 188, 204, 206, 208, 215] and provides some flexibility in joint design

  • lower bonding temperatures can mitigate thermally induced stresses [188, 214] and limit or avoid deleterious intermetallic reactions [188, 207]

  • because diffusion occurs on a smaller scale (on the order of 100 μm), bonding using slow-diffusing elements occurs in a reasonable amount of time.

Major disadvantages are:
  • the liquid interlayer must wet the ceramic [117, 143, 215]

  • matching the thermal expansion coefficients of the ceramic substrates and metallic interlayer elements is sometimes necessary to prevent thermally induced stresses and cracking [117, 143, 188, 196, 203, 215]

  • intermetallic formation is necessary, but a thick reaction layer tends to be brittle and can degrade joint strength [143, 200, 202, 203, 210, 215].

However, most disadvantages of PTLP bonding can be overcome by proper design. In the end, the limiting factor is wettability on the specific ceramic material.

Applications of PTLP bonding

PTLP bonding has been used to successfully join some ceramic and composite materials. Table 4 presents a spectrum of PTLP bonds as of now, including bonds of dissimilar materials. The interlayer combination of the general PTLP bond setup shown in Fig. 4 would be notated tlA | rc | tlB.


TLP bonding is a relatively new bonding process that results in a bond with a higher melting temperature than that used to join the materials. Specific details of this process, including experimental details, process kinetics, and optimal bonding temperature, have been outlined in this article. Also, the broad range of materials that have been joined by TLP bonding was presented.

PTLP bonding, a more recent variant of TLP bonding used to bond hard-to-join materials, was also outlined. PTLP bonding has been successful in joining a smaller range of materials, most notably, ceramics.

Both TLP and PTLP bonding are specialized joining processes that require more resources to implement compared to typical bonding processes. However, in some cases these bonding processes are the best—or only—way to join materials for specialized applications.


  1. 1.

    A numerical model was developed to calculate one-dimensional solid-state diffusion in conjunction with a liquid region that expands or contracts, assuming infinite diffusivity for the liquid region. The model also accounts for a heating period and diffusivity data as a function of concentration and temperature. Diffusivity data along with solidus and liquidus profiles for a hypothetical binary system were used to output concentration profiles that were the basis for the concentration profiles in Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6.



This study was funded by the Office of Naval Research under grant number N00014-07-1-0872, Dr. William Mullins, Program Officer.


  1. 1.
    Paulonis D, Duvall D, Owczarski W (1971) US Pat 3,678,570 1 Apr 2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang L, Hou J, Zhang S (2007) China Weld 16(1):63Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee BK, Song WY, Kim DU, Woo IS, Kang CY (2007) Met Mat Int 13(1):59Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdelfatah M, Ojo OA (2009) Mat Sci Technol 25(1):61Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ojo OA, Richards NL, Charturvedi MC (2004) Sci Technol Weld Join 9(3):209Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dinkel MK, Heinz P, Pyczak F, Volek A, Ott M, Affeldt E, Vossberg A, Göken M, Singer RF (2008) In: Proceedings of the international symposium on superalloys. TMS, Warrendale, p 211Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gale WF, Butts DA (2004) Sci Technol Weld Join 9(4):283Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuntz ML (2006) Quantifying isothermal solidification kinetics during transient liquid phase bonding using differential scanning calorimetry. Ph. D dissertation, University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnell A, Stankowski A, deMarcos E (2006) In: Proceedings of GT2006, ASME Turbo Expo 2006: power for land, sea, air, Barcelona, 8–11 May 2006Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peaslee RL (1976) Weld J 55(8):695Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu X, Chandel RS, Li H (2001) J Mat Sci 36:1539. doi: Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gale WF (1999) J Mat 51(2):49Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gale WF (2003) Mat Sci Forum 426–432:1891Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duvall DS, Owczarski WA, Paulonis DF (1974) Weld J 53(4):203Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tian J, Kim T, Lu TJ, Hodson HP, Queheillalt DT, Sypeck DJ, Wadley HNG (2004) Int J Heat Mass Trans 47(14/16):3171Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laux B, Piegert S, Rösler J (2009) Metall Mat Trans A 40(1):138Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metzger GE (1976). In: Technical report AFML-TR-75-210, Air Force Materials Lab, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1976Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacDonald WD, Eagar TW (1998) Metal Mat Trans 29A(1):315Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacDonald WD, Eagar TW (1992) Ann Rev Mat Sci 22:23Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu Q, Chaturvedi MC, Richards NL, Goel N (1997) In: ISSI: Structural intermetallics 1997, proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on structural intermetallics, champion, p 323, 21–25 Sept 1997Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shirzadi AA (1998) Weld World 41(5):435Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suzumura A, Xing Y (1996) Jpn Inst Met Mat Trans 37(5):1109Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    AlHazaa A, Khan TI, Haq I (2010) Mat Charact 61(3):312Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ekrami A, Khan TI, Malik H (2003) Mat Sci Technol 19:132Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Padron T, Khan TI, Kabir MJ (2004) Mat Sci Eng A 385(1–2):220Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nishimoto K, Saida K, Kim D, Asai S, Furukawa Y, Nakao S (1998) Weld World 41(2):121Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnsen MR (2007) Weld J 86(3):76Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang J, Li Y, Huang W (2009) Mat Sci 45(1):125Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duan H, Bohm KH, Ventzke V, Koçak M (2005) Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 15(2):375Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang CF, Chiu LH, Lee SC, Sun JY (1998) Proc Natl Sci Counc Repub China A Phys Sci Eng 22(1):132Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brochu M, Wanjara P (2007) Int J Refract Met Hard Mat 25(1):67Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kejanli H, Taskin M, Kolukisa S, Topuz P (2010) Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44(7/8):695Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maity J, Pal TK, Maiti R (2009) J Mat Process Technol 209:3568Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Freedman AH (1971) Weld J 50:343sGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krishnardula VG, Sofyan NI, Gale WF, Fergus JW (2006) Metall Mat Trans A 37A(2):497Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li H, Li ZX (2008) J Sandw Struct Mat 10(3):247Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li H, Li ZX (2008) J Mat Eng Perform 17(6):849Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wikstrom NP, Idowu OA, Ojo OA, Chaturvedi MC (2006) In: Proceedings of the 3rd international brazing and soldering conference, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk Hotel, San Antonio, 2006Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhai Y, North TH (1997) J Mat Sci 32(21):5571. doi: Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guedes A, Viana F, Pinto AMP, Vieira MF (2008) Mat Sci Forum 587–588:425Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huang X, Richards NL (2004) Weld J 83(3):73sGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang G, Zhang J, Pei Y, Li S, Chai D (2008) Mat Sci Eng A 488(1–2):146Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tuah-Poku I, Dollar M, Massalski TB (1988) Metall Trans A 19A(3):675Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kuntz ML, Zhou Y, Corbin SF (2006) Metall Mat Trans A 37A(8):2493Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ojo OA, Abdelfatah MM (2008) Mat Sci Technol 24(6):739Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dolgov YS, Sidokhin AF, Sidokhin YF (1968) Weld Prod 15(12):24Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yuan X, Kim MB, Kang CY (2009) Mat Charact 60(11):1289Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Askew JR, Wilde JF, Khan TI (1998) Mat Sci Technol 14(9–10):920Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Elrefaey A, Tillmann W (2009) Adv Eng Mat 11(7):556Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wikstrom NP, Egbewande AT, Ojo OA (2008) J Alloys Compd 460(1/2):379Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Duan H, Koçak M, Bohm KH, Ventzke V (2004) Sci Technol Weld Join 9(6):513Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dezellus O, Andrieux J, Bosselet F, Sacerdote-Peronnet M, Baffie T, Hodaj F, Eustathopoulos N, Viala JC (2008) Mat Sci Eng A 495(1/2):254Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ghoneim A, Ojo OA (2010) Intermet 18(4):582Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhai Y, North TH, Serrato-Rodrigues J (1997) J Mat Sci 32(6):1393. doi: Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Abdo ZAM, Guan Y, Gale WF (1999) In: High-temperature ordered intermetallic alloys VIII, MRS Fall Meeting, Boston, 1998Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Guan Y, Gale WF (1999) Mat Sci Technol 15(2):207Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gale WF, Guan Y (1999). In: 5th International conference: Trends in Welding Research; Pine Mountain, 1998Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gale WF, Guan Y, Orel SV (1998) Int J Mat Prod Technol 13(1–2):1Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nakahashi M, Suenaga S, Shirokane M, Takeda H (1992) Jpn Inst Met Mat Trans 33:60Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chen SJ, Tang HJ, Jing XT (2009) Mat Sci Eng A 499(1–2):114Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Khan TI, Kabir MJ, Bulpett R (2004) Mat Sci Eng A 372(1–2):290Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Khan TI, Wallach ER (1996) Mat Sci Technol 12(7):603Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Khan TI, Wallach ER (1996) J Mat Sci 31(11):2937. doi: Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wei S (1996) Rare Met 15(1):16Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nishimoto K, Saida K, Shinohara Y (2003) Sci Technol Weld Join 8(1):29Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mosallaee M, Ekrami A, Ohsasa K, Matsuura K (2008) Mat Sci Technol 24(4):449Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zhang G, Zhang J, Pei Y (2006) China Weld 15(1):16Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pouranvari M, Ekrami A, Kokabi AH (2008) J Alloys Compds 461(1/2):641Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Orel SV, Parous LC, Gale WF (1995) Weld J 74(9):319sGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kim DU, Nishimoto K (2003) Mat Sci Technol 19(4):456Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nishimoto K, Saida K, Kim D, Nakao Y (1995) Iron Steel Inst Jpn Int 35(10):1298Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Khan TI, Roy BN (2004) J Mat Sci 39(2):741. doi: Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fukumoto S, Imamura K, Hirose A, Kobayashi KF (1995) Iron Steel Inst Jpn Int 35(10):1307Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Di Luozzo N, Fontana M, Arcondo B (2007) J Mat Sci 42(11):4044. doi: Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Epelbaum C, Fontana M, Audebert F, Arcondo B (2005) J Mat Sci 40(18):4867. doi: Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Khan TI, Orhan N, Eroglu M (2002) Mat Sci Technol 18(4):396Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chen H, Gong JM, Tu ST (2009) Sci Technol Weld Join 14(1):32Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Idowu OA, Richards NL, Chaturvedi MC (2005) Mat Sci Eng A 397:98Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pouranvari M, Ekrami A, Kokabi AH (2009) J Alloys Compds 469(1–2):270Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mosallaee M, Ekrami A, Ohsasa K, Matsuura K (2008) Metall Mat Trans A 39A(10):2389Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Gale WF, Wallach ER (1991) Metall Trans A 22A(10):2451Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pouranvari M, Ekrami A, Kokabi AH (2008) Mat Sci Eng A 490(1/2):229Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zou GS, Xie EH, Bai HL, Wu AP, Wang Q, Ren JL (2009) Mat Sci Eng A 499(1–2):101Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gale WF, Orel SV (1996) J Mat Sci 31(2):345. doi: Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tseng MW, Williams DB, Soni KK, Levi-Setti R (1999) J Mat Sci 34:5187. doi: Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ojo OA, Richards NL, Chaturvedi MC (2004) Sci Technol Weld Join 9(6):532Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Chaturvedi MC, Ojo OA, Richards NL (2004) Adv Technol Mat Mat Process J 6(2):206Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ikawa H, Nakao Y, Isai T (1979) Trans Jpn Weld Soc 10(1):25Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lu CD, Chang LS, Lu YF, Lu FH (2009) Ceram Int 35(7):2699Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Maity J, Pal TK, Maiti R (2009) Mat Sci Technol 25(12):1489Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wadley H, Dharmasena K, Chen Y, Dudt P, Knight D, Charette R, Kiddy K (2008) Int J Impact Eng 35(9):1102Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gale WF, Wen X (2001) Mat Sci Technol 17(4):459Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Huang JH, Wan Y, Zhao HT, Cheng DH, Zhang H (2007) Mat Sci Technol 23(1):87Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gale WF, Butts DA, Di Ruscio M, Zhou T (2002) Metall Mat Trans A 33A(10):3205Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Butts DA, Gale WF (2008) Mat Sci Technol 24(12):1492Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zhou T, Gale WF, Butts D, Di Ruscio M (2003) In: Materials solutions ’02, Columbus, 2003Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sukhachev AP, Lashko SV (1971) Weld Prod 18(6):86Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Huang J, Wan Y, Zhang H, Zhao X (2007) J Mat Sci 42(23):9746. doi: Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Zhuang WD, Eagar TW (1997) Weld J 76(4):157sGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Gale WF, Xu Y, Wen X, Abdo ZAM (1999) Metall Mat Trans A 30(10):2723Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Gale WF, Guan Y (1999) Mat Sci Technol 15(4):464Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zhang W, Ruythooren W (2008) J Electron Mat 37(8):1095Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Koyama S, Takahashi M, Ikeuchi K (2007) Mat Sci Forum 539–543:3503Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Arafin MA, Medraj M, Turner DP, Bocher P (2007) Mat Sci Eng A 447(1–2):125Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Li Z, Zhou Y, North TH (1995) J Mat Sci 30(4):1075. doi: Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Lee JS, Bang WH, Jung JP, Oh KH (2005) Mat Sci Forum 475–479:1869Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Niemann JT, Wille GW (1978) Weld J 57(10):285sGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Saha RK, Khan TI (2009) Mat Charact 60(9):1001Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kay WD (1993) ASM Handbook: welding, brazing, soldering, vol. 6. ASM International, Metals ParkGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Sangha SPS, Jacobson DM, Peacock AT (1998) Weld J 77(10):432sGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Rezchik NV, Kheifets RG (1988) Weld Int 2(2):118Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Chernitsyn AI, Kufaikin AA, Rastorguev LN, Lozeev GE (1975) Weld Prod 22(7):36Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Moore TJ, Kalinowski JM (1993) In: High-temperature ordered intermetallic alloys V, Boston, 1992Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Bosco NS, Zok FW (2004) Acta Mater 52:2965Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Gale WF, Orel SV (1996) Metall Mat Trans A 27A(7):1925Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Liu GW, Valenza F, Muolo ML (2010) J Mat Sci 45:4299. doi: Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Tillmann W, Lugscheider E (1996) Int J Join Mat 8(2):56Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lo PL, Chang LS, Lu YF (2009) Ceram Int 35(8):3091Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Li W, Jin T, Sun X, Guo Y, Guan H, Hu Z (2002) J Mat Sci Technol 18:54Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Elthalabawy W, Khan T (2010) Mat Charact 61:703Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Sun DQ, Liu WH, Gu XY (2004) Mat Sci Technol 20(12):1595Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Gu XY, Sun DQ, Liu L (2008) Mat Sci Eng A 487(1–2):86Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Gu XY, Sun DQ, Liu L, Duan ZZ (2009) J Alloys Compds 476(1–2):492Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Le Blanc A, Mevrel R (1990) In: High temperature materials for power engineering 1990, II. Kluwer Academic, LiegeGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Saha RK, Khan TI (2007) J Mat Sci 42(22):9187. doi: Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Khan TI, Wallach ER (1995) J Mat Sci 30(20):5151. doi: Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Lee YS, Seo KW, Lee CH, Lim CH, Lee CH (2006) Mat Sci Forum 510–511:390Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Liu JD, Jin T, Zhao NR, Wang ZH, Sun XF, Guan HR, Hu ZQ (2010) Sci Technol Weld Join 15(3):194Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Shirzadi AA, Saindrenan G (2003) Sci Technol Weld Join 8(2):149Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Krishnardula VG, Sofyan NI, Fergus JW, Gale WF (2006) In: Trends in welding research, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, Cancun Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Noh S, Kasada R, Oono N, Iwata N, Kimura A (2010) Fusion Eng Des 85:1033Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Zhou S, Li X, Xiong W, Zhou Y (2009) J Wuhan Univ Technol Mat Sci Ed 24(3):432Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Rhee BH, Kim DU (2002) Met Mat 8(5):427Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Lashko NF, Lashko SV, Grishin VL (1968) Weld Prod 15(3):5Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Egbewande AT, Chukwukaeme C, Ojo OA (2008) Mat Charact 59(8):1051Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Aluru R, Sofyan NI, Fergus JW, Gale WF (2006) In: Trends in welding research, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, Auburn, p 879Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Bach FW, Deisser TA, Hollaender U, Moehwald K, Nicolaus M (2007) Weld J 86(12):373sGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Ramirez JE, Liu S (1992) Weld J 71(10):365sGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Bobzin K, Lugscheider E, Ernst F, Nickel R, Bagcivan N, Parkot D, Schlegel A, Ferrara S, Kashko T, Leick N (2008) Microsyst Technol 14(12):1887Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Kwon YS, Kim JS, Moon JS, Suk MJ (2000) J Mat Sci 35(8):1917. doi: Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Saha RK, Khan TI (2006) J Mat Eng Perform 15(6):722Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Zhou Y, North TH (1993) Model Simul Mat Sci Eng 1(4):505Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Ksiazek M, Sobczak N, Mikulowski B, Radziwill W, Winiarski B, Wojcik M (2005) J Mat Sci 40:2513. doi: Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Chen R, Zuo D, Wang M (2006) J Mat Sci Technol 22(3):291Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Sun D, Liu W, Wu J, Jia S, Qiu X (2002) China Weld 11(1):9Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Sun D, Liu W, Jia S, Qiu X (2004) Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 14(1):105Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Jalilian F, Jahazi M, Drew RAL (2006) Mat Sci Eng A 423(1–2):269Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Natsume Y, Ohsasa K, Tayu Y, Momono T, Narita T (2003) Iron Steel Inst Int 43(12):1976Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Aluru R, Gale WF, Chitti SV, Sofyan N, Love RD, Fergus JW (2008) Mat Sci Technol 24(5):517Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Sun DQ, Gu XY, Liu WH (2005) Mat Sci Eng A 391(1–2):29Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Bosco NS, Zok FW (2005) Acta Mater 53(7):2019Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Johnson RW, Wang C, Liu Y, Scofield JD (2007) IEEE Trans Electron Packag Manuf 30(3):182Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Rhee B, Roh S, Kim D (2003) Mat Trans 44(5):1014Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Schwartz MM (1978) Weld J 57:35Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Grishin VL, Lashko SV (1986) Weld Prod 33:23Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Jalilian F (2006) The influence of process parameters on TLP bonding of inconel 617 superalloy. Ph. D dissertation, McGill UniversityGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Campbell CE, Boettinger WJ (2000) Metall Mat Trans A 31A(11):2835Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Heinz P, Volek A, Singer RF, Dinkel M, Pyczak F, Göken M, Ott M, Affeldt E, Vossberg A (2008) Diffus Defect Data A 273–276:294Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Abdelfatah MM, Ojo OA (2009) Metall Mat Trans A 40(2):377Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Peaslee RL (2002) Weld J 81(2):170Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Li JF, Agyakwa PA, Johnson CM (2010) J Mat Sci 45(9):2340. doi: Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Abdelfattah M (2008) An experimental and theoretical study of transient liquid phase bonding of nickel based materials. Ph. D dissertation, University of ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Cain SR, Wilcox JR, Venkatraman R (1997) Acta Mater 45(2):701Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Assadi H, Shirzadi AA, Wallach ER (2001) Acta Mater 49(1):31Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Tillmann W, Osmanda AM, Wojarski L (2009) Q J Jpn Weld Soc 27(2):179sGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Natsume Y, Ohsasa K, Narita T (2003) Mat Trans 44(5):819Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Shinmura T, Ohsasa K, Narita T (2001) Mat Trans 42(2):292Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Ohsasa K, Shinmura T, Narita T (1999) J Phase Equilib 20(3):199Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Yuan X, Kim MB, Kang CY (2011) Metal Mat Trans A 42(5):1310Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Kato H, Kageyama K (1998) Mat Sci Technol 14(7):712Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Iseki T, Yamashita K, Suzuki H (1981) J Am Ceram Soc 64(1):C-13Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Atabaki M (2010) J Nucl Mat 406:330Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Zhou Y, Gale WF, North TH (1995) Int Mater Rev 40(5):181Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Sinclair CW (1999) J Phase Equilib 20(4):361Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Zhou Y (2001) J Mat Sci Lett 20:841Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Illingworth TC, Golosnoy IO, Clyne TW (2007) Mat Sci Eng A 445–446:493Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Okamoto H (1997) J Phase Equilib 18(5):491Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Wikstrom NP (2006) The effect of process parameters on microstructure of transient liquid phase bonded superalloys inconel 738 and waspaloy. Ph. D dissertation, University of ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Zhou Y, North TH (1994) Zeitschrift fur Metallkunde 85(11):775Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Hong SM (2009) Transient-liquid-phase (TLP) bonding of Al2O3 using Nb-based multilayer interlayers. Ph. D dissertation, University of Calif, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Saha RK (2008) Transient liquid phase diffusion bonding of an oxide dispersion strengthened nickel superalloy. Ph. D dissertation, University of CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Illingworth TC, Golosnoy IO, Gergely V, Clyne TW (2005) J Mat Sci 40(9–10):2505. doi: Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Jen TC, Jiao Y (2001) Num Heat Trans A 39(2):123Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Sinclair CW, Purdy GR, Morral JE (2000) Metall Mat Trans A 31A(4):1187Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Loehman R (1981) In: Pask J, Evans A (eds) Proceedings of the 17th University Conference on Ceramics held University of California, Berkeley, p 701Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Shirzadi AA, Wallach ER (1999) Acta Mater 47(13):3551Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Lugscheider E, Ferrara S (2004) Adv Eng Mat 6(3):160Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Shalz ML, Dalgleish BJ, Tomsia AP, Glaeser AM (1993) J Mat Sci 28:1673. doi: Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Shalz ML, Dalgleish BJ, Tomsia AP, Glaeser AM (1994) J Mat Sci 29(12):3200. doi: Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Nicholas M (1998) Joining processes. Kluwer Academic, Boston, p 95Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Peaslee RL (1999) Weld J 78(3):237Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Agarwal R, Zhang W, Limaye P, Ruythooren W (2009) In: Proceedings—electronic components and technology conference, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Wilcoxon RK, Boone AP, Wooldridge JR (2010) US Pat 7,830,021 9 Nov 2010Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Jabbareh MA, Assadi H (2009) Scr Mater 60(9):780Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Zhou T, Gale WF (2003) Mat Sci Technol 19(8):1084Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Kim JJ, Park JW, Eagar TW (2003) Mat Sci Eng A 344:240Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Fergus JW, Salazar VL, Long CJ, Harris NL, Zhou T, Gale WF (2005) J Mater Sci 40(23):6139. doi: Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Lugscheider E, Ferrara S, Janssen H, Reimann A, Wildpanner B (2004) Microsyst Technol 10:233Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Chang LS, Huang CF (2004) Ceram Int 30:2121Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Zhang Y, Feng D, He Z, Chen X (2006) J Iron Steel Res Int 13(2):1Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Locatelli MR, Nakashima K, Dalgleish BJ, Tomsia AP, Glaeser AM (1994) In: Advances in ceramic-matrix composites II; proceedings of the symposium, ACS 96th Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, 25–27 Apr 1994Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Brochu M, Pugh MD, Drew RAL (2002) In: Proceedings from joining of advanced and specialty materials, 5–8 November 2001, Indianapolis, ASM International, 2002Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Chen Z, Cao MS, Zhao QZ, Zou JS (2004) Mat Sci Eng A 380:394Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Brochu M, Pugh MD, Drew RAL (2004) Int J Refract Met Hard Mat 22:95Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Brochu M, Drew RAL, Pugh MD (2002). In: Metal/Ceramic Interactions: as held at the 41st annual conference of metallurgists of CIM (COM 2002), Montreal, 11–14 Aug 2002Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    Peteves SD, Paulasto M, Ceccone G, Stamos V (1998) Acta Mater 46(7):2407Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Ceccone G, Nicholas MG, Peteves SD, Tomsia AP, Dalgleish BJ, Glaeser AM (1996) Acta Mater 44(2):657Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Zou GS, Wu AP, Ren JL, Yang J, Zhao WQ (2004) Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 14(1):93Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    Yan J, Xu Z, We G, Yang S (2005) J Mat Sci 40(19):5307. doi: Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    Dalgleish BJ, Tomsia AP, Glaeser AM (1994) In: Advances in ceramic-matrix composites II; Proceedings of the symposium, ACS 96th Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, 25–27 Apr 1994Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Dalgleish BJ, Tomsia AP, Nakashima K, Locatelli MR, Glaeser AM (1994) Scr Metall Mater 31(8):1043Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Locatelli MR, Dalgleish BJ, Nakashima K, Tomsia AP, Glaeser AM (1997) Ceram Int 23(4):313Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    Locatelli MR, Tomsia AP, Nakashima K, Dalgleish BJ, Glaeser AM (1995) Key Eng Mater 111–112:157Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Tillmann W, Lugscheider E, Buschke I (1996). In: Processing and fabrication of advanced materials V, Cincinnati, 6–10 Oct 1996Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    Shalz ML, Dalgleish BJ, Tomsia AP, Cannon RM, Glaeser AM (1994) J Mat Sci 29:3678. doi: Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    Hong SM, Bartlow CC, Reynolds TB, McKeown JT, Glaeser AM (2008) Adv Mat 20(24):4799Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Ceccone G, Paulasto M, Nicholas MG, Peteves SD, Glaeser AM (1995) In: 4th European ceramic society Conference vol 9 coatings, Riccione, 1995Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    Locatelli MR, Dalgliesh BJ, Tomsia AP, Glaeser AM, Mastumoto H, Nakashima K (1995) In: 4th European ceramic society conference vol. 9 coatings, Riccione, 1995Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Cook III GO (2011) Joining polycrystalline cubic boron nitride and tungsten carbide by partial transient liquid phase bonding. Ph. D dissertation, Brigham Young UniversityGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Nakashima K, Makino T, Mori K, Glaeser AM (1998) J Mater Synth Process 6(4):271Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    Matsumoto H, Locatelli MR, Nakashima K, Glaeser AM, Mori K (1995) Mater Trans JIM 36(4):555Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    Hong SM, Reynolds TB, Bartlow CC, Glaeser AM (2010) Int J Mat Res 101(1):133Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    Iino Y (1991) J Mater Sci Lett 10(2):104Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Zheng C, Lou H, Fei Z, Li Z (1997) J Mat Sci Lett 16(24):2026Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    Iino Y, Usami H, Oshimoda M, Saito T (1992). In: The first Pacific rim international conference on advanced materials and processing (PRICM-1): proceedings of a meeting held in Hangzhou, 23–27 June 1992Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    Xiong JT, Li JL, Zhang FS, Wang ZP (2007) Key Eng Mat 336–338:1260Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    Loehman RE (1999) Key Eng Mat 161–163:657Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Naidich YV, Zhuravlev VS, Gab II, Kostyuk BD, Krasovskyy VP, Taranets NY (2006) In: Brazing and soldering: proceedings of the 3rd international brazing and soldering conference, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk Hotel, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Liang MW, Hsieh TE, Chang SY, Chuang TH (2003) J Electron Mat 32(9):952Google Scholar
  230. 230.
    Sugar J, McKeown J, Akashi T, Hong S, Nakashima K, Glaeser AM (2006) J Eur Ceram Soc 26(4–5):363Google Scholar
  231. 231.
    Akashi T, Nukui T, Kiyono H (2009) J Ceram Soc Jpn 117(9):983Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Hong SM, Glaeser AM (2006). In: Proceedings of the 3rd international brazing and soldering conference, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk Hotel, San Antonio, 24–26 Apr 2006Google Scholar
  233. 233.
    Benko E, Bielanska E, Pereverteilo VM, Loginova OB (1997) Diam Relat Mat 6:931Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations