2D and 3D Characterization of Metal Foams

RESEARCH NEWS
Using X-ray Tomography
By Abdelmajid Elmoutaouakkil, Luc Salvo,* Eric Maire,
and Gilles Peix

The aim of this paper is to present a methodology for 2D and 3D character-

ization of different foams using X-ray microtomography with a resolution
of 30 micrometer. 2D and 3D quantitative image analyses have been
performed to obtain information about the cells. The main parameters of
interest are the cell size, the cell size distribution, morphology of the cells,
connectivity of the cells, and fraction of matter at the edges. We use morphological operations such as
opening granulometry to separate cells when they are not perfectly closed. This characterization was
performed on Alporas, IFAM, and Norsk-Hydro foam.

1. Introduction
Aluminum closed-cell metal foams can be produced by
several techniques and from different constitutive materials.
There are three main routes: firstly, the powder metallurgy
route (IFAM, Alulight), which consists of generation of the
foam from a precursor made of aluminum powder and TiH2
agent, heated to cause foaming.[1] The second route (Norsk-
Hydro, Cymat, Alcan) uses aluminum based composites and
gas introduction to give continuous production of foam.[2]
The third mechanism (Alporas) involves the enrichment of
aluminum with Ca to increase its viscosity and subsequent
mixing with TiH2 in a mould to form large blocks of foams.[3]
Another original route was published, which combined the
use of aluminum-based composites and TiH2 (oxidized) and
which can produce very nice microstructures.[4] There is a
wide dispersion in mechanical properties (Young's modulus,
peak strength, absorbed energy) between these foams. There
are a lot of reasons for such dispersion and one of them can
be found in the microstructural differences between these
foams. A foam can be characterized on various scales: the mi-
croscopic scale, which mainly deals with cell walls, and the
mesoscopic scale, which mainly deals with the pore size.
A 2D study that compared the mean pore size and wall
thickness between these foams emphasizing the differences
between them has been published.[5] More recent work was
carried out to determine u, a parameter that comes into
mechanical formulation,[6] where 1-u is the fraction of solid
that is contained in the cell faces. A value of 0.7 was mea-
sured for a density of 0.15 g/cm3 and 0.85 for a density
0.32 g/cm3 on foams made with process route 2.[7] A very
detailed study that compared different metal foams with
Alporas and Alcan foams in 2D in orthogonal directions was
published:[8] using a fabric ellipse this study clearly showed
the orientation of the cells in the Alcan foams and the isotro-
py in Alporas. Furthermore, different moments of distribu-
tion were measured since no conventional distribution can fit
the data. These results indicate clearly the better uniformity
of the cell size distribution in Alporas foam. It can be seen
±
[*] Dr. A. Elmoutaouakkil, Dr. L. Salvo
GPM2, ENSPG, Domaine Universitaire
B.P. 46, F-38402 Saint Martin d'H›res Cedex (France)
E-mail: elmou@esrf.fr
Dr. E. Maire
GEMPPM, INSA de Lyon
20 Av. A. Einstein, F-69621 Villeurbanne cedex (France)
Dr. G. Peix
CNDRI, INSA de Lyon
20 Av. A. Einstein, F-69621 Villeurbanne cedex (France)
[**] The authors thank J. Banhart, P. Asholt, and M. F. Ashby for
supplying materials. They thank the French Ministry of Indus-
try for the post-doctoral grant given to one of them. Finally,
the authors thank the team of the ID19 line at ESRF, J. Baru-
chel, P. Cloetens, E. Boller, F. Peyrin for all the work they have
done to allow tomography images of such quality and volume
reconstruction.

ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2002, 4, No. 10 Ó 2002 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1438-1656/02/1010-0803 $ 17.50+.50/0 803
 Elmoutaouakkil et al./2D and 3D Characterization of Metal Foams Using X-ray Tomography
that the characterization of microstructure so far has dealt
RESEARCH NEWS
mainly with the foams processed by route 2 and 3. Simancik
et al.[9] have characterized foams produced by the powder
route under specific conditions in order to study the influence
of processing parameters on cells characteristics. A 2D char-
acterization of the cell walls has been performed on Alporas
and Alcan foam[8] indicating that the mean cell walls thick-
ness range between 40 lm to 160 lm depending on the den-
sity: the higher the density the thicker the cell walls. At
microscopic scale the microstructure of the cell walls have
been studied by Simone et al.[8] and their influence on me-
chanical properties has been described by Benaouli et al.[10]
On the 3D scale, few studies have been performed and almost
no quantitative analyses have been done. Qualitative studies
have been performed on IFAM and Norsk-Hydro foams,[11,12]
generally to characterize defects and look at deformation
mechanisms[11,12] but this was done at a resolution of 150 lm
or 230 lm, and no quantitative measurements have been per-
formed. X-ray experiments have been performed on Alulight
foams and they clearly show the presence of cracks in the cell
walls. Furthermore, these data have been used to describe the
foam at a mesoscale by determining the local density varia-
tion.[13] Finally, Helfen et al.[14] studied the early stage of
foaming formation with X-ray tomography on IFAM. It is our
aim to present a methodology for 2D and 3D characterization
of foams, which have been processed by the three main
routes presented above.
2. Experimental Procedure
Three foams have been investigated corresponding to the
three routes described in the introduction: one from Alporas,
one from IFAM, and the last from Norsk-Hydro. The foams
were cut into small cubes 21”21”24 mm3. We used X-ray
microtomography at the European Synchrotron Radiation
Facility (ESRF), Grenoble, to obtain volumetric information
on the microstructure. The advantage of the ESRF is that we
can work with a monochromatic beam with high photon flux
and therefore obtain very good quality images for 3D and 2D
characterization. Indeed we perform 2D characterization on
slices obtained from the 3D volume. X-ray tomography at
the ESRF can be performed at various resolutions (from 1 to
40 micrometer). We chose an intermediate resolution of 30
micrometer in order to resolve all the cell walls and to have
enough cells for image analysis. Figure 1 presents the experi-
mental set-up for X-ray tomography. 900 projections have
been taken within 180 and reference images without the
z and less for every other shape.
CCD Camera
X rays
25 keV Foam
30µm
Fig. 1. Experimental set up at ESRF.
804
sample and without X-rays have been obtained in order to
increase the quality of the images during back filtering recon-
struction. The energy was set to 25 keV. A complete scan lasts
approximately 15 minutes and two scans on each sample
were performed since the X-ray beam is limited to 14 mm in
height. One complete volume is approximately 200 Megabyte
using gray scale tones between 0 and 255.
2D image analyses were performed using IMAGE PRO
PLUS software. Three slices of each volume have been stud-
ied which means that a quantitative analysis was performed
on at least 500 cells. The main parameters that we investi-
gated were:
l Mean cell size and cell size distribution: when the cells
are not closed than we closed them using morphological
filters (watershed) or by using a manual process. We also
performed 2D granulometry on the IFAM sample. 2D
granulometry is made by sequential closing using a
square structural element leading to an area frequency
distribution.[15] This morphological operation is very use-
ful when cell walls are fractured and gives a good approx-
imation of cell size distribution when cells are equiaxed.
l u estimation: this parameter was determined using mor-
phological operations on segmented images: we use a 3”3
filter and 3 to 5 openings were performed in order to elim-
inate cell walls. u was defined as the fraction of matter in
this latter image divided by the fraction of matter in the
initial image. This parameter gives the fraction of solid in
the edges.
l Connectivity between pores: this parameter is defined as
C = 1-Ncc/Nic where Nic is the number of cells measured in
the initial image and Ncc is the number of cells when all
the cells are closed. The connectivity is 0 when all the cells
are separated and 1 when all the cells are connected. The
cells have been closed using a watershed filter or manu-
ally, which leads to two values of connectivity Cw and Cm
respectively
The 3D volumes investigated in this study were
21”21”14 mm3. Two volumes have been used for each of the
samples and as in 2D size information has been measured on
cells that do not touch the border of the volume. We devel-
oped our own 3D image analysis. Segmentation was per-
formed using a simple threshold. Sometimes the threshold
was increased in order to avoid non-real connection between
cells. The parameters that we studied were:
l Number of cells: this gives information on connectivity
l Surface S and volume V of each cell determined using
marching cube algorithms, which gives a better estimate
of these quantities.[16] When cells are not closed we used
3D granulometry inpa
volume
 of 18”18”9 mm3.
3
l Sphericity SP = 6V p=S : this parameter is 1 for a sphere
l u estimation: as in 2D closing was performed in 3D to
eliminate the cell walls and thus obtain an estimate of this
parameter.
l Morphological factor F: for each cell the 3D inertia matrix
is determined, the eigen values are obtained and identi-
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2002, 4, No. 10
Elmoutaouakkil et al./2D and 3D Characterization of Metal Foams Using X-ray Tomography

fied to the inertia matrix of a 3D box. We extract the larg- Table 1. 2D microstructural parameters (mean value (standard deviation)), where C is

RESEARCH NEWS
the connectivity between pores parameter and u is the fraction of solid in the edges.
est and minimum value of this box and defined F by their
ratio. The larger this ratio the more elongated the cell. The
IFAM Alporas Norsk-Hydro
mean value Fmean and maximum value Fmax are given.
r [g/cm3] = 0.37 (0.05) r [g/cm3] = 0.37 (0.04) r [g/cm3] = 0.35 (0.01)
Cw = 0.47 (0.04) Cw = 0 Cw = 0
3. 2D Quantitative Analysis Cm = 0.4 (0.04) Cm = 0 Cm = 0
u = 0.63 (0.07) u = 0.72 (0.06) u = 0.56 (0.01)
Figure 2 presents three slices (perpendicular to z-axis of
Fig. 1) extracted from the volume of the three foams studied.
The IFAM foam presents very fine structure and clearly some 0.4
cell walls are fractured. Some large cells also appear in the Alporas
0.35
structure. The curvature of the cell walls does not seem to be Norskhydro
Norsk-Hydro
very pronounced in this foam. Alporas foam presents a more 0.3 IFAM (cells closed)

Frequency (area)
regular structure and in this case cell wall curvature is higher 0.25 IFAM (granu 2D)
than in the IFAM foam. Norsk-Hydro foam also presents a typ-
0.2
ical microstructure, which consists of few large cells and many
small ones. The curvature of the cell wall seems to be higher 0.15
than in the Alporas foam. Table 1 presents the connectivity 0.1
and u estimate. Concerning the connectivity it has to be noticed
0.05
that only IFAM foam presents fractured walls and this leads to
high connectivity parameter. It seems that the automatic 0
watershed technique slightly over-estimates the connectivity:

13

20

27

33

40

47

53

60

67
1

the reason is that this automatic procedure sometimes consid-
ers one cell as split into two. The u value of Alporas foam is
slightly larger in comparison with the two other foams.
Figure 3 presents the cells area distribution for the three
foams. In the case of IFAM foam the cells have been closed
and we also plot the result obtained with 2D granulometry. It
is interesting that 2D granulometry and conventional analysis
give the same trend: a large peak for 7 mm2 area and a small-
er one at a larger cell size (15 mm2 when cells are closed and
20 mm2 for 2D granulometry). This indicates that 2D granulo-
metry is a good way to characterize foams when cells are not
completely closed. The histogram of the Norsk-Hydro foam
investigated in this study shows a bimodal-like distribution
with a first peak around 10 mm2 and a second one around
70 mm2. The Alporas foam seems to be more homogenous in
cell size (17 mm2), even if small pores appear in between
large cells (Fig. 2).
7
Area (mm2)
Fig. 3. Cells area distribution in 2D for the different foams.
4. 3D Quantitative Analysis
Figure 4 presents the 3D rendering of the X-ray tomogra-
phy results for the three foams investigated in this study: the
pixel size is 30 lm. Cuts in the volume have been done in
order to better visualize the 3D features of the foams. This
visualization allows us to look in depth into the foams and as
it can be seen on the Norsk-Hydro foam a large cell is present
in the sample. Another interesting feature is to look at serial
sections in the sample. This reveals that the pores observed in
the Alporas foam (Fig. 2) are not large pores cut by the 2D
section. As observed by Degisher et al.[13] the cell walls in the
IFAM foam often seem to be ruptured. The qualitative 3D

a) b) c)

5mm 5mm 5mm

Fig. 2. a±c) 3 slices (perpendicular to z-axis of Fig. 1) extracted from the volume of the 3 foams studied. a) IFAM, b) Alporas, c) Norsk Hydro.

ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2002, 4, No. 10 805

 Elmoutaouakkil et al./2D and 3D Characterization of Metal Foams Using X-ray Tomography
RESEARCH NEWS
Fig. 4. 3D rendering (volume size = 18”18”9 mm3). a) Alporas. b) IFAM. c) Norsk-Hydro.
Table 2. Quantitative analysis of the three foams: where C is the connectivity between
pores parameter, F is the morphological factor, SP the cells sphericity and u is the frac-
tion solid in the edges.
IFAM Alporas
C~1 C~0
Fmean and Fmax not measured Fmean = 1.6 Fmax = 2.3
SP not measured SP = 0.8 (0.1)
u = 0.57 (0.05) u = 0.7 (0.05)
visualization shows its limits and therefore we perform 3D
quantitative analysis.
Table 2 presents the main parameters investigated in this
study. Quantitative analysis is made after segmentation of
the volume in gray level to obtain binary volume (cells in
black and walls in white). This operation is not always easy
and we had to perform two kinds of segmentation: the first to
measure the connectivity and the second one to close cells in
order to obtain information about the cells. The first segmen-
tation has been chosen taking care not to close cells that are
not closed and also making sure not to create ªartificial rup-
turesº. The second segmentation has been done to close as
many cells as possible but without loosing small cells. There-
fore, absolute values may change with these segmentations
but we think that the results are relevant as we compare the
various foams.
4.1. Connectivity
The connectivity parameter C of IFAM foam has been
found to be 1 since, within the volume analyzed, the counting
procedure detected only one object: this means that all the
cells are connected in 3D. It has to be noticed here that it was
not possible to draw such conclusion with the 2D analysis
since the connectivity parameter was found to be lower than
0.5. In the case of Alporas and Norsk-Hydro, no connected
cells were found in the 2D analysis. As mentioned earlier, the
segmentation procedure is very important to obtain quantita-
806
tive measurements of the connectivity. What should be kept
in mind from these results is that IFAM foam presents a high
level of ruptured walls, which is not the case for the two other
foams.
Norsk-Hydro
C~0
Fmean = 1.7 Fmax = 5.3
4.2. Sphericity
SP = 0.86 (0.07)
u = 0.6 (0.02)
Values of sphericity lower than 1 are obtained for the
Norsk-Hydro and Alporas foams. This indicates that the cells
are not far from spherical shape and no real difference can be
detected between these two foams. No measurement was
possible for IFAM foam owing to the rupture of the walls.
The sphericity gives general information of shape but is not
enough to characterize a cell. For this we need information on
morphology.
4.3. Morphological Factor
The morphological factor has not been determined for
IFAM foams since cells are connected and it was not possible
to close them properly in 3D. However, this morphological
parameter was measured on the two other foams and it
shows that the cells are elongated (Fmean > 1) and that Norsk-
Hydro foam can present highly elongated cells (Fmax = 5.3),
which is less the case for Alporas foam (Fmax = 2.3).
4.4. Cell Size Distribution
In order to compare the three foams we chose to use the
granulometry method, presented in 2D, and extended here in
3D. This allows us to obtain the cell size distribution of the
IFAM foam and compare it to the other two foams. This anal-
ysis can be compared to the classical one (measurement of
volumes) when cells are closed (case of Alporas and Norsk-
Hydro). We found that this comparison is as good as the one
we made in 2D for IFAM in Figure 3. Figure 5 presents the
results obtained by the 3D granulometry.
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2002, 4, No. 10
Elmoutaouakkil et al./2D and 3D Characterization of Metal Foams Using X-ray Tomography
0.09
0.08
0.07
frequency (volume)
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 [1] J. Baumeister, J. Banhart, M. Weber, Powder Met. Interna-
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0
cells volume (mm3)
Fig. 5. Cell volume distribution obtained from 3D granulometry.
Norsk-Hydro presents a bimodal distribution centered on
20 mm3 for the first peak and 125 mm3 for the second one.
However, it must be noticed that the volume frequency ob-
tained for the larger ones is small, which indicates that the
number of large cells is small as it can be seen in Figure 4. To
a lesser extent the same conclusion can be drawn for IFAM
foams: a first sharp peak at very low volumes (around
2 mm3) and a less important second peak at 50 mm3 are
found. It seems that only the Alporas foam presents mono-
modal distribution (the last peak around 180 mm3 does not
seem to be relevant). What is interesting to note is that
Table 2 shows the same trend as Figure 3, which means that
in this case a 2D analysis captures the cell size distribution.
5. Conclusion and Future Efforts
We performed 2D and 3D quantitative analysis on three
different foams. These foams have been scanned at a resolu-
tion of 30 lm at the ESRF in order to retrieve the volume: 2D
analysis has then been carried out on 2D slices from the vol-
ume obtained by tomography. We focused our interest on cell
size distribution, fraction of solid in the edges (u estimation),
connectivity of the cells and morphology of the cells. We de-
veloped tools for 3D analysis and when cells are not closed
we used a special morphological operation (granulometry) to
retrieve the cell size distribution. We found that IFAM and
Norsk-Hydro foam present bimodal cell size distributions
(with a low fraction of large cells), whereas Alporas exhibits a
monomodal distribution. It seems that Alporas foam has less
aluminum in its cell walls than the two other foams. Norsk-
Hydro foam has more elongated cells than Alporas foam and
finally in the IFAM material all the cells are connected while
______________________
ADVANCED ENGINEERING MATERIALS 2002, 4, No. 10
in Norsk-Hydro and Alporas foam nearly all the cells have
RESEARCH NEWS
Alporas
been found to be closed. X-ray tomography analysis at 30 mi-
crometer pixel size allowed us to investigate in a non-destruc-
IFAM tive manner the microstructure of foam (cells and walls). In
Norskhydro
Norsk-Hydro this study, we have presented results concerning the entire
cells and future work will be done on cell walls. Furthermore,
we shall perform in-situ compression of these foams and
results are under analysis.
±
200.0 tional 1993, 25, 182.
[2] P. Asholt, Metal Foams and Porous Metal Structures (Eds:
J. Banhart, M. F. Ashby, N. A. Fleck) Verlag MIT Pub-
lishing, Bremen 1999, p. 133.
[3] T. Miyoshi, M. Itoh , S. Akiyama, A. Kitahara, Metal
Foames and Porous Metal Structures 1999, p. 125.
[4] V. Gergely, B. Clyne, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2000, 2, 175.
[5] Y. Sugimura, J. Meyer, Y. He, H. Bart-Smith, J. Gre-
nested, A. G. Evans, Acta Mater. 1997, 45, 5245.
[6] L. Gibson, M. Ashby, Cellular Solids, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge 1997.
[7] M. Valente, M. Parisi, F. Nanni, Adv. Eng. Mater., 2000,
2, 748.
[8] A. E. Simone, L. J. Gibson, Acta Mater. 1998, 46, 3109.
[9] F. Simancik, N. Minarikova, S. Culak, J. Kovacik, Metal
Foams and Porous Metal Structures (Eds: J. Banhart, M. F.
Ashby, N. A. Fleck), Verlag MIT Pub., Bremen 1999,
p. 105.
[10] A. E. Markaki, T. W. Clyne, Acta Mater. 2001, 49,
p. 1677.
[11] A. H. Benaouli, L. Froyen, M. Wevers, X-ray Tomography
in Material Science, Hermes Science 2000, p. 139.
[12] E. Maire, F. Wattebled, J. Y. Buffiere, G. Peix. Proc of the
Euromat 99, (Eds: Clyne, Simancik), vol. 5, Wiley-VCH
1999, pp. 68±73.
[13] H. P. Degischer, A. Kottar, Metal Foams and Porous Metal
Structures, (Eds: J. Banhart, M. F. Ashby, N. A. Fleck)
Verlag MIT Publishing, Bremen 1999, pp. 213±220.
[14] L. Helfen, T. Baumbach, H. Stanzick, J. Banhart, A. El-
moutaouakkil, P. Cloetens, K. Schladitz, Cellular Metals
and Metal Foaming Technology, (Eds: J. Banhart, M. F.
Ashby, N. A. Fleck) Verlag MIT Publishing, Bremen
2001, pp. 239±244.
[15] J. L. Chermant, M. Coster, PrØcis d'Analyse d'Image, Edi-
tion du CNRS, 1985.
[16] W. E. Lorensen, H. E. Clyne, Computer Graph. 1992, 21,
p. 163.
807