Materials Science and Engineering A283 (2000) 105 – 110

www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Effect of cell morphology on the compressive properties of

open-cell aluminum foams
T.G. Nieh a,*, K. Higashi b, J. Wadsworth a
a
Lawrence Li6ermore National Laboratory, L-350, PO Box 808, Li6ermore, CA 94551, USA
b
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science, College of Engineering, Osaka Prefecture Uni6ersity, 1 – 1 Gakuen-cho, Sakai,
Osaka 599 -8531, Japan
Received 12 October 1999; received in revised form 10 December 1999

Abstract

The mechanical properties of open-cell 6101 aluminum foams with different densities (  5 – 10%) and morphologies (4–16 cells
cm − 1) were characterized in compression. It was found that density is the primary variable controlling the modulus and yield
strength of foams. The effects of other variables such as cell size and shape were also studied. Whereas the cell size appears to
have a negligible effect on the strength of foams, at a fixed density, the cell shape was shown to effect the strength of foams. In
the present paper, theoretical models are offered to explain the differences in modulus and strength caused by the differences in
cell shape and size. © 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Metallic foams; Compression; Tomography; Cellular structure

1. Introduction core structures for high strength aircraft wing panels,

Cellular solids (also known as porous solids) are a
special class of material that exists commonly in nature:
wood, cork, sponges, coral and human bones are exam-
ples. Man has also made his own cellular solids. For
example, polymeric foams have been used in everything
from disposable coffee cups, and packaging materials,
to the crash padding of an aircraft cockpit. Advanced
techniques now exist for foaming not only polymers,
but also metals [1 – 3] and ceramics [4,5]. In fact, many
honeycomb-like metals, made up of parallel, prismatic
cells, are used for lightweight aerospace structural com-
ponents. Also, catalytic converters for automobiles are,
sometimes, made from zirconia honeycombs. New
foams are increasingly used — for porous electrodes,
catalytic surfaces (chemical), preforms for metal–ma-
trix composites, heat sinks for electronic components,
heat exchangers, thermal insulators for fire retardation
[6,7] and thermal shock resistant materials, sound
dampers (acoustic) [8], cushions, vibration reducers,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-925-4239802; fax: + 1-925-
4238034.
E-mail address: nieh1@llnl.gov (T.G. Nieh)
energy absorbers for shaped charges, blast shock waves,
and auto bumpers (mechanical) [9]. Their widespread
uses exploit the special combination of properties which
can be derived from the cellular structure. Currently,
there is a high interest in using metallic foams (e.g. Al
and Mg) for automotive, railway, aerospace, and chem-
ical applications where weight reduction, chemical pol-
lutant minimization, and improvement in comfort and
safety are needed. Metallic foams have been produced
mainly by casting [10–14], although some have also
been produced by powder metallurgy [15,16].
Many studies have recently been carried out on
metallic foams. For example, McCullough et al. [17,18]
characterized the uniaxial deformation behavior and
toughness properties of two closed cell aluminum al-
loys, Al–lMgl–0.6Si and Al–1Mg1–10 Si (wt.%).
Harte et al. [19] investigated the fatigue behavior of an
open-cell A1 6101-T6 foam, and a closed cell ‘Alporas’
foam of composition Al–5Ca–3Ti (wt.%). Even the
high-temperature properties, e.g. creep, of some alu-
minum foams have been investigated [20,21]. There is
also a growing interest in studying the energy absorp-
tion of metallic foams. For example, Mukai et al.
[14,22] studied the deformation behavior of a closed cell

0921-5093/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 5 0 9 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 6 2 3 - 7
106 T.G. Nieh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A283 (2000) 105–110
Al–5 Ca–3Ti alloy foam and a open-cell AZ91 (Mg–9
wt.%Al–l wt.% Zn – 0.2 wt.%Mn) alloy foam under a
dynamic strain rate (\103 s − 1). In both cases, it was
found that the plateau stress of the foam materials
exhibited a high strain rate sensitivity. Also, the absorp-
tion energy at the dynamic strain rate of 103 s − 1 is
significantly higher (by about 150 – 200%) than that
obtained at the quasi-static strain rate of 10 − 3 s − 1.
In attempts to understand the mechanical response of
foam materials under load, a number of micromechani-
cal models have been developed [23 – 25]. For example,
considering bending, Young’s modulus, E, for an open-
cell foam is related to its relative density through the
equation:
E r 2
=A (1)
E0 r0
where A 1 [26], E0 is the modulus of the fully dense
solid, r is the density of the foam, and r0 is the density
of the solid from which the foam is made. The plastic
yield stress, s*pl, is also a function of the relative den-
sity, specifically,
spl r 3/2
:0.3 (2)
sys r0
where sys stands for the yield stress of the fully dense
material [26]. It is obvious from the above two equa-
tions that the single most important structural charac-
teristic of a cellular solid is its relative density, r/r0.
Recently, Nieh et al. [2] studied the elastic properties
of an open-cell aluminum alloy (A1 6101-T6). The
synchrotron tomographic images indicated that the 3D
cell structure was slightly anisotropic (8%), and spe-
cifically cells were found to be slightly elongated in one
orientation. Interestingly, both the calculated and mea-
sured Young’s moduli along the ‘hard’ axis of the foam
was also found to be 5 – 10% larger than that along the
other two ‘soft’ axes. Apparently, cellular morphology
affects the properties of a foam. In the present paper,
we present the effects of cell size and shape, in addition
to density, on the compressive properties of open-cell
AA6101 aluminum foams.
2. Experimental procedures
In this study, 6101 aluminum foams (composition
(wt.%) A1–0.6 Mg – 0.5 Si) were fabricated by ERG,
Inc. using a directional solidification technique. These
foams have a relative density ranging from 5 to 10%,
cell size from 10 to 40 cell inch − 1 (cpi), and an orienta-
tion that is either longitudinal (L) or transverse (T) to
the solidification direction. The foams were provided in
a cubic shape (dimension: 75×75 ×50 mm). Both the
top and bottom of these compression samples are
bonded with 12.5 mm-thick facing plates, also made
from A1 6101. The use of end plates is to assure
loading alignment between a test sample and the upper/
lower platforms of testing frame, and the ease of han-
dling low-density foams. Since the modulus and yield
strength increase rapidly with relative density (Eqs. (1)
and (2)), the facing plates can be approximately treated
as rigid bodies. The constraint to lateral expansion of
the foam during testing may be appreciable at a large
plastic strain, but is expected to be small in the initial
loading where data of elastic modulus and yield
strength were taken. For discussion purposes, these
foams will be designated by: relative density/cpi/orien-
tation, herein. For example, a foam with a 9% relative
density, 40 cell per inch, and that is tested in a direction
perpendicular to the solidification direction is desig-
nated by 9/40/T.
For synchrotron X-ray tomography, foam samples
with dimensions of 10× 10× 10 mm were sliced. X-ray
measurements were carried out using a beam source at
SSRL (Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory).
The morphology of the foams was also characterized
using a conventional scanning electron microscope
(SEM). The pore size is defined as the average value of
the linear dimension of cell across cell faces. The aver-
age value was determined by measuring the statistical
values from X-ray tomographs.
Compression tests were performed directly from the
as-received specimens. The direct measurement of the
elastic modulus from a foam material has subtle aspects
because of the difficulties associated with sample align-
ment at low loads and the attachment of a strain gage
to the sample. In the present investigation, three exten-
someters were attached, each 120° apart, to measure the
displacement of the two faceplates. The crosshead
movement was monitored by a computer equipped with
a data acquisition system that controlled tests under
either constant crosshead speed or constant true strain
rate conditions. Average strain was obtained from the
readings of the three extensometers. Several loading-un-
loading steps were taken to obtain the Young’s mod-
ulus and the variation of data is about 9 25 MPa. It
will be shown in the Results section, that this variation
may be acceptable for the ‘high-density’ foams but is
quite significant for the ‘low-density’ foams. Compres-
sion tests were terminated typically at a compression
strain of about 0.8 at which point extensive densifica-
tion of the test sample had occurred.
3. Results
3.1. Structure and morphology
An SEM micrograph of a foam with a relative den-
sity of 6% is shown in Fig. 1. The foam has an open-cell
structure and the cell geometry is remarkably uniform.
 T.G. Nieh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A283 (2000) 105–110
The pore size and ligament diameter are about 2.5 and
0.4 mm, respectively. The microstructure of the foam is
shown in Fig. 2, which is a typical cast microstructure
containing large grains and coarse inclusions. Grains
are so large that they often extend across the entire
ligament between cells. The inclusions, analyzed by
EDX, are Fe–Si – A1 particles commonly observed in
6000-series aluminum alloys. No internal voids were
observed within these ligaments.
To examine the 3D connectivity of the foam, syn-
chrotron X-ray tomography was conducted. X-ray to-
mographs of a porous aluminum foam (sample
dimension: 10× 10 × 10 mm) were readily thresholded
into binary images of metal and pore space (see Fig. 3).
Because of the exceptionally high contrast between
metal and pore space there is a broad range of possible
threshold values which lead to nearly identical struc-
Fig. 1. SEM micrograph of AA6101 aluminum foam with a 6%
relative density.
Fig. 2. Open-celled AA6101 Al foam shows a typical cast microstruc-
ture containing large grains and coarse inclusions (indicated by
arrows).
107
Fig. 3. Synchrotron tomographic image of AA6101 Al foam at a
resolution of 23 mm. The structure is predominately open-celled. The
rough surface of cell walls (edges) is a result of the casting process.
tures. The foam shown in Fig. 3 is predominantly
open-cell, but there are a number of partially closed
cells, solidified in place before the cell walls could drain
away, indicating the non-equilibrium nature of the cast-
ing process. Although it is not obvious in Fig. 3, cells
were found to be slightly elongated along the solidifica-
tion direction, resulting from the directional solidifica-
tion process.
3.2. Mechanical properties
Compressive tests were performed on aluminum
foams with different orientations (morphologies) and
densities. The compressive stress-strain curve obtained
from a 20 cpi foam sample with a density of 9.2%
(9.2/20/T) is shown in Fig. 4. The foam exhibits a small
elastic region, followed by a stress plateau, caused by
the plastic yielding and bending of cell ligaments. Fur-
ther straining causes the collapse of the ligaments and
densification (i.e. a sharp rise in stress) of the overall
structure. The densification strain, od, defined by the
intersection of the two asymptotic curves shown in Fig.
4, occurs when the compressive strain is about 0.72.
The plastic yield stress is about 1.9 MPa.
Experimental data obtained from foams with differ-
ent densities and morphologies tested in different orien-
tations are summarized in Table 1. Also included in the
table are the analytical predictions for elastic modulus
and yield strength, according to Eqs. (1) and (2). The
modulus and yield strength of A1 6101-T6 are 70.3
108 T.G. Nieh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A283 (2000) 105–110

Fig. 5. Compressive stress-strain curve obtained from Al 6101-T6

Fig. 4. Compressive stress-strain curve obtained from a 9.2%-density
Al 6101-T6 foam.
GPa and 193 MPa, respectively [27]. As shown in the
table, the predicted moduli are in reasonable agreement
with experimental values, but the predicted yield stresses
are noted to be much higher than experimental values.
In fact, the yield stress predictions are over one order of
magnitude higher than the experimental values. The
relative low experimental values must be, in part, associ-
ated with the high plasticity of metals as compared to
polymeric or ceramic foams, which are practically elas-
tic. It is also evident in the table that the densification
strain increases with decreasing density. For example,
the densification strains are 0.68 and 0.81 for the 10.8%
and 4.8% dense aluminum foams, respectively.
3.3. Morphology (different cell size) and orientation
(longitudinal 6ersus trans6erse)
The early stages of the stress – strain curves of two
AA6101 A1 foams, 20 and 10 cpi, loaded in two
perpendicular orientations are shown in Fig. 5. Some
observations are readily made. Both the Young’s mod-
ulus and yield stress are noted to be higher for the
longitudinal direction than for the transverse direction.
foam with different orientations.
In addition, there is a slight yield drop occurring in a
gradual manner in the longitudinal samples. Also, the
strength difference between the longitudinal and trans-
verse directions is greater for the 10 cpi sample than that
for the 20 cpi samples. The cellular morphology, and
particularly the size, appears to have little effect on
strength, provided foams have a similar density. For
example, the strength difference between the 10 and 20
cpi samples is negligible (B 0.5 MPa), within the exper-
imental variations.
3.4. Density
Compressive stress-strain curves obtained from
AA6101 A1 foams with different densities are included
in Fig. 6. For clarity, only the portions up to strains of
0.1 are displayed. It is evident in Fig. 6 that a denser
foam exhibits a higher strength. This general trend is
consistent with the statement of Gibson and Ashby [26]
that density is by far the most important variable
influencing the properties of a foam. Although orienta-
tion (longitudinal versus transverse) and morphology
(cpi) also play certain roles, their effects are considered
secondary.

Table 1
Properties of AA6101 aluminum foams with different morphologiesa

Sample ID Modulus Predicted modulus/ Stress at 10% Densification strain

(MPa) yield stress [23] (MPa) (%)

10.8/40/L 752 820/2.1 3.0 0.68

9.2/20/L 572 595/1.6 2.2 0.73
9.2/10/L 670 595/1.6 2.4 0.72
4.8/40/L 110 162/0.8 0.9 0.81
8.4/40/T 452 496/1.4 1.3 0.74
9.2/20/T 554 595/1.6 1.9 0.72
9.1/10/T 576 582/1.6 1.7 0.72
5.8/40/T 183 236/0.6 0.5 0.79

a
Modulus and yield strength of Al 6101-T6 are 70.3 GPa and 193 MPa, respectively.
 T.G. Nieh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A283 (2000) 105–110 109

Fig. 6. Compressive stress–strain curves obtained from Al 6101-T6

foam with different orientations.

Fig. 8. A rectangular unit cell loaded in the transverse direction.

4. Discussion
In the present study Young’s modulus and yield
stress of a foam were observed to be different in two
orientations. Specifically, the longitudinal direction ex-
hibited a higher Young’s modulus and yield stress than
the transverse direction. The effect can be explained as
follows.
Let us consider an elongated cubic unit cell with
square ligament (cell edge), as shown in Fig. 7. The
sides of the ligament are t and t%, and dimensions of cell
are h×h and h× h%, in the two perpendicular projec-
tions, respectively. When the cell is loaded at the mid-
point of the cell in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 8),
one can readily obtain the Young’s modulus, El, by
adopting the approach used by Gibson and Ashby [26],
to t 4, and Cl is a geometrical constant. It is pointed out
that Eq. (3) readily reduces to Eq. (1) for equiaxed cell.
When the cell is loaded in the transverse direction
(Fig. 8), Young’s modulus can be calculated as follows.
Standard beam theory gives the deflection caused by F
to be proportional to (Fh%3)/(3E0I). The force is related
to the remote compressive stress, s, specifically F8
shl%. The strain is related to the displacement deflection
d by o: d/h. It follows immediately that Young’s mod-
ulus, Et, for the foam in the transverse direction is given
by
s EI
Et = =Ct 04 (4)
o h%
Since I for the cell edge with length h% is proportional to

  
as: t%4, Eq. (4) is reduced to
4
El h% t Et t%4
= Cl (3) = Ct 4 (5)
E0 h h E0 h%
where I is the moment of inertia which is proportional Combine Eqs. (3) and (4), and assume Ct =Cl, it


follows that
Et h (t%/h%)4
= · (6)
El h% (t/h)4
Further assume a constant local density, i.e. t%2h%=t 2h,

 
Eq. (6) can be readily reduced to
5 4
Et h t%
= · B1 (7)
El h% t
since h/h% B1 (and t/t% B1). That is, the longitudinal
modulus is higher than the transverse modulus. In a
similar manner, it can be readily demonstrated that the
elastic collapse stress (yield stress) in the longitudinal
direction is higher than that in the transverse direction,
i.e.
s*ys(t) B s*ys(l) (8)
This explains why the longitudinal orientation has a
Fig. 7. A rectangular unit cell loaded in the longitudinal direction. higher strength than the transverse orientation. In the
110 T.G. Nieh et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A283 (2000) 105–110
present study, it was also found that the Young’s
modulus and yield stress for foams with different mor-
phologies (e.g. 10 versus 20 cpi) are similar, provided
their densities are the same. This can be explained as
follows.
The density of the foam, as shown in Fig. 8, can be
expressed by
1 8t 2h+ 4t%2h% 3t 2
r= = (9)
4 h 2h% hh%
where 6 in the equation is the coordination number. In
the case of 10 versus 20 cpi, 2h %2 =h %1 and 2h2 = h1,
where the subscripts 1 and 2 stand for the 10 and 20 cpi
foams, respectively. Since the two foams have the same
density, i.e. r1 = r2, it is straightforward to show from
Eq. (9) that
t1 =2t2.
By substituting Eq. (10) into Eqs. (3) and (5), one
obtains
E 1l =E 2l and E 1t =E 2t
where superscripts 1 and 2 stand for the 10 and 20 cpi
foams, respectively. Likewise, one can readily show that
s*ys(l)
1 2
=s*ys(l) and s*ys(t)
1 2
=s*ys(t)
It is pointed out that the usual assumptions for a
low-density foam t h and t% h% are used in the above
derivations. This offers an explanation as to why two
foams with different morphologies but the same density
have similar Young’s modulus and yield strength.
5. Summary
AA6101 aluminum foams (composition (wt.%): Al–
0.6 Mg–0.5Si) with different densities (5 – 10%) and
morphologies (10 – 40 cells inch − 1) were fabricated by
using a directional solidification technique. The 3D
morphology of the foams was examined using synchro-
tron X-ray tomography and the results revealed rela-
tively uniform, open-cell structures. The compression
stress–strain curves exhibited a typical three-stage be-
havior: elastic, nearly-perfect plastic (i.e. with a stress
plateau), and densification. It was shown that density is
by far the most important variable; a denser foam has
a higher modulus and yield strength. In terms of mor-
phology, whereas the cell size appears to have a negligi-
ble effect, provided the density is the same, the cell
shape was demonstrated to produce certain influences.
In this paper, theoretical models were developed to
describe the differences in modulus and strength of
foams caused by the differences in cell shape and size.
Also, as expected, the strain at which densification
occurs decreases with the density of a foam.
Acknowledgements
This work was performed under the auspices of the
US Department of Energy by LLNL (contract no.
W-7405-Eng-48). KH is supported by the Ministry of
Education, Science, Culture and Sports, Japan as a
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area
‘Platform Science and Technology for Advanced Mag-
nesium Alloys’ (11225101 and 11225209) and by the US
Army Research Office (grant no. N62649-99-1-0006).
References
[1] V. Shapovalov, MRS Bull. 19 (4) (1994) 24.
[2] T.G. Nieh, J. Kinney, A.J.C. Ladd, J. Wadsworth, Scr. Mater. 38
(10) (1998) 1487.
[3] Y. Yamada, K. Shimojima, Y. Sakaguchi, M. Mabuchi, M.
(10) Nakamura, T. Asahina, T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, K. Higashi,
Mater. Sci. Eng. Lett. A272 (1999) 455.
[4] P. Sepulveda, Ceram. Bull. 76 (10) (1997) 61.
[5] Y. Yamada, K. Shimojima, M. Mabuchi, M. Nakamura, T.
Asahina, T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, K. Higashi, J. Mater. Sci. Lett.
18 (18) (1999) 1477 – 1480.
(11)
[6] T.J. Lu, H.A. Stone, M.F. Ashby, Acta Mater. 46 (10) (1998) 3619.
[7] T.J. Lu, C. Chen, Acta Mater. 47 (5) (1999) 1469.
[8] T.J. Lu, A. Hess, M.F. Ashby, J. Appl. Phys. 85 (11) (1999) 7528.
[9] A.G. Evans, J.W. Hutchinson, M.F. Ashby, Prog. Mater. Sci. 43
(3) (1998) 171.
(12) [10] S. Akiyama, H. Ueno, K. Imagawa, A. Kitahara, S. Nagata, T.
Morimoto, T. Nishikawa, M. Itoh, Foamed metal and method of
producing same, in US Patent no. 4713277, 1987, Shinko Kosen
Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, Amagasaki, Japan.
[11] V. Shapovalov, Method for manufacturing porous articles, in US
Patent no. 5181549, 1993, Dmk Tek, Inc.
[12] A.E. Simone, L.J. Gibson, Acta Mater. 44 (1996) 1437.
[13] A.E. Simone, L.J. Gibson, Mater. Sci. Eng. A229 (1997) 55.
[14] T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, Y. Yamada, K. Shimojima, M.
Mabuchi, T.G. Nieh, K. Higashi, Scr. Mater. 41 (4) (1999) 365.
[15] J. Baumeister, H. Schrader, Methods for manufacturing formable
metal bodies, in US Patent no. 5151246, 1992, Fraunhofer-
Gesellschaft zur Forderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.,
Munich, Germany.
[16] Y. Sugimura, J. Meyer, M.Y. He, H. Bart-Smith, J. Grenstadt,
A.G. Evans, Acta Mater. 45 (12) (1997) 5245.
[17] K.Y.G. McCullough, N.A. Fleck, M.A. Ashby, Acta Mater. 47
(8) (1999) 2323.
[18] K.Y.G. McCullough, N.A. Fleck, M.A. Ashby, Acta Mater. 47
(8) (1999) 2331.
[19] A.-M. Harte, N.A. Fleck, M.A. Ashby, Acta Mater. 47 (8) (1999)
2511.
[20] E.W. Andrews, L.J. Gibson, M.A. Ashby, Acta Mater. 47 (10)
(1999) 2853.
[21] E.W. Andrews, J.S. Huang, L.J. Gibson, Acta Mater. 47 (10)
(1999) 2927.
[22] T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, T. Miyoshi, M. Mabuchi, T.G. Nich,
K. Higashi, Scr. Mater. 40 (8) (1999) 921.
[23] W.E. Warren, A.M. Kraynik, J. Appl. Mech. 64 (1997) 787.
[24] H.X. Zhu, N.J. Mills, J.F. Knott, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45 (11–12)
(1997) 1875.
[25] R.M. Christensen, J. Solids Structures 37 (1 – 2) (2000) 93.
[26] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and Proper-
ties, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1997.
[27] ASM, Metals Handbook, 9th edn., vol. 2, Properties and Selec-
tion: Nonferrous Alloys and Pure Metals, American Society for
Metals, 1980.