Article

DOI: 10.1557/jmr.2020.157
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157

Dynamic mechanical properties of closed-cell aluminum

foams with uniform and graded densities
Ying Zhao1, Chenyang Ma1, Dabo Xin1,a), Ming Sun2
1
School of Civil Engineering, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, PR China
2
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150040, PR China
a)
Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: xindabo@hit.edu.cn
Received: 26 November 2019; accepted: 1 June 2020

In this study, the quasi-static and dynamic mechanical behaviors and the energy absorption capacity of closed-
cell aluminum foams with uniform and graded densities were experimentally studied. The effects of density,
strain rate, and graded density on the mechanical performances of aluminum foams were quantitatively
evaluated. It was shown that the density had a significant effect on the quasi-static and dynamic compressive
stress of aluminum foams. Moreover, impact compression experiment results revealed that aluminum foam was
sensitive to the strain rate. As the strain rate increased, the plateau stress and energy absorption capacity
increased distinctly and the rate of deformation increased correspondingly. Finally, the investigation of aluminum
foams with uniform and graded densities to study their deformation and failure mechanisms, mechanical
characteristics, and energy absorption capacities showed that the GD 0.48-IV specimen exhibited superior impact
resistance. The present work can provide a valuable reference for the optimum design of aluminum foam against
impact loading.

Introduction [13] conducted experimental research on the dynamic com-

Closed-cell aluminum foam is a kind of cellular metallic mate-
rial that has extensive applications [1, 2]. Owing to its recycla-
bility, high strength–weight ratio, and excellent energy
absorption and damping properties [3, 4, 5], closed-cell alumi-
num foam exhibits widespread applications in aerospace, auto-
mobile, and civil engineering structural applications; one of the
potential uses of closed-cell aluminum foam is in the core of
composite sandwich panels [6, 7, 8]. Closed-cell aluminum
foam has good performance and high application potential in
absorbing energy, and there is great research significance to
pressive behavior of closed-cell aluminum foam in a range of
strain rates (400–2500 s−1) by using a Split-Hopkinson pres-
sure bar (SHPB) experimental device. The test demonstrated
that the closed-cell aluminum foam was sensitive to the strain
rate, and the strain rate sensitivity was more significant for a
relative density reaching 0.15. Raj et al. [14] reported the influ-
ence of the quasi-static (0.001 s−1) and dynamic compressive
behaviors (750 s−1) of the closed-cell aluminum foam with a
range of relative density of 0.062–0.373. The study indicated
that the plateau stress of aluminum foam increased with the
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr

further explore its mechanical properties, energy-absorbing
capacity, and deformation mechanisms.
Many researchers have investigated the mechanical proper-
ties of closed-cell aluminum foams under static and dynamic
loads at home and abroad in the past years, and many valuable
experimental results and conclusions had been obtained.
However, there are controversial views in academic circles con-
cerning whether closed-cell aluminum foam has a strain rate
effect. Some scholars believe that the dynamic response of
closed-cell aluminum foam is clearly dependent upon the
strain rate effect [9, 10, 11, 12]. Dannemann and Lankford
relative density and strain rate, and the energy absorption abil-
ity increased at a high strain rate.
Other scholars hold the opposite viewpoint that the
closed-cell aluminum foam is not sensitive to the strain rate.
Deshpande and Fleck [15] evaluated the compressive behavior
of two cellular aluminum alloys (Alulight and Duocel) at strain
rates reaching up to 5000 s−1 using an SHPB experiment. The
research indicated that the aluminum alloy foams had similar
mechanical behaviors under quasi-static and dynamic loading.
The plateau stress and densification strain were insensitive to
the strain rate but were dependent on the relative density of

© Materials Research Society 2020 cambridge.org/JMR 1


the aluminum alloy foams. Ruan et al. [16] performed com-
pressive tests on CYMAT aluminum foam with relative densi-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
ties ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 using an MTS high-rate test
system at strain rates of 10−3–10−1 s−1. The plateau stress is
insensitive to the strain rate and is related to the relative density
by a power law. Peroni et al. [17] studied the strain rate sensi-
tivity of closed-cell aluminum foams with two different densi-
ties (approximately 150 and 300 kg/m3) using specimens of
diameter 50 mm with lengths varying between 15 and
50 mm. Their investigation revealed that no particular strain
rate effects were observed in the range of 100–300 s−1.
In general, there are two types of aluminum foam speci-
mens: uniform density aluminum foam (single density com-
pose) and graded density aluminum foam (compose of
different densities). Most researchers are concerned with the
compressive behavior of uniform density aluminum foam,
and few studies have been conducted on the mechanical prop-
erties of graded density aluminum foam. Most studies on the
mechanical response of graded density aluminum foam have
been investigated via the static experiment and numerical simu-
lation, while no work has reported their application in a dynamic
compressive test, especially conducting an SHPB experiment.
Some researchers [18, 19, 20] studied the blast-resistant perfor-
mances of graded density aluminum foams by numerical simu-
lation and compared them to those with uniform densities. The
results showed that the density arrangement of graded density
aluminum foam had a significant influence on its blast-resistant
behavior, and the optimization design of graded density alumi-
num foam was superior to that of uniform density aluminum
foam. Xia et al. [21] conducted a series of quasi-static compres-
sive tests on uniform density aluminum foams, linear gradient
density, and unordered gradient density and analyzed the com-
pressive strength and energy absorption capacity of the alumi-
num foams with different density distributions.
In this study, a series of the quasi-static and dynamic
experiments were carried on to examine the mechanical prop-
erties and the energy absorption capacity of closed-cell alumi-
num foams with uniform density, in order to validate whether
or not it has a strain rate effect. Then, closed-cell aluminum
foams with uniform density and graded density were discussed
in detail to compare their deformation and failure mechanisms,
mechanical characteristics, and energy absorption capacities.
This research can provide reliable data and guidance for the
optimum design of aluminum foam against impact loads.
Results and Discussion
Quasi-static characteristics discussion
Figure 1(a) shows the quasi-static compression stress–strain
curves for uniform density aluminum foams with different
densities. The diagram shows three different regions: linear
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
elasticity region, plateau region, and densification region. In
the linear elasticity stage, the cell body showed elastic bending,
and the stress–strain curves were almost linear. As compression
continued, the stress–strain curves entered the yield platform
region, and the cell bodies began to collapse, the stress remained
constant, and the strain increased rapidly. Finally, the closed-cell
aluminum foam was fully compacted, and the stress rose signifi-
cantly as the strain increased and entered the densification stage.
The cell wall along the direction of compression began to wrin-
kle, crack, and gradually compact with an increase in strain. The
above compressive deformation process of aluminum foam is
shown in Fig. 1(b). The deformation of aluminum foam with
three different densities after compaction is shown in Fig. 1(c).
As shown, the density of aluminum foam was lower, and the
compression deformation was greater.
The UD 0.48-3 layer specimen was made by three layers of
closed-cell aluminum foam with the same density of 0.48 g/cm3
fastened together with the epoxy resin. Figure 1(d) shows the
stress–strain curves of specimens with UD 0.48 and UD
0.48-3 layer under quasi-static. It demonstrates that epoxy
resin placed in specimen has no effect distinctly on the
mechanical properties and the deformation characteristics of
aluminum foam.
Figure 1(e) shows the quasi-static compression stress–strain
curves of aluminum foams with uniform and graded densities.
Compared with uniform density, the aluminum foams with
graded densities had shown no significant stress plateau
stage. At the initial stage of the compression, the yield stress
of the density graded aluminum foams was notable lower
than that of the uniform density aluminum foams with the
same average density. As the compressive progressed, the
graded density aluminum foams revealed a continuous growing
stress, and the compressive stress of the GD 0.48-I, GD 0.48-II,
and GD 0.48-IV specimens exceeded successively that of the
UD 0.48 specimen at a certain strain. This suggested that the
graded density aluminum foams were compacted from the
lower-density layer to the higher-density layer regardless of
the loading direction. The compressive stress of the GD
0.48-IV specimen was higher than that of the other graded
density specimens, and the total energy absorption of the GD
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
0.48-IV specimen is larger than the UD 0.48 specimen,
which indicated that the GD 0.48-IV specimen was superior
to the UD 0.48 specimen in resisting compressive loading.
Plateau stress is a key factor in the evaluation of the energy
dissipation capability of aluminum foam. The densification
strain and plateau stress are determined by the energy absorp-
tion efficiency [22].
The energy absorption efficiency η is defined as follows:

1a
s(1)d1
h(1a ) = 0
, 0 ≤ 1a ≤ 1, (1)
sa
cambridge.org/JMR 2
 Article
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157

Figure 1: (a) Stress–strain curves of uniform density aluminum foams with different densities. (b) Compressive deformation process of uniform density aluminum
foam (UD 0.48). (c) Uniform density aluminum foam with different densities after compaction. (d) Stress–strain curves of UD 0.48 and UD 0.48-3 layer specimens
under quasi-static. (e) Stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with uniform and graded densities under quasi-static.

where σa and ea are the stress and corresponding strain, respec- when compared to that of the UD 0.36 specimen and were
tively. The densification strain ed denotes when the energy enhanced by 38.41% and 136.64%, respectively. This indicates
absorption efficiency η has reached the maximum, i.e., that density has a significant impact on the quasi-static com-
pressive stress of closed-cell aluminum foams.
dh(1a )
| = 0, 0 ≤ 1d ≤ 1. (2) Along with an increase in density, the elastic modulus and
d1 1a =1d
plateau stress of the closed-cell aluminum foam increased, and
The plateau stress σpl is derived as follows: the densification strain decreased because the matrix materials

1d forming the main body resisted the loads during the compression
s(1)d1 process. The matrix materials of aluminum foam increased with
spl = 0
. (3)
1d
TABLE 1: Quasi-static compressive property of closed-cell aluminum foam (UD
According to the above formulas, the mechanical properties 0.36, UD 0.48, and UD 0.60).
of uniform density aluminum foams can be obtained by the Specimen Actual density Elastic modulus Plateau stress Densification
(g/cm3)
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr

quasi-static tests, as shown in Table 1. The stress–strain and code (MPa) (MPa) strain
energy absorption efficiency–strain curves of uniform density UD 0.36-1 0.359 171.05 4.54 0.56
aluminum foams with different densities are plotted in Fig. 2. UD 0.36-2 0.356 175.42 4.45 0.58
UD 0.36-3 0.356 153.40 4.59 0.56
The plateau stress values were obtained when the standard
Average value 0.357 166.62 4.53 0.57
variance value was under 0.1. The quasi-static compressive data UD 0.48-1 0.481 202.12 6.35 0.54
of the different specimens were obtained: the average plateau UD 0.48-2 0.477 209.17 6.25 0.53
UD 0.48-3 0.474 211.81 6.22 0.55
stress of UD 0.36 was 4.53 MPa (standard variance of 0.058); Average value 0.477 207.70 6.27 0.54
that of UD 0.48 was 6.27 MPa (standard variance of 0.056); UD 0.60-1 0.600 360.49 10.65 0.51
and that of UD 0.60 was 10.72 MPa (standard variance of UD 0.60-2 0.594 374.34 10.79 0.53
UD 0.60-3 0.599 358.03 10.72 0.53
0.057). The experimental results showed that the average pla- Average value 0.598 364.29 10.72 0.52
teau stress of UD 0.48 and UD 0.60 increased dramatically

© Materials Research Society 2020 cambridge.org/JMR 3

 Article

displacement on the contact surface between the specimen

and the transmission bar was u2. According to the one-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157

dimensional stress wave propagation theory [14], u1 and u2

are represented as formulas (4) and (5), respectively, as follows:
t
u1 = C0 [1I (t) − 1R (t)]dt, (4)
0

and
t
u2 = C0 1T (t)dt, (5)
0

where C0 is the elastic longitudinal wave velocity; eI, eR, and eT

are the strain gauge measurements representing the incident,
reflection, and transmission pulses, respectively; and l0 is the
initial length of a specimen. According to formulas (4) and
(5), the strain of a specimen can be expressed as follows:
t
u1 − u2 C0
1S (t) = = [1I (t) − 1R (t) − 1T (t)]dt. (6)
l0 l0 0

The load on both ends of the specimen are F1 and F2:

F1 = AE[1I (t) + 1R (t)], (7)

F2 = AE1T (t). (8)

The mean stress of a specimen is

F1 + F2 EA
sS (t) = = [1I (t) + 1R (t) + 1T (t)], (9)
2AS 2AS

where A and E are defined as the cross-sectional area and the

elastic modulus of the bars, respectively, and AS is the cross-
sectional area of a specimen.
According to the stress uniformity assumption,

1I (t) + 1R (t) = 1T (t). (10)

Substituting formula (10) into formulas (6) and (9), we

obtain

2C0 t
1S (t) = 1R (t)dt, (11)
l0 0
Figure 2: Stress–strain and energy absorption efficiency–strain curves of alumi-
num foams with different densities: (a) UD 0.36, (b) UD 0.48, and (c) UD 0.60.
and
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr

AE
an increase in density, and their ability to resist elastic deforma- sS (t) = 1T (t). (12)
AS
tion and yield strength increased. The pore size of the aluminum
foam decreased with an increase in density, the foam’s collapse The strain rate of a specimen is
space was reduced accordingly, the plastic platform stage became 2C0
1̇S (t) = 1R (t). (13)
shorter, and the densification stage began earlier. l0

According to the above formulas, the stress–strain curves of

Dynamic characteristics discussion closed-cell aluminum foam at different strain rates can be
In the experiment, the displacement on the contact surface obtained so that the dynamic mechanical behavior can be ana-
between the specimen and the incident bar was u1, and the lyzed by SHPB experiments.

© Materials Research Society 2020 cambridge.org/JMR 4


Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
Figure 3: Strain rate–time curves of aluminum foams under the average strain rate of 500 and 1000 s−1: (a) uniform density specimens and (b) graded density
specimens.
Figure 3 shows the strain rate–time curves of aluminum
foam specimens with uniform density and graded density,
which indicated that the average strain rate of specimens stud-
ied in this paper were 500 and 1000 s−1, respectively.
The SHPB experiment primarily follows two fundamental
assumptions: one-dimensional stress wave propagation and
the stress uniformity assumption. Ravichandran and Subhash
[23] maintained that the stress uniformity was achieved when
the stress waves propagated three times back and forth in the
specimen. The total time to reach stress uniformity (Δt) and
wave velocity (c) are represented as formulas (14) and (15),
respectively, as follows:
Dt = 6L/c,

c= E/r,
where L is the initial length of a specimen and E and ρ are the
elastic modulus and the density of specimen, respectively.
When the average strain rate was 500 s−1, the ratio of the
corresponding stress at time Δt to the plateau stress of the
UD 0.36 specimen was 9.18%; that of the UD 0.48 specimen
was 14.98%; and that of the UD 0.60 specimen was 8.29%.
When the average strain rate was 1000 s−1, the ratio of the cor-
responding stress at time Δt to the plateau stress of the UD 0.36
specimen was 14.74%; that of the UD 0.48 specimen was
8.37%; and that of the UD 0.60 specimen was 14.64%. Thus,
the ratio of the corresponding stress at time Δt to the plateau
stress of the specimens studied in this paper was not more
than 15%, which proved that the stress uniformity assumption
was satisfied during impact loading.
Effect of density
The stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with three differ-
ent densities under the average strain rate of 500 s−1 are shown
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
in Fig. 4(a) and under the average strain rate of 1000 s−1 shown
in Fig. 4(b). From Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), the compressive stress of
uniform density closed-cell aluminum foams increased with an
increase in density under the same strain rate.
When the average strain rate was 500 s−1, the average pla-
teau stress of the UD 0.36 specimens was 5.23 MPa (standard
variance of 0.022); that of the UD 0.48 specimens was
7.01 MPa (standard variance of 0.082); and that of the UD
0.60 specimens was 11.22 MPa (standard variance of 0.040).
The average plateau stresses of the UD 0.48 and UD 0.60 spec-
imens were improved by 34.03% and 114.53%, respectively,
compared to that of the UD 0.36 specimen.
When the average strain rate was 1000 s−1, the average pla-
(14)
teau stress of the UD 0.36 specimens was 13.16 MPa (standard
variance of 0.062); that of the UD 0.48 specimens was
(15) 16.72 MPa (standard variance of 0.060); and that of the UD
0.60 specimens was 26.57 MPa (standard variance of 0.053).
The average plateau stresses of the UD 0.48 and UD 0.60 spec-
imens were improved by 26.86% and 101.59%, respectively,
compared to that of the UD 0.36 specimen.
The above analysis of the experimental data indicates that
density has a significant influence on the plateau stress of
closed-cell aluminum foam under impact loading. Generally,
the variation of plateau stress (σpl ) with relative density obeys
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
the power law relationship [1]:
 B
r
spl = A , (16)
rs
where A is the strengthening coefficient, ρ is the density of the
aluminum foam, ρs is the density of the base material, ρ/ρs is
defined as the relative density, and B is the exponent to relative
density.
Figure 4(c) shows the plateau stress changes as a function
of relative density at different strain rates. The experimental
cambridge.org/JMR 5

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
Figure 4: Stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with three different densi-
ties under the average strain rate of (a) 500 s−1 and (b) 1000 s−1. (c) Plateau
stress as a function of relative density at different strain rates.
data for plateau stress as a function of relative density can be
fitted using the power law relationship of Eq. (14). The values
of “A” and “B” were 169.32 and 1.85, respectively, at a strain
rate of 0.001 s−1; 124.41 and 1.61, respectively, at a strain rate
of 500 s−1; and 247.19 and 1.50, respectively, at a strain rate
of 1000 s−1. The value of “B” in this study was identified
with the reported value (1.5–3.0) for aluminum foam [1].
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
Figure 5: Stress–strain curves of specimens under different strain rates: (a) UD
0.36, (b) UD 0.48, and (c) UD 0.60.
Effect of strain rate
The stress–strain curves of specimens UD 0.36, UD 0.48, and
UD 0.60 were analyzed and compared under different strain
rates as shown in Fig. 5. The plateau stress increased signifi-
cantly when the average strain rate was doubled with specimens
of the same density. As the average strain rate increased,
the rate of deformation of the specimens increased
cambridge.org/JMR 6

correspondingly. For the UD 0.36 specimen, the final strain was
0.12 under the average strain rate of 500 s−1 and 0.18 under the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
average strain rate of 1000 s−1. The final strain of the UD 0.48
specimen was 0.12 under the average strain rate of 500 s−1 and
0.16 under the average strain rate of 1000 s−1. The final strain
of the UD 0.60 specimen was 0.11 under the average strain rate
of 500 s−1 and 0.15 under the average strain rate of 1000 s−1.
In comparison with the quasi-static loading, the plateau
stress of the UD 0.36 specimens increased by 15.45% and
190.95% under the average strain rates of 500 and 1000 s−1,
respectively; that of the UD 0.48 specimens increased by
11.80% and 166.67% under the average strain rates of 500
and 1000 s−1, respectively; and that of the UD 0.60 specimens
increased by 4.66% and 147.85% under the average strain rates
of 500 and 1000 s−1, respectively. The results show that
closed-cell aluminum foam has an obvious strain rate effect,
and the lower the density, the more the strain rate effect.
The strain rate effect under dynamic compressive is
described by the Cowper–Symonds model as follows:
 P1
sdyn 1̇
=1+ , (17)
sstatic C men, the cell bodies were completely compacted, and the
where σdyn/σstatic is the dynamic hardening coefficient, 1̇ is the
strain rate, and C and P are the material parameters.
For the UD 0.36 specimen, the Cowper–Symonds parame-
ters can be obtained by the fitting data C = 831.31 and P = 0.27,
for the UD 0.48 specimen by the fitting data C = 880.07 and P
= 0.27, and for the UD 0.60 specimen by the fitting data C =
934.49 and P = 0.21.
Effect of graded density
The stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with uniform den-
sity and graded density under the average strain rate of 500 and
1000 s−1 are compared in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), respectively.
Unlike the uniform density aluminum foams, those with
graded density displayed no obvious plateau region, except
for the GD 0.48-III specimen. At the early stage of the com-
pression process, the initial yield stress of the density graded
aluminum foams was lower than that of the uniform density
aluminum foams with the same average density. As compres-
sion continued, the compressive stress of the GD 0.48-IV speci-
men exceeded that of the UD 0.48 specimen at a certain strain.
The compressive stresses of the GD 0.48-I, GD 0.48-II, and GD
0.48-III specimens were lower than the plateau stress of the UD
0.48 specimen. The GD 0.48-IV specimens had the highest
compressive strength, and the GD 0.48-III specimens had the
lowest compressive strength compared to the other graded den-
sity specimens in this study. It is observed that the compressive
stress increases significantly as the average strain rate increases
but has not changed the configuration of stress–strain curves
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
for the same specimen. This indicated that the deformation
and failure modes of the same specimen were consistent
under the average strain rate of 500 and 1000 s−1.
Under the average strain rate of 1000 s−1, the aluminum
foams with uniform density and graded density were
completely compacted. Figure 6(c) shows the before and after
test photos of the specimens under the average strain rate of
500 s−1. The layer 1 bottom side of the specimen is defined
as the impact wave propagation direction. For the UD 0.48
specimen, the cell wall of the specimen was squeezed and
began to wrinkle along the direction of compression and gen-
erated cracks which expanded to a partial collapse and then
triggered a greater area of collapse. The closed-cell aluminum
foam was completely compacted under a higher strain rate.
The initiation and propagation of cracks along the entire height
of the UD 0.48 specimen can be seen in the fracture specimen.
As shown in Fig. 6(c), at layer 1 of the GD 0.48-I specimen,
the cell wall buckled and fractured, and part of the cell body
collapsed. At layer 3 of the GD 0.48-II specimen, most of the
cell bodies were compacted, and the cracks extended to the
middle layer. At layer 1 and layer 3 of the GD 0.48-III speci-
local cell wall began to wrinkle at layer 2. At layer 2 of the
GD 0.48-IV specimen, the cell wall bent and fractured, part
of the cell body collapsed, and layer 1 and layer 3 had no obvi-
ous deformation.
The uniform density aluminum foams were compacted
layer by layer along the direction of impact loading. However,
owing to the defect of the pore cell structure, the first collapse
of the cell body may occur at the interface of the aluminum
foam and the protected structure.
The graded density aluminum foams were compacted from
the lower-density layer to the higher-density layer regardless of
the impact wave propagation direction. After the lower-density
layer was completely compacted, the stress of the graded den-
sity aluminum foams grew further, but not the plateau stress
region as in the uniform density aluminum foams. Therefore,
density graded aluminum foams can adapt to more changeable
situations because of the variations in the plateau stress.
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
Energy absorption characteristics
The closed-cell aluminum foam is a porous metallic material
with a good capacity for dissipating energy and cushioning.
The energy absorption of aluminum foam can be expressed
as the energy absorbed per unit volume during the compres-
sion process [24] as follows:
1 
n
W= s(1)d1 = si 1i , (18)
0 i=1
where σ and e are the compressive stress and strain,
cambridge.org/JMR 7

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
Figure 6: Stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with uniform and graded densities under the average strain rate of (a) 500 s−1 and (b) 1000 s−1. (c) Before and
after tests photos of specimens: UD 0.48, GD 0.48-I, GD 0.48-II, GD 0.48-III, and GD 0.48-IV under the average strain rate of 500 s−1.
respectively, and W is the area of the compressive curve under a
certain strain.
The energy absorption capabilities of specimens with dif-
ferent densities under different average strain rates are shown
in Fig. 7(a). The limit in the integral for obtaining energy
absorption is the area of stress–strain curves when the strain
is 0.1 from Fig. 5. Under the average strain rates of 500 and
1000 s−1, compared to quasi-static loading, the energy absorp-
tion of the UD 0.36 specimen increased by 31.82% and
215.91%, respectively; that of the UD 0.48 specimen increased
by 48.08% and 228.85%, respectively; and that of the UD 0.60
specimen increased by 25.77% and 165.98%, respectively. The
absorption energy of closed-cell aluminum foams with the
same density exhibits a greater energy absorption capacity at
higher strain rates. Under the same strain rate, the energy
absorption was increased as density increases, but the
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
percentage increase of energy absorption compared to quasi-
static loading did not show monotonous relations.
Figure 7(b) shows the energy absorption of uniform density
and graded density specimens under the average strain rate of
500 s−1. The energy absorption of the UD 0.48 specimen was
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
approximately equal to that of the GD 0.48-IV specimen, and
the energy dissipation capacity was the best compared to the
other specimens. The energy absorption of the GD 0.48-I,
GD 0.48-II, and GD 0.48-III specimens decreased by 22.67%,
32%, and 41.33%, respectively, in comparison to that of the
GD 0.48-IV specimen. Thus, the energy absorption capacity
of the GD 0.48-III specimen was the worst. Based on the anal-
ysis of the "Effect of graded density" section, density graded
aluminum foams can adapt to more changeable situations
because of the variations in the plateau stress, which showed
that the GD 0.48-IV specimen exhibited superior impact
cambridge.org/JMR 8
 Article

was superior to that of the UD 0.48 specimen, and the energy

dissipation capacity was the best compared to the other speci-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157

mens. The energy absorption of the UD 0.48, GD 0.48-I, GD

0.48-II, and GD 0.48-III specimens decreased by 8%, 20.4%,
28%, and 38%, respectively, in comparison to that of the GD
0.48-IV specimen. Therefore, the GD 0.48-IV specimen
would provide the better energy absorption performance and
impact resistance at a higher strain rate than that of the UD
0.48 specimen.

Conclusions
In this study, the compressive mechanical properties and
energy absorption capacity of closed-cell aluminum foams
with uniform and graded densities were experimentally studied
under quasi-static and impact loading. The effects of density,
strain rate, and graded density on the dynamic characteristics
of closed-cell aluminum foams were also experimentally inves-
tigated, and the strain rate effect constitutive model of
closed-cell aluminum foam under impact loading was fitted
by the Cowper–Symonds exponential function. The main con-
clusions of this work are summarized as follows:

(i) The density of closed-cell aluminum foams has a

significant impact on the compressive stress under
quasi-static loading. As the density increases, the elastic
modulus and plateau stress of the closed-cell aluminum
foam increases and the densification strain decreases.
(ii) The density of closed-cell aluminum foam has a
significant influence on the plateau stress under impact
loading. The relation curve between plateau stress and
relative density was fitted by using the power law function
under dynamic compression.
(iii) Closed-cell aluminum foam has an obvious strain rate
effect, and the plateau stress increases significantly and the
rate of deformation increases correspondingly as the
strain rate increases. The closed-cell aluminum foam
exhibits a greater energy absorption capacity at a higher
strain rate.
(iv) Compared with uniform density, the aluminum foam with
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr

graded densities has shown no significant stress plateau

Figure 7: (a) Energy absorption of specimens with different densities under
different average strain rates. Energy absorption of uniform density and graded
density specimens under the average strain rate of (b) 500 s−1 and (c)
1000 s−1.
resistance, although energy absorption of the GD 0.48-IV and
UD 0.48 specimen are the same.
Figure 7(c) shows the energy absorption of uniform density
and graded density specimens under the average strain rate of
1000 s−1. The energy absorption of the GD 0.48-IV specimen
stage, which indicated that density graded aluminum
foam could adapt to more situations owing to its changing
plateau stress. Uniform density aluminum foams are
compacted layer by layer along the loading direction. The
graded density aluminum foams are compacted from a
lower-density layer to a higher-density layer regardless of
the loading direction. The GD 0.48-IV specimen is
superior to other specimens studied in this paper in
resisting quasi-static compressive loading and impact
loading.

© Materials Research Society 2020 cambridge.org/JMR 9


Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
Figure 8: Configuration of graded density aluminum foam specimens: (a) GD 0.48-I, (b) GD 0.48-II, (c) GD 0.48-III, and (d) GD 0.48-IV.
Materials and Experiments
Specimens
To compare the influences of density on the mechanical perfor-
mance of closed-cell aluminum foams, aluminum foam speci-
mens with uniform density and graded density were made.
Uniform density aluminum foams with densities of 0.36 g/cm3
(the cell size is 3–5 mm), 0.48 g/cm3 (the cell size is 3–4 mm),
and 0.60 g/cm3 (the cell size is 2–3 mm) were prepared in this
study. The specimens were cut from large aluminum foam blocks
with three different densities into cylinders with diameters of
50 mm and a height of 50 mm for quasi-static testing and diam-
eters of 50 mm and a height of 30 mm for dynamic testing with
the adoption of a wire electrical-discharge machining technology.
The specimen dimensions were more than five times the cell size
to ignore scale effect, and the height-to-diameter ratio of each
specimen was between 0.5:1 and 1:1 to reduce inertia effect
[25, 26]. The graded density specimens were made by three layers
of closed-cell aluminum foam with different densities fastened
together with epoxy as shown in Fig. 8, and the layer 1 bottom
side of the specimen is in contact with incident bar. The average
density of all the graded specimens was 0.48 g/cm3.
Quasi-static test
The uniaxial compressive tests of the uniform density alumi-
num foams were performed using an Instron 5505 universal
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
test machine [Fig. 9(a)] with a constant loading rate of 2
mm/min (strain rate 0.001 s−1) at room temperature. Three
specimens were provided for each quasi-static test to reduce
experimental error. The complete stress–strain curves of uniform
density aluminum foam from the compressive tests were used to
study the mechanical properties of the materials such as the elas-
tic modulus, plateau stress, and densification strain.
Dynamic test
To perform a comparative analysis of the differences between
the dynamic and quasi-static mechanical behaviors of alumi-
num foams with uniform density and the differences in the
dynamic mechanical properties of uniform density and graded
density aluminum foam under the same average density, a
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
number of tests were performed using an SHPB device with
different strain rates at room temperature. The face of a speci-
men connected to the incident bar was defined as the wave
front, and the face connected to the transmission bar was
defined as the wave back. Three specimens were provided for
each SHPB test to obtain more accurate data.
The SHPB technique was first presented by Hopkinson in
1941 to measure the pulse waveform of impact load.
Researchers [27, 28, 29] then proposed an improved SHPB
apparatus that obtained stress versus strain curves of materials
at a high strain rate. A typical SHPB equipment [Fig. 9(b)]
cambridge.org/JMR 10

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
mainly includes a bullet launcher, striker bar (bullet), incident
bar, transmission bar, and data acquisition system. The speci-
men is sandwiched between the incident bar and the transmis-
sion bar. An air compression engine is used to launch a bullet
at the impact incident bar to generate a compression wave. The
compressive wave propagates along the incident bar and
reaches the specimen. A part of the wave is reflected back,
and another part is transmitted through the specimen and
into the transmission bar as a transmitted wave.
In this study, the SHPB experimental facility was adapted
according to the size and property of each specimen as
shown in Fig. 9(c). The diameter of the striker bar (bullet),
the incident bar, and the transmission bar was 100 mm. The
striker bar was 900 mm long, the incident bar and the trans-
mission bar were 3300 mm long, and the absorption bar was
2700 mm long. The material of all the bars was aluminum
with a density of 2.7 g/cm3. To improve the signal pulse ampli-
tude of a transmitted wave, a semiconductor strain gauge was
used to acquire the weak transmission signal on the transmitted
bar. The sensitivity of the semiconductor strain gauge could be
increased approximately 50-fold compared with that of a stan-
dard strain gauge.
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
Figure 9: (a) Quasi-static compres-
sive test. (b) Schematic of SHPB
equipment. (c) SHPB test setup.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Key Research
and Development Program of China (Grant Nos.
2018YFC0809605 and 2018YFC0809600), the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (2572018BJ04),
and the Scientific and Technological Innovation Talent
Program of Harbin (2017RAQXJ014).
References
1. L.J. Gibson and M.F. Ashby: Cellular Solids Structures and
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
Properties, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
1997).
2. M.F. Ashby, A.G. Evans, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson,
J.W. Hutchinson, and H.N.G. Wadley: Metal Foams: A Design
Guide (Butterworth-Heinemann, USA, 2000).
3. D.P. Mondal, M.D. Goel, and S. Das: Compressive deformation
and energy absorption characteristics of closed cell aluminum-fly ash
particle composite foam. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 507, 102–109 (2009).
4. J.A. Reglero, E. Solórzano, M.A. Rodríguez-Pérez, J.A. de Saja,
and E. Porras: Design and testing of an energy absorber
cambridge.org/JMR 11

prototype based on aluminum foams. Mater. Des. 31, 3568–3573
(2010).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 05 Jul 2020 at 14:55:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2020.157
5. A. Aldoshan and S. Khanna: Effect of relative density on the
dynamic compressive behavior of carbon nanotube reinforced
aluminum foam. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 689, 17–24 (2017).
6. J. Banhart and H.W. Seeliger: Aluminium foam sandwich panels:
Manufacture, metallurgy and applications. Adv. Eng. Mater. 10,
793–802 (2008).
7. K. Mohan, T.H. Yip, S. Idapalapati, and Z. Chen: Impact
response of aluminum foam core sandwich structures. Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 529, 94–101 (2011).
8. I. Elnasri and H. Zhao: Impact perforation of sandwich panels
with aluminum foam core: A numerical and analytical study. Int
J. Impact Eng. 96, 50–60 (2016).
9. T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, T. Miyoshi, M. Mabuchi, T.G. Nieh,
and K. Higashi: Experimental study of energy absorption in a
close-celled aluminum foam under dynamic loading. Scr. Mater.
40, 921–927 (1999).
10. H. Zhao, I. Elnasri, and S. Abdennadher: An experimental study
on the behaviour under impact loading of metallic cellular mate-
rials. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 47, 757–774 (2005).
11. I. Irausquín, J.L. Pérez-Castellanos, V. Miranda, and
F. Teixeira-Dias: Evaluation of the effect of the strain rate on the
compressive response of a closed-cell aluminium foam using the
split Hopkinson pressure bar test. Mater. Des. 47, 698–705 (2013).
12. P.F. Wang, S.L. Xu, Z.B. Li, J.L. Yang, H. Zheng, and S.S. Hu:
Temperature effects on the mechanical behavior of aluminum foam
under dynamic loading. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 599, 174–179 (2014).
13. K.A. Dannemann and J. Lankford, Jr.: High strain rate com-
pression of closed-cell aluminium foams. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 293,
157–164 (2000).
14. R.E. Raj, V. Parameswaran, and B.S.S. Daniel: Comparison of
quasi-static and dynamic compression behavior of closed-cell
aluminum foam. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 526, 11–15 (2009).
15. V.S. Deshpande and N.A. Fleck: High strain rate compressive
behaviour of aluminium alloy foams. Int. J. Impact Eng. 24, 277–
298 (2000).
16. D. Ruan, G. Lu, F.L. Chen, and E. Siores: Compressive behaviour
of aluminium foams at low and medium strain rates. Compos.
Struct. 57, 331–336 (2002).
© Materials Research Society 2020
Article
17. M. Peroni, G. Solomos, and V. Pizzinato: Impact behaviour
testing of aluminium foam. Int. J. Impact Eng. 53, 74–83 (2013).
18. J. Li, G. Ma, H. Zhou, and X. Du: Energy absorption analysis of
density graded aluminium foam. Int. J. Protect. Struct. 2, 333–350
(2011).
19. J.D. Li, H.Y. Zhou, and G.W. Ma: Numerical simulation of blast
mitigation cladding with gradient metallic foam core. Appl. Mech.
Mater. 82, 461–466 (2011).
20. Q. Chang, Y. Li-jun, and Y. Shu: Simulation and optimization of
blast-resistant performance of graded aluminum foam sandwich
structures. J. Vib. Shock. 32, 70–75 (2013).
21. Y. Xia, C.Q. Wu, Z.X. Liu, and Y.M. Yuan: Protective effect
of graded density aluminium foam on RC slab under blast load-
ing – An experimental study. Constr. Build. Mater. 111, 209–222
(2016).
22. Z.H. Wang, J.H. Shen, G.X. Lu, and L.M. Zhao: Compressive
behavior of closed-cell aluminum alloy foams at medium strain
rates. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528, 2326–2330 (2011).
23. G. Ravichandran and G. Subhash: Critical appraisal of limiting
strain rates for compression testing of ceramics in a Split-
Hopkinson pressure bar. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 77, 263–267 (1994).
24. H.W. Song, Z.J. Fan, and G. Yu: Partition energy absorption of
axially crushed aluminum foam-filled hat sections. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 42, 2575–2600 (2005).
25. W. Chen, B. Zhang, and M.J. Forrestal : A split Hopkinson
bar technique for low impedance materials. Exp. Mech. 39, 81–85
(1999).
26. M.I. Idris, T. Vodenitcharova, and M. Hoffiman: Mechanical
behaviour and energy absorption of closed-cell aluminium foam
panels in uniaxial compression. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 517, 37–45
(2009).
27. M.A. Kariem, D. Ruan, J.H. Beynon, and D.A. Prabowo: Mini
round-Robin test on the Split-Hopkinson pressure bar. J. Test.
Eval. 46, 457–468 (2018).
28. B.A. Gama, S.L. Lopatnikov, and J.W. Gillespie, Jr.: Hopkinson
bar experimental technique: A critical review. Appl. Mech. Rev. 57,
223–250 (2004).
29. S.S. Hu, L.L. Wang, L. Song, and L. Zhang: Review of the
development of Hopkinson pressure bar technique in China.
▪ Journal of Materials Research ▪ 2020 ▪ www.mrs.org/jmr
Explos. Shock Waves 34, 641–657 (2014).
cambridge.org/JMR 12