Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 687–692 | Cite as

The elevated temperature strengths of alumina-aluminium and magnesium-aluminium samples

  • T. Iseki
  • M. G. Nicholas


Pairs of alumina cones were soldered with aluminium at 1000° C and tested in tension at 20 to 500° C. The fracture strengths of the samples fell between the ultimate tensile strength of aluminium and the fracture strength of alumina, reaching a maximum at a temperature that depended on the thickness of the aluminium solder layer. The sample fracture surfaces produced by room temperature strength tests were entirely ceramic but became increasingly metallic at higher test temperatures. In contrast, the fracture strengths of magnesia cones soldered with aluminium did not peak between 20 and 500° C, and the location of the fracture surfaces could not be related to the testing temperature or sample strengths. It is argued that the effects observed with alumina-aluminium samples are due to the conflicting influence of the testing temperature on relaxation of residual stresses within the ceramic and the ability of the metal solder layer to deform. In the case of the reactive magnesia-aluminium system, strengths seemed to be largely determined by the formation of a MgO.Al2O3 spinel layer at the ceramicmetal interface during soldering and by the fragility of the porous ceramic.


Residual Stress Fracture Surface Testing Temperature Ultimate Tensile Strength Fracture Strength 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. Dawihl andE. Klinger,Ber. Deutsch. Keram. Ges. 46 (1969) 12.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. T. Klomp,Sci. Ceram. 5 (1970) 501.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Idem, Powder Met. Int. 3 (1971) 142, 193.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Heidt andG. Heinke,Ber. Deutsch. Keram. Ges. 50 (1973) 303.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Nicholas,J. Mater. Sci. 3 (1968) 571.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. D. Carnahan, T. L. Johnson andC. H. Li,J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 41 (1958) 343.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. A. Champion, B. J. Keene andJ. M. Sillwood,J. Mater. Sci. 4 (1969) 39.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Al Taie, quoted by G. Geirnaert,Bull. Soc. Fr. Ceram. 106 (1975) 7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. J. McEvoy, R. H. Williams andI. G. Higginbotham,J. Mater. Sci. 11 (1976) 297.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. R. Thornton,J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 45 (1962) 201.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Witt,Bauder Bleche Rohre Dusseldorf 10 (1969) 219.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu. N. Kogan andV. M. Markowskii,Ind. Lab. 38 (1972) 753.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. J. Smithells, “Metals Reference Book”, 3rd Edn. (Butterworths, London, 1962).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Elssner andR. Pabst,Proc. Brit. Ceram. Soc. 25 (1975) 179.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. F. Lynch, C. G. Ruderer andW. H. Duckworth, “Engineering Properties of Selected Ceramic Materials”, (Amer. Ceram. Soc. 1966).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Iseki
    • 1
  • M. G. Nicholas
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Laboratory for Nuclear ReactorsTokyo Institute for TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Materials Development DivisionAERE HarwellUK

Personalised recommendations