Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Science & Technology

journal homepage: www.jmst.org

Invited Review

Fabrication, properties, and applications of open-cell aluminum

foams: A review
Tan Wan a,b , Yuan Liu a,b,∗ , Canxu Zhou a,b , Xiang Chen a,b , Yanxiang Li a,b
a
School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
Key Laboratory for Advanced Materials Processing Technology (Ministry of Education), Beijing 100084, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Open-cell metallic foams or porous metals have a distinctive combination of excellent structural per-
Received 14 March 2020 formance and superior functional characteristics, such as their light weight, energy absorption, sound
Received in revised form 13 May 2020 absorption, heat dissipation, and electromagnetic shielding. As a primary representative of metallic
Accepted 20 May 2020
foams, aluminum foam has developed into a new engineering material with many unique applications
Available online 9 July 2020
in the fields of aerospace, automotive industry, petrochemical industry, building materials, and etc. This
paper summarizes the fabrication methods, properties, and applications of open-cell aluminum foams.
Keywords:
The current status and development trends are also introduced.
Open-cell aluminum foam
Fabrication method © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The editorial office of Journal of Materials Science &
Property Technology.
Application

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.1. Fabrication methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2. Investment casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3. Metallic deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4. Infiltration process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5. Powder-metallurgy method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.6. Additive manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6.1. Direct printing route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6.2. Indirect printing route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Structure control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1. Effect of pattern design on cell structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2. Effect of processing parameters on cell structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Properties and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. Outlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
E-mail address: yuanliu@tsinghua.edu.cn (Y. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2020.05.039
1005-0302/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The editorial office of Journal of Materials Science & Technology.
12 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
1. Introduction
Many porous structures exist in nature, including honeycomb
structures, such as wood and cork, and foam-like structures, such
as bone, plant parenchyma, and sponge. These structures com-
bine their light weight with excellent mechanical properties, which
meet natural loading requirements [1]. Inspired by these naturally
formed porous structures, human-made porous metals were pre-
pared to extend the applications of metals [2]. In general, porous
metals can be categorized into two groups. The first group is called
metal or metallic foams, which is commonly characterized by
closed-cell metal foam, and the other is called porous metals, which
is mostly characterized by open-cell structure. Aluminum [3], mag-
nesium [4], copper [5], titanium [6], iron [7], and other metals and
their alloys have been formed into porous structures. Aluminum is
the most widely used non-ferrous metal in engineering because of
many advantages such as its rich reserves, low density, good ductil-
ity, and high corrosion resistance [8]. Therefore, porous aluminum
has become one of the most popular and widely studied porous
metals. Gas pores in aluminum matrices are functional phases that
provide porous aluminum with the special performance of energy
absorption [9], vibration damping [10], sound absorption [11], elec-
tromagnetic shielding [12], and heat insulation or dissipation [13].
Therefore, porous aluminum has the potential to be applied in
aerospace, automobiles, the petrochemical industry, and building
materials [14].
Porous aluminum can be divided into open- and closed-cell
structures depending on the manufacturing process. Closed-cell
porous aluminum (often also called closed-cell aluminum foam)
is used mainly as structural materials to bear loads and absorb
energy because of their excellent mechanical properties. Open-cell
porous aluminum (also commonly known as open-cell aluminum
foam) can act as structural materials and serve as functional mate-
rials in the fields of high-temperature filtration, sound absorption,
and heat dissipation because of their permeability or open porosity
[14,15]. The abovementioned structural and functional character-
istics are directly related to the cell structures of porous aluminum,
such as their morphology, proportion, size, and cell distribution. To
make the best use of the performance advantages of porous alu-
minum, reliable processes must be developed to provide porous
aluminum with designable structures and performance [16].
The main preparation methods of closed-cell aluminum foams
are the melt foaming method [17], gas injection method [18]
and powder compact melting technique [19]. In these methods,
cell generation is closely related to gas bubble production and
control. In comparison, the manufacture of open-cell aluminum
foams has different principles, such as the most frequently used
replication process [20–23], which can prepare aluminum foams
with structures that are determined by predesigned patterns, with
advantages of a simple process, low manufacturing costs, and a high
degree of structure control. Pattern design and fabrication, metal
filling, and pattern removal are three main steps in the replica-
tion process [24], where pattern removal determines that cells in
the final foams are usually open. The advantages of the replication
process show promising applications of open-cell aluminum foams
that are fabricated via the replication process.
Studies on open-cell aluminum foams can be traced to 1961
when Polonsky et al. first presented the applicability of aluminum
foam replication using sintering coarse rock salt [25]. In 1966,
Kuchek [26] applied for the first patent on this method. Over
the past 60 years, extensive research has been carried out to
optimize cell structures [27,28], mechanical properties [29–33],
sound-absorption performance [34,35], electromagnetic shielding
[36–38], and heat dissipation [13,39]. Open-cell aluminum foam
structures can be controlled by processing parameters [40,41] and
pattern design [42–45]. Two pattern types exist, namely poly-
mer sponges [46] and space holders [47], which are applied in
investment casting, infiltration of space holders, and powder metal-
lurgy to prepare open-cell aluminum foams. Rapid developments
of additive manufacturing have allowed patterns with open cells
or even open-cell aluminum foams to be fabricated directly by
three-dimensional (3D) printing, which provides new ideas and
directions to update the technology to produce open-cell aluminum
foams [48–50]. The unique advantages of the replication process
and 3D printing in pattern design can achieve a stable design of the
required structures and performance of the final foams, which is
important for aluminum foam manufacture.
We summarize the preparation methods for open-cell alu-
minum foams with the pore size at millimeter level, which are
termed investment casting, space holder infiltration, powder met-
allurgy, and additive manufacturing. The effects of pattern design
and processing parameters on the foam cell structure are described.
Some properties, applications, and development tendencies of
open-cell aluminum foams are presented.
1.1. Fabrication methods
In the replication process, the first step is pattern preparation,
which is decisive in the final foam cell structures. Among vari-
ous types of patterns, polymer sponges and space holders are used
most commonly. Based on the patterns, three common approaches
were developed to fabricate open-cell aluminum foams, namely
investment casting, space holder infiltration, and powder metal-
lurgy. In addition, 3D printed patterns from resin and sand molds
are applied commonly during replication. We will introduce the
above methods to prepare open-cell aluminum foams based on a
detailed replication process and additive manufacturing.
1.2. Investment casting
Open-cell aluminum foams can be made by copying struc-
tures of open porous polymer sponges, which is commonly termed
investment casting, as shown in Fig. 1. First, a polymer sponge with
open cells is filled with a refractory slurry, such as a mixture of mul-
lite, phenolic resin, and calcium carbonate [51] or a gypsum-type
slurry [52]. After the slurry has been cured, the polymer sponge
is removed at a high temperature to obtain a structurally sta-
ble preform with open voids, and then molten aluminum is cast
into the interconnecting channels in the preform under pressure.
After cooling, the preform is removed by water scrubbing to form
an aluminum foam whose structure is like the polymer sponge.
Hence, foam structures depend almost entirely on the initial poly-
mer sponge when sufficient infiltration takes place, which means
that porosity and pore size of the final foam is approximately equal
to porosity and pore size of the applied polymer sponge. Pro-
cess parameters like pattern and casting temperature can affect
the microstructure of the aluminum matrix, thereby influence the
properties of cast aluminum foams. A superior pore homogeneity,
distribution, and high degree of pore opening are the outstand-
ing advantages of this method, and a porosity above 90 % can be
achieved easily. This method has some disadvantages in terms of
the complicated production steps and a relatively high cost. It is
difficult to prepare aluminum foams with small pores and large
dimensions by this method because of the difficult slurry grouting
and molten aluminum filling.
1.3. Metallic deposition
Another common method to fabricate open-cell metal foam
via the employment of a polymer sponge is metallic deposition,
which is not suitable for aluminum but has great potential in
preparing nickel foam and copper foam. The surface of a poly-
 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 1. (a) Typical polymer sponge, (b) Schematic of investment casting to produce open-cell aluminum foams [14].
Fig. 2. Schematic of electro-deposition technique to produce open-cell foams [14].
mer sponge is directly coated with a thin metal layer under a low
temperature through physical vapor deposition (PVD) or chemical
vapor deposition (CVD), such as magnetron sputtering technique or
multi-arc ion plating technique [53]. Either the polymer sponge is
pre-coated an electrically conductive substance by electroless plat-
ing or cathode sputtering for the following plating of a thick metal
layer, mainly utilizing electrolytic deposition [54]. After completely
decomposing the polymer by heating or chemical treatment, the
polymer’s structure is also reproduced. Fig. 2 schematically illus-
trates the method. Unlike the investment casting, the struts are
hollow. Similar to investment casting, the final foam structures
depend partly on the initial polymer sponge; however, deposi-
tion conditions such as depositing time and temperature have a
great effect on foam structures. Although the deposition method is
widely applied in producing foams of nickel [55] and copper [56], it
is not suitable for aluminum with more negative electrode potential
than hydrogen in electro-deposition technique, and electroplating
liquid is liable to cause environmental contamination and explo-
sion. In addition, during the vapor deposition method, aluminum
coating is oxidized easily, so the final foam is very brittle and shows
poor performance.
1.4. Infiltration process
The infiltration process is one of the earliest and most applied
methods for open-cell aluminum foam preparation. It differs from
gas pores or cells that are evolved from gas bubbles in liquid or
semi-solid aluminum matrices in traditional closed-cell aluminum
foam. In the infiltration process, cells of open-cell aluminum foams
are developed from as-called space holders in the solid state, which
commonly are water-soluble inorganic salts with high melting
points, such as NaCl, MgSO4 , and CaCl2 . Sucrose, urea, and other
organic particles with low melting points have been developed
into novel space holders, which, with inorganic salts, are used
frequently in powder metallurgy to prepare open-cell aluminum
foams.
13
Fig. 3 shows typical CaCl2 , NaCl granules and a schematic of
the infiltration process. At certain pressures, molten aluminum
fills the interstices between the space-holder particles with high-
temperature stability to produce a composite of aluminum and
space-holder particles. Then, an aluminum foam with open cells
can be obtained by immersing the composite into the water to
remove the space-holder particles. The most common space holder
that is used in the infiltration process is NaCl [57], which possesses
various advantages, such as a low cost, nontoxicity, easy dissolu-
tion in water, and a higher melting temperature than aluminum.
Shape and size of space-holder particles fundamentally decide cell
shape and size in the final foam, and contact points of these particles
determine cell interconnections of the resulting foams. Besides, the
foam porosity can be varied by adjusting the pattern density relying
on the stacking density of these particles. Compared with invest-
ment casting, infiltration shows remarkable advantages, such as
short processing time and a low cost. Cell structures can be con-
trolled precisely by the size, shape, and volume fractions of the
space holders. However, the porosity is limited by the lower stack-
ing density (< 65 %) of the space holders. The almost point-contact
state between the space-holder particles may limit the dissolution
removal of the space-holder particles. Therefore, it is difficult to
obtain a larger void volume with as high as an 80 %–90 % poros-
ity like closed-cell aluminum foam. Some space-holder particles
that remained in the aluminum matrix lead to lower porosity and
lower opening degree [14]. The remaining space holders may cause
corrosion problems during service [16].
1.5. Powder-metallurgy method
Space holders applied in the infiltration process can be mixed
with powdered aluminum, compacted and sintered in a powder-
metallurgy method. In most cases, with the small addition of
sintering aids and binders, aluminum powders are mixed with
space holders in appropriate proportions to be compacted to green
specimens. The aluminum powders can be sintered together or
melt at a temperature below the particle melting temperature.
Finally, aluminum foams with open cells can be obtained by
the removal of the space holders in the green specimens. Fig. 4
illustrates the process, which is termed the sintering–dissolution
process. The frequently used space holders in the process are inor-
ganic salt with higher melting points than aluminum, such as NaCl
[58] and CaCl2 [33]. However, low-melting-point urea [59] and
sucrose [60] with weak corrosion can also serve as space hold-
ers, in which case the aluminum powders can only be sintered
after leaching the space holders, and this technique is referred
to as the dissolution and sintering process (DSP). In a few rare
cases, aluminum power slurries that contain binders are coated on
struts of polymer sponges, which can produce open-cell aluminum
foams by burning the sponges and by subsequent powder sinter-
ing [61]. Similar to infiltration, pore size, pore shape, and aluminum
foam porosity can be tailored by space holder size, shape, and vol-
14 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 3. Typical CaCl2 granules (a), typical NaCl granules (b), schematic of infiltrating process (c) to produce open-cell aluminum foams [14].
Fig. 4. (a) Typical sucrose granules, (b) Typical urea granules, (c) Schematic of sintering–dissolution process for manufacturing open-cell aluminum foams [58].
ume fraction. In addition, process parameters such as compaction
pressure, sintering temperature can strongly affect the macro- or
microstructure of the foams. Space holders can be removed com-
pletely by heat treatment when applying organic particles with low
melting points, which reduces matrix corrosion. Additional pro-
tection may be required to promote sintering because aluminum
powders are susceptible to oxidation, which together with their
high manufacturing cost, makes powder metallurgy complicated,
expensive, and unsuitable for large-scale production.
1.6. Additive manufacturing
Improvements in computer technology have led to rapid devel-
opments in additive manufacturing. Using this method, objects can
be constructed by layerwise printing of powders such as metal,
plastic or ceramics, which provides a new route for open-cell alu-
minum foam preparation. Two common routes exist in additive
manufacturing, namely direct and indirect printing. The direct
printing route can construct foams by printing aluminum pow-
ders directly, whereas the indirect printing route prepares foams
by combining printing patterns with traditional casting. These two
printing routes will be described separately.
1.6.1. Direct printing route
Metal powder beds can be scanned selectively by energy
sources, such as laser or electron beam spots, to form dense metal
workpieces without additional post-processing, which provides
advantages of preparing and tailoring complex geometries for spe-
cific needs that cannot be manufactured by other methods. Cellular
structures of stainless steel, copper, titanium, and their alloys can be
achieved by direct selective laser sintering (SLS), selective electron
beam melting (SEBM), and selective laser melting (SLM) [62–64].
Because of the high reflectivity of aluminum and high thermal
conductivity of aluminum, this direct printing route is often com-
plicated and expensive [65], and only a few reports exist on the
manufacture of aluminum foams by SLM [66–68]. Computer-aided
design (CAD) models of unit cells and cellular lattice structures
were designed, and the final 3D aluminum foam was constructed
by scanning the aluminum powders layer by layer according to the
CAD models. Fig. 5 shows the CAD model and the final aluminum
lattice structure. Foam structures depend mainly on the unit cells
and periodic structures; moreover, processing parameters such as
laser power, scanning speed, and spot size will also affect foam
structures. The manufacturing process of printing metals requires
expensive equipment and is time- and cost-consuming. Based on
this, the process is often applied to special-demand applications
such as biomedical implants and aerospace parts, and large-scale
industrial applications remain in their infancy.
1.6.2. Indirect printing route
Difficulties in preparing open-cell aluminum foams by direct
printing occur; therefore, it is more common to prepare open-cell
aluminum foams via indirect printing routes, as shown in Fig. 6. In
this technique, additive manufacturing is used to print a pattern
for a traditional casting, such as investment casting or lost foam
casting; a pattern and not the final aluminum foam is obtained by
3D printing, and the pattern is usually made from sand [69], wax
[70] or a photosensitive resin [49]. Clearly, the printed pattern will
 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 5. (a) and (b) CAD models of unit cell and lattice structure, (c) final periodic cellular lattice structure of aluminum foam [67].
Fig. 6. Schematic of additive manufacturing route to make open-cell aluminum foams [71].
decide the formed foam structures. The indirect 3D printing route
combines the advantages of high precision control of cell structures
by additive manufacturing and the superior material quality that is
provided by traditional casting. Nevertheless, compared with many
other replication methods, it is still costly and complicated, which
is almost limited to the production of small parts.
2. Structure control
Properties of open-cell aluminum foams are affected by matrix
materials, and by cell structures, which include mainly the pore
morphology, pore size, pore distribution, and porosity. Invest-
ment casting and infiltration processes have become the most
extensive preparation methods of open-cell aluminum foams for
a relatively stable technology and low cost, and have been used
for commercial production. For example, ERG (Oakland, CA, USA)
and Exxentis (Wettingen, Switzerland) have produced commercial
open-cell aluminum foams by investment casting and infiltration,
respectively [16]. However, in investment casting, the fabricated
open-cell aluminum foams have a low mechanical strength and
bearing capacity because of the high polymer sponge porosity (usu-
ally more than 90 %) and the narrow strut width. The porosity
of the open-cell aluminum foams that are fabricated by infiltra-
tion is usually less than 80 % for limited volume fractions of space
holders, which results in a low lightweight extent. Inorganic salt
particles that are commonly used as space holders are highly cor-
rosive, which corrodes the matrix during leaching, especially where
pore structure connectivity is poor so that salt leaching is difficult.
The use of space holders in powder metallurgy leads to similar
problems for infiltration for a lower stacking density (< 65 %) of
the space holders.
15
These deficiencies will limit the further application of open-
cell aluminum foams. The significant feature of the replication
process is precise structural control of the final aluminum foams
through pattern design. Therefore, pattern design and the control
of processing parameters are usually used to make up for these
shortcomings.
2.1. Effect of pattern design on cell structures
Investment casting is an effective method to improve the
strength of open-cell aluminum foams by thickening the polymer
sponge struts. Wang et al. [72,73] impregnated polymer sponges
in an organic liquid, so that the struts were coated with a layer of
organic curing material. GmbH (Dresden, Germany) applied wax to
the struts for the same reason [16]. Alexander et al. [74] coated the
strut surface with a polymer layer by spraying polymer granules on
them, and the relative density of the final aluminum foam reached
25 % eventually. Fig. 7 shows the aluminum foams before and after
strut thickening treatment. The struts of aluminum foams were
thickened. Alan et al. [75] obtained reinforced aluminum foams
with a continuous density gradient by compressing the polymer
sponges.
For infiltration, a replacement of the corrosive inorganic salt par-
ticles with non-corrosive or weakly corrosive particles can resolve
or alleviate the corrosion problem. The porosity and pore connec-
tivity of open-cell aluminum foams can be improved by increasing
the stacking density of space holders and enlarging the contact area
between space holders, respectively. Kan et al. [42] produced com-
pressible ceramic soft balls to replace hard NaCl particles by mixing
Al2 O3 powders, polyvinyl alcohol, water, and a small amount of
bentonite and cellulose, which contributes to a higher space holder
packing density and hence, a higher foam porosity, as shown in
16 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24

Fig. 7. Open-pore AlZn11 foams with a pore density of 10 ppi (a) for untreated conditions, (b) after thickening treatment [74].

Fig. 8. (a) Soft ceramic balls after closed packing, (b) final aluminum foam [42].

Fig. 9. SEM images of aluminum foams manufactured by infiltration using preforms.

of 75 ␮m NaCl particles, Vf represents the density of the replicated Al foam: (a) unsintered (Vf = 0.4), and sintered at 755 ◦ C for 2 h (Vf = 0.37) (b), 9 h (Vf = 0.32) (c) and 25 h
(Vf = 0.25) (d) [43].
 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 8. Goodall et al. [76] mixed salt, flour, and water to produce
a paste that could be shaped by hand, with salt as the main body.
Thus, compressible spheres that were made from the paste could
be used as space holders to be stacked into a precursor with a
larger contact area between the space holders and a higher pack-
ing density. In general, the sintering and pressing of space holders
are two common ways to densify the pattern with a stable surface
bonding between the space holders [43,77–80]. Both can increase
the contact areas between the space holders to a certain extent,
which increases the compactness of the pattern. Goodall et al. [43]
densified NaCl preforms by sintering and cold isostatic pressing to
produce open-cell aluminum foams with porosities in the range of
64 % and 90 %. Fig. 9 shows the aluminum foams that were obtained
from unsintered and sintered preforms of 75 ␮m NaCl particles
under different conditions. Apichart et al. [78] pressed porous salt
particles with an average pore diameter of 1.4 mm and 2.0 mm
at 32 MPa, 39 MPa, and 50 MPa to be sintered at 730 ◦ C for 4 h
to form patterns. Aluminum foams with porosities of ∼70 % and
90 % could be obtained. Goodall et al. [76,77] pointed out that the
sintering of salt particles greater than 150 ␮m was dominated by
an evaporation–condensation mechanism, which can change the
neck morphology but lead to a limited increase in pattern density,
even for long sintering times. For millimeter-sized salt particles,
the risk of crushing during mechanical pressing is high. Therefore,
the above two methods, namely sintering and pressing, are unsuit-
able for the preparation of aluminum foams with a pore size greater
than 1 mm. To overcome the limitations of a large size, Erardo et al.
[41] increased the porosity of the aluminum foam by ∼9% to 10 %
via pattern vibration to achieve a higher stacking density. Ma et al.
[27] covered the space holders with a layer of resin to adjust the
passage between two cells, and aluminum foams with porosities of
73 %–85.8 % and pore sizes of 1.19–2.85 mm were prepared under
high-pressure infiltration.
Many studies have mentioned that compared with metal foams
with irregular cells, spherical cell metal foams have uniform cells
of regular shape and size, which makes their production and
performance repeatable and reliable, and favors the design and pre-
diction of foam structure and properties [28,33,47,59,78,81–83].
The preparation of open-cell aluminum foams with spherical cells
is inseparable from the selection or preparation of spherical space
holders. Years ago, it was difficult to obtain spherical NaCl par-
ticles in the market because the NaCl particle shape was mostly
irregular, and the melting point of easily obtainable urea with a
spherical shape was much lower than that of aluminum. It was dif-
ficult to prepare open-cell aluminum foams with spherical cells
through infiltration. Nevertheless, Jiang et al. [28,81] prepared
spherical cell aluminum foams by the sintering–dissolving process
using commercial 1-mm-diameter spherical urea. Goodall et al.
[82] produced spherical NaCl particles by melting, dispersing, and
solidifying irregular NaCl particles, which were used to fabricate
open-cell aluminum foams via infiltration, as shown in Fig. 10. Jin-
napat et al. [47,78,84] mixed NaCl, flour, and water with heating
and stirring at a high speed in vegetable oil. The filtered particles
were sintered into porous spheres, which were used to prepare
open-cell aluminum foams with spherical cells through infiltration
and sintering–dissolution. Nowadays, spherical CaCl2 particles are
easily obtained in the market and have been used to replace NaCl
particles in the infiltration [85] and sintering–dissolving [6] pro-
cesses to prepare open-cell metal foams because of their low cost
and easy availability.
2.2. Effect of processing parameters on cell structures
The investment casting and infiltration processes to prepare
open-cell aluminum foams can be summarized as a casting method
according to the liquid state of aluminum, which involves the flow
17
of aluminum melts in a porous pattern. The powder-metallurgy
method involves the mixing, compacting, and metallurgy of
aluminum powders and space holders. Accordingly, processing
parameters vary in the different procedures in the casting and
powder-metallurgy methods. For instance, processing parameters
in casting include the infiltration pressure and melt and pattern
temperatures, whereas those in the powder-metallurgy method
include the ratio of aluminum powders to space holders, sinter-
ing pressure, temperature, and time. These parameters will affect
the macro- or microstructure, and determine the performance of
the final open-cell aluminum foams.
Poor wetting of the pattern materials by molten aluminum does
not allow the melt to flow into the pattern interstices sponta-
neously. Therefore, a certain pressure-assisted infiltration process
is usually required for the first ingress of the melt into the porous
pattern [86–88]. The pressure at which the metal melt can infiltrate
a large fraction of the interstices is termed the ẗhreshold pressure¨.
Hilden et al. [89] calculated this threshold pressure P by numerical
simulation:
10LV
P= (1)
R
where LV is the surface tension of the metal liquid and R is the
radius of the space holders. The magnitude of the surface tension
of an aluminum liquid is usually 1 J m−2 . Therefore, one atmosphere
will cause infiltration of metal melt into a preform of space holders
that have a radius of 100 ␮m or more [26]. In addition, Cordovilla
et al. [90] provided an alternative empirical relationship based on
experimental data:
F
P [MPa] = 16.15 − 0.09 (2)
(1 − F) D
where F and D is the pattern density and a characteristic diameter
of the solid on average. This relation indicates that the thresh-
old pressure depends on the size of the channels to be infiltrated
and the volume fraction of these channels. In the infiltration pro-
cess based on space holders, not all but a large fraction of the
open space can be infiltrated under the threshold pressure, and
porosity of the final foam can be roughly predicted by the stacking
density of these space holders. Furthermore, insufficient infiltra-
tion may take place when a pressure lower than the threshold
pressure is applied, while a much high pressure can force the
melt into small channels between neighboring particles, which
will cause difficulty to remove the pattern. Thus, control of the
infiltration pressure is crucial to produce the metal foam pos-
sessing a uniform distribution of pores without leaving many
pattern materials uneasy to remove in it. Metal foam fabricated by
investment casting based on a polymer sponge features equivalent
structures possessed by the original polymer foam at a pressure
equal to or higher than the threshold pressure. Hence, the poros-
ity of the final foam is almost the same as the applied polymer
sponge. Actually, it is hard to predict the ultimate foam’s porosity
precisely in the melt infiltration approaches. Nevertheless, accu-
rate measurement of the pore structure like porosity is easy and
convenient.
Despois et al. [40] investigated the effect of infiltration pressure
on the structure of aluminum foams in infiltration experimentally.
For preforms of 400-␮m space holders that were stacked to a 75
% packing density, aluminum foams with a porosity close to 85 %
can be obtained at 0.1 MPa, as shown in Fig. 11. As the infiltration
pressure increased, the aluminum foam porosity decreased, and
finger-like protrusions appeared on the cell wall. These finger-like
protrusions resulted from a replication of the narrow interstices
of adjacent salts. Chen et al. [91] provided a calculation model to
predict the degree of pore opening of aluminum foams. The degree
of pore opening increased with a decrease of pressure and particle
18 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 10. SEM images of aluminum foams with spherical pores of mean diameter 400 ␮m with volume fractions solid, Vs: (a) 0.31, (b) 0.25 [82].
Fig. 11. Influence of infiltration pressure on density Vs (䊉) of aluminum foam. The
porosity of the respective preform Vp is also indicated (). All preforms were fabri-
cated with a primitive porosity close to 25 % [39].
size, whereas it decreased with a decrease of wetting angle between
the melt and the particle. The effect of infiltration pressure was ver-
ified experimentally. Berchem et al. [92] gave similar conclusions
through analytical calculation.
Fischer et al. [93] studied the effects of mold and pouring
temperature on the open-cell aluminum foam structure that was
prepared by investment casting. A decrease in mold temperature
and an increase in pouring temperature helped to improve the fill-
ing capacity of the aluminum melt, which reduced the number of
eutectic silicon particles and increased the strut thickness. Paul
et al. [94] analyzed the influence of heat treatment on the structure
of open-cell aluminum foams that were synthesized by investment
casting and found that solution annealing (W) and solution anneal-
ing plus aging (T6, T7) had almost no effect on the coarse Si and
intermetallic phase morphology.
Surace et al. [95] tested the effects of composition, pressure,
and sintering time on the structure of open-cell aluminum foams
prepared by sintering and dissolution through the design of experi-
ment (DOE) and ANOVA statistical analysis. The Al fraction was the
most important parameter that affected the relative density of the
final foams, whereas the sintering time and pressure showed little
effect. Hossein et al. [96] avoided Al and NaCl powder segregation
under high compaction pressures by adding a small amount of glyc-
erin and acetone during sintering and dissolution, which prevented
partial spalling of the final aluminum foam and improved the pore
structure homogeneity.
3. Properties and applications
Excellent integration of structural and functional properties
provides wide prospects for the application of open-cell aluminum
foams [97], whose performance is dependent on the matrix and cell
structure properties. Open-cell aluminum foams have an inherited
elasticity, corrosion or temperature resistance from the aluminum
matrix, and possess characteristics of a low density, a high spe-
cific surface area, and excellent energy absorbing properties from
the cells of the foams [98]. The most important mechanical and
functional properties are reviewed.
The mechanical properties of open-cell aluminum foams are
affected by the matrix, but the effects from the cell structures
have attracted the most attention. Because of the cell structure,
the mechanical properties rely mainly on the relative density, and
they depend on the cell roundness, cell shape, cell connectivity, and
diameter distribution. Unlike closed-cell aluminum foam, there is
no effect of air capture in open-cell aluminum foams because of the
interconnected cells. Thus, the mechanical properties of open-cell
aluminum foams are not affected significantly by impact velocity
[16]. During open-cell aluminum foam compression, the linear elas-
tic region is dominated by cell wall bending, whereas the plateau
region is affected by plastic hinges. When the cells have almost
collapsed completely, opposite cell walls contact and further strain
compresses the matrix, which leads to a rapid increase in stress
and the commencement of a densification stage [15]. Gibson and
Ashby proposed a simple cubic element beam model to describe the
mechanical properties of aluminum foams based on porous lattice
materials [99]:
Yf f
 a
≈C (3)
Ys s
 
f
εD = 1 − 1.4 (4)
s
where Y is the Young’s modulus or strength and  is the density.
Subscripts f and s represent the foam and matrix, respectively. εD
is the densification strain. The values of C and a are 1 and 2 to
predict Young’s modulus, respectively, whereas they are 0.3 and
1.5, respectively, to predict the plastic collapse strength. The model
shows that the main mechanical properties of the aluminum foams
depend strongly on the relative density, which is suitable for most
metal foams according to most experimental results [100–104].
Michailidis et al. [60] prepared the use of open-cell aluminum
foams with sucrose as space holders. The compression yield stress
decreased with an increase in porosity and the platform region
became flatter and longer because there was more opportunity for
cell walls to deform and collapse. These findings agreed well with
the Gibson–Ashby model. Experiments showed that cell size had
little effect on the stress–strain curve of aluminum foams, as shown
in Fig. 12. Jiang et al. [83] obtained similar conclusions. Hasan et al.
 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 12. (a) Compressive stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with various porosities (b) reliance of yield stress on relative density of the aluminum foam (c) Compressive
stress–strain curves of aluminum foams with various pore sizes [60].
Fig. 13. Effect of cell size on compressive mechanical properties of aluminum foams
with porosities of 65 % [33].
[33] found that the plateau stress grew with an increase of cell size
when the porosity was consistent. According to the experimental
results, the plateau stress improved more than three times as the
pore diameter changed from 1–1.5 mm to 3.5–5 mm, as shown in
Fig. 13, which was explained by the inconsistent cell wall thickness.
The mechanical properties of aluminum foams are influenced by
the cell shape to some extent. For aluminum foams with irregular
cells, the stress concentration is prone to occur at sharp cell cor-
ners, which causes jagged fluctuations in the stress–strain curve
and unstable mechanical properties. Hence, compared with alu-
minum foams with irregular cells, the mechanical properties of
aluminum foams with spherical cells are more predictive and easily
accountable. Hasan et al. [33] compared the mechanical properties
of open-cell aluminum foams that were prepared by using spheri-
cal urea and polygonal urea in the sintering and dissolving process.
The mechanical properties of the spherical-celled aluminum foams
were superior to those of the irregular-celled aluminum foams,
such as an improved platform stress and yield stress, which agreed
well with the theoretical predictions. Jiang et al. [28] reached
similar conclusions. Goodall et al. [82] contrasted the mechani-
cal properties of open-cell aluminum foams that were prepared by
using spherical and angular NaCl in the infiltration process. They
found that the influence of cell shape on the mechanical proper-
ties could be ignored if the aspect ratio of the angular particles was
approximately the same, whereas the mechanical properties of the
spherical and angular pore foam differed when the aspect ratio of
the angular particles differed significantly.
The long plastic platform before the densification stage is
attributed to the energy absorption characteristics of aluminum
foams, which is one of the most important properties of aluminum
foams, and gives them bright application prospects in the field
of collision and explosion protection. Gibson and Ashby provided
an expression for the maximum absorbed energy per unit volume
Wmax :
Wmax D D
 2/3
= [1 − 3.1 ] (5)
Es ES Es
19
Fig. 14. Relationship between effective thermal conductivity and porosity (Ks = 205
W (m K)−1 , 33 ◦ C) [13].
where D represents the densification strain and Es is the Young’s
modulus of the matrix.
In addition to the mechanical properties, the functional char-
acteristics of open-cell aluminum foams are related to connected
cells and large specific surface areas have attracted much attention,
such as the superior performance of heat dissipation [105–108].
By combining large specific surface areas with the good thermal
conductivity of aluminum, open-cell aluminum foams are used
often as heat exchangers in the field of forced convection heat
transfer [105], such as heat exchangers for aerospace apparatus
and heat sinks for electronic devices with high power and regen-
erators for heat engines. The thermal conductivity of aluminum
foams is a key parameter for the above applications, which can
be measured experimentally by a steady method or a transient
technique. The thermal conductivity of aluminum foams is depen-
dent on the pore density, decreases as the pore density increases
[107,109], and is not influenced significantly by the pore size
[107,109,110].
Abuserwal et al. [13] tested the effective thermal conductivity
of open-cell aluminum foams via a steady state method, and found
that the effective thermal conductivity increased with a decrease
in porosity and was hardly influenced by the pore size, as shown
in Fig. 14. Similar conclusions were given by Solórzano et al. [111]
who used the transient plane source method to study the thermal
conductivity of open-cell aluminum foams.
Theoretical models based on an analytical and empirical
approach were developed to predict the thermal conductivity
of open-cell aluminum foams. An empirical scaling relationship
between the effective thermal conductivity and porosity was pro-
vided by Abuserwal et al. [13]:
0.16
Kf = Ks (1 − ε)2.15(1−ε) (6)
where ε is the porosity, and the indices f and s represent the
aluminum foam and matrix, respectively. Fig. 15 shows that the
prediction agrees well with a large porosity range. Ashby et al. [15]
20 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Fig. 15. Predicted effective thermal conductivity by theoretical model versus poros-
ity [13].
provided a simple model to predict the thermal conductivity of the
metal foam:
ıf
  k
f
= (7)
ıs s
where k ranges from 1.65 to 1.8, and the indices f and s represent
the aluminum foam and matrix, respectively.
Barari et al. [39] studied experimentally the thermal perfor-
mance of open-cell aluminum foams as thermal regenerators and
found that the pressure drop increased with velocity, whereas
the heat transfer decreased with an increase in Reynolds num-
ber. Hwang et al. [112] investigated experimentally the convective
heat transfer of open-cell aluminum foams and showed that the
volumetric heat transfer coefficient decreased as the pore density
increased at a certain Reynolds number. Hamid et al. [113] reported
that the heat transfer performance of open-cell metal foams as heat
sinks showed a positive relationship with the relative density and
a negative relationship with cell size by numerical analysis.
No channels exist for material circulation because of indepen-
dent cells in closed-cell aluminum foams, whereas many channels
are derived from connected cells for open-cell aluminum foams,
and these channels can be used for sound wave propagation and
loss [114]. Hence, open-cell aluminum foams can be used as excel-
lent sound-absorbing materials. When sound waves are incident
on cells of open-cell aluminum foams, three attenuation mecha-
nisms exist: (i) vibration is generated by sound waves and causes
air flow inside the cells, and friction exists between flowing air
and the cell wall, which causes a portion of the sound energy to
be converted into thermal energy and attenuates sound waves.
(ii) High-frequency sound waves accelerate air movement inside
the cells, which results in stronger heat exchange between the air
and the cell walls, which weakens the sound waves. The connected
cells form a Helmholtz resonant sound-absorption structure, which
creates strong friction between the intensely vibrating air and the
connected cells, and results in more sound energy consumption.
The effect of the Helmholtz resonant absorption is apparent when
a cavity is introduced into the back of the sound-absorbing mate-
rial. Han et al. [11] discovered that the connected pores of open-cell
aluminum foams play a role in sound-absorption performance. Lu
et al. [35] studied the sound-absorption performance of open-cell
aluminum foams and proposed an improved theoretical model to
calculate the sound-absorption coefficient ˛ for predictions:
4Rn /0 c0
˛=  2   (8)
1 + Rn /0 c0 + Mn /0 c0
Zn = Rn + iM n (9)
where 0 is the density of air, c0 is the speed of sound in air, and
Zn is the acoustic impedance of the acoustic system. The predic-
Fig. 16. Electromagnetic interference shielding effectiveness of an open-cell alu-
minum foam: Comparison between experimental measurements and analytical data
[38].
tions agreed well with the experiments. Wang et al. [115] used
point matching to solve the sound wave propagation equation and
obtained an optimal sound-absorbing cell size of the order of 0.1
mm. Li et al. [34] explored the sound-absorption properties of
open-cell aluminum foams with spherical cells, and found that the
sound-absorption coefficient of the aluminum foam increased with
an increase of pore opening density and a decrease of pore opening
diameter from 0.3 to 0.4 mm.
As commonly understood, metals have excellent electrical
conductivity and can absorb and reflect electromagnetic inter-
ference. Analogously, compared with polymers, metal foams can
be furtherly developed for electromagnetic interference shielding
because of their conductivity. Although not as powerful as dense
metal, open-cell metal foams provide a high added value owing to
their other good performance of low density, energy absorption,
and allowing for mass, light and heat transmission with respect
to traditional shielding materials. Giuseppina et al. [38] utilized a
plasma model to describe the electromagnetic behavior SE of an
open-cell aluminum foam with thickness d:
SE Analytical = R + A + M = f(ωp , ) (10)
(no + ns )2
R= (11)
4n0 ns
 
(n0 − ns )2
M = 1− exp (i2kd) (12)
(n0 + ns )2
A = exp (ikd) (13)
where R, A, and M represent the reflection, the absorption and
the multiple reflections contributions to SE; ωp and  represent
the plasma frequency and damping factor respectively. The results
illustrated in Fig. 16 indicate a good agreement between experi-
mental and analytical measurements.
Aluminum foams are environmentally friendly and weather-
resistant composite materials that are fire-resistant, flame-
retardant, and recyclable. Compared with closed-cell aluminum
foams, open-cell aluminum foams are applied when light weight,
load-bearing, energy absorption or anti-collision are required. They
are also used as high-temperature filters, for heat dissipation and
sound absorption from interconnected cells.
In the field of space debris shields, a layer of open-cell aluminum
foam has been embedded in the multi-layer defensive structure by
the European space agency to form significant multiple shocks to
the projectile, and melt impacting projectiles, which reduces the
damage of the projectile to the spacecraft. Fig. 17 shows the debris
cloud evolution when a defensive structure of a layer of open-cell
aluminum foams is applied. Fig. 18 shows the energy absorber that
is applied with open-cell aluminum foams used by NASA to protect
core components in space.
 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24 21

Fig. 17. Debris cloud evolution to apply open-cell aluminum foam of 10 ppi and 40 mm thickness [116].

Fig. 18. Energy absorber formed with open-cell aluminum foams [117].

Fig. 19. Applications of open-cell aluminum foams manufactured by ERG (a)–(c) heat exchangers, (d) EMI shielding, (e) fluid control baffle, (f) cryogenic tank [117].

Open-cell aluminum foams that are manufactured by ERG
(Oakland, CA, USA) via investment casting are applied as heat
exchangers, insulation devices, and electromagnetic shielding
boxes on satellites and space station-related devices by NASA, as
illustrated in Fig. 19. Open-cell aluminum foams that are produced
by Exxentis (Wettingen, Switzerland) through infiltration are used
as mufflers, heat exchangers, and vacuum-generating molds, as
shown in Fig. 20.
In the acoustic engineering field of absorption and noise reduc-
tion, Z̈HB aluminum foam acoustic panelsḧave been applied as
sound-absorbing materials. Fig. 21 shows projects in which open-
cell aluminum foams are applied on sound barriers.
4. Outlooks
As a structural-functional integrated material, open-cell alu-
minum foam opens up new potentialities to combine the
mechanical features with additional functional properties. The key
to tailor properties of open-cell aluminum foams is the precise con-
trol over the pore structures, such as porosity, pore shape, pore
connectivity, pore size, and pore size distribution, which can be
perfectly achieved by a sacrificial pattern assisted replication pro-
cess.
Based on the performance requirements of structural or
lightweight, sound absorber, thermal management, and elec-
tromagnetic shielding applications, it is necessary to develop
applicable theoretical or numerical models allowing for clari-
fying the relations between pore structures and corresponding
behaviors. These pore structures predesigned can be furtherly
realized accurately by pattern design during the replication pro-
cess.
For the additive manufacturing, 3D printing of patterns like gyp-
sum or inorganic salt allows for combining the ease of pattern
removal with the freedom production of complicated structures,
22 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24

Fig. 20. Application of open-cell aluminum foams fabricated by Exxentis (a)–(b) vacuum-forming molds, (c) heat exchanger, (d)–(e) pneumatic silencers, (f) weapon silencer
[118].

Fig. 21. Application of open-cell aluminum foams as sound barriers [119].

which shows the highest control over the pore structure but intro-
duces relatively high cost and sophisticated procedures.
As for open-cell aluminum foams fabricated based on poly-
mer sponges, highly interconnected network structures allow a
high mass transfer efficiency with low flow resistance, which are
popularly applied in heat exchange fields. However, traditionally
manufactured polymer sponges exhibit stochastic and irregular
structures, thus causing difficulty in developing models to describe
the properties of the final foams accurately. In the future, polymer
sponges with regular and periodic structures made via technical
innovation may solve the problem. Additionally, special atten-
tion should be paid to simplifying the preparation procedure and
improving the strength of final foams, mainly in investment casting.
The space holder method including the infiltration process and
powder-metallurgy method allows for controlling the final pore
structure directly through the replication of space holder parti-
cles in the most straightforward and lowest-cost way. However,
nearly rigid point contact between the hard and brittle particles
will lead to a poor pore interconnection, no matter in infiltration
casting or powder metallurgy. Thus adverse effects on functional
characteristics and the problem of pattern removal appear, which
can be avoided to some extend by improving the compressibility
of the used particles, and porosity can be adjusted simultaneously
in a wide range in this way. Moreover, a replacement of the corro-
sive inorganic salt particles with non-corrosive or weakly corrosive
particles can resolve or alleviate the corrosion trouble.
Flexible employment of varied 3D printed patterns, polymer
sponges, and space holders contributes to the manufacture of open-
cell aluminum foams with desirable structures and properties to
meet the demands of engineering applications. In order to furtherly
broaden structural and functional applications in some specific sit-
uations, a suitable choice of patterns and appropriate models to
predict the behaviors of the final foams should be taken into con-
sideration. The emphasis and difficulty of current research lie in
designing suitable structures of open-cell aluminum foams to sat-
isfy performance in some specific and multiple target applications.
CAD-associated numerical simulation and analytical solutions may
be used to evaluate the mechanical and physical behaviors of the
predesigned structures.
5. Conclusion
Because of their permeability or open porosity, open-cell
aluminum foams are superior in terms of their structural and
functional performance. As the main method to prepare open-
cell aluminum foams, the replication process reflects the unique
advantage of pattern design to obtain tailored cell structures to
meet special requirements and applications. Cell structures can
be controlled through pattern design and processing parameters.
 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
Besides applications in which a light weight, energy absorption,
and vibration damping are required, open-cell aluminum foams
function well in fields of sound absorption, heat dissipation, and
electromagnetic shielding. For open-cell aluminum foams based
on space holders, more effective and cheaper ways should be used
to improve the porosity, remove the space holders, and prevent
corrosion, whereas technical innovation must be focused on simpli-
fying the preparation procedure and improving the strength in the
polymer sponge method. The design of suitable foam structures is
important to broaden the application in specific and multiple target
fields.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51771101).
References
[1] X. Zheng, H. Lee, T.H. Weisgraber, M. Shusteff, J. DeOtte, E.B. Duoss, J.D.
Kuntz, M.M. Biener, Q. Ge, J.A. Jackson, S.O. Kucheyev, N.X. Fang, C.M.
Spadaccini, Science 344 (2014) 1373–1377.
[2] J. Banhart, Adv. Eng. Mater. 15 (2013) 82–111.
[3] X.N. Liu, Y.X. Li, X. Chen, Y. Liu, X.L. Fan, J. Mater. Sci. 45 (2010) 6481–6493.
[4] Y. Liu, Y. Li, H. Zhang, J. Wan, Rare Metal Mat. Eng. 34 (2005) 1128–1130.
[5] L. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Li, Acta Metall. Sin. 48 (2012) 329–333 (in
Chinese).
[6] B. Xie, Y.Z. Fan, T.Z. Mu, B. Deng, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 708 (2017) 419–423.
[7] M.H. Golabgir, R. Ebrahimi-Kahrizsangi, O. Torabi, H. Tajizadegan, A.
Jamshidi, Adv. Powder Technol. 25 (2014) 960–967.
[8] A. Inoue, H. Kimura, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 286 (2000) 1–10.
[9] F. Xu, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, Eng. Struct. 171 (2018) 309–325.
[10] Y. Mu, G. Yao, H. Luo, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 610–612.
[11] F. Han, G. Seiffert, Y. Zhao, B. Gibbs, J. Phys. D-Appl. Phys. 36 (2003) 294–302.
[12] Z. Xu, H. Hao, J. Alloys Compd. 617 (2014) 207–213.
[13] A.F. Abuserwal, E.M. Elizondo Luna, R. Goodall, R. Woolley, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 108 (2017) 1439–1448.
[14] J. Banhart, Prog. Mater. Sci. 46 (2001) 559–632.
[15] M.F. Ashby, A. Evans, N.A. Fleck, L.J. Gibson, J.W. Hutchinson, H.N.G. Wadley,
Metal Foams: A Design Guide, first ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston,
2000, pp. 1–5.
[16] F. Garcia-Moreno, Materials 9 (2016) 85.
[17] Y. Cheng, Y. Li, X. Chen, T. Shi, Z. Liu, N. Wang, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 48
(2017) 754–762.
[18] N. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Li, Z. Liu, Z. Zhao, Y. Cheng, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, Colloid Surf.
A-Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 527 (2017) 123–131.
[19] X. Ding, Y. Liu, X. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Li, Mater. Lett. 216 (2018) 38–41.
[20] S.C. Han, K. Kang, Mater. Today 31 (2019) 31–38.
[21] P. Schüler, S.F. Fischer, A. Bührig-Polaczek, C. Fleck, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 587
(2013) 250–261.
[22] X. Yang, Q. Hu, J. Du, H. Song, T. Zou, J. Sha, C. He, N. Zhao, Int. J. Fatigue 121
(2019) 272–280.
[23] K. Lietaert, J. van Deursen, T. Lapauw, L. Weber, A. Mortensen, J.
Vleugels,Mater. Charact. 157 (2019), 109895.
[24] Y. Conde, J.F. Despois, R. Goodall, A. Marmottant, L. Salvo, C. San Marchi, A.
Mortensen, Adv. Eng. Mater. 8 (2006) 795–803.
[25] L. Polonsky, S. Lipson, H. Markus, Mod. Cast. 39 (1961) 57–71.
[26] H.A. Kuchek, Method of Making Porous Metallic Article, US Patent, No.
3236706, 1966.
[27] L.Q. Ma, Z.L. Song, D.P. He, Scr. Mater. 41 (1999) 785–789.
[28] B. Jiang, N. Zhao, C. Shi, J. Li, Scr. Mater. 53 (2005) 781–785.
[29] C. San Marchi, A. Mortensen, Acta Mater. 49 (2001) 3959–3969.
[30] J.F. Despois, Y. Conde, C. San Marchi, A. Mortensen, Adv. Eng. Mater. 6 (2004)
444–447.
[31] T.G. Nieh, K. Higashi, J. Wadsworth, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 283 (2000) 105–110.
[32] S.F. Fischer, Mater. Lett. 184 (2016) 208–210.
[33] H. Bafti, A. Habibolahzadeh, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) 404–411.
[34] Y. Li, X. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Ren, F. Han, C. Wen,J. Appl. Phys. 110 (2011),
113525.
[35] T.J. Lu, F. Chen, D. He, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (2000) 1697–1709.
[36] S. Chen, M. Bourham, A. Rabiei, Procedia Mater. Sci. 4 (2014) 293–298.
[37] L. Catarinucci, O. Losito, L. Tarricone, F. Pagliara, IEEE International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Portland or U.S.A, August,
2006, pp. 14–18.
[38] G. Monti, L. Catarinucci, L. Tarricone, 3rd European Conference on Antennas
and Propagation, Berlin, Germany, March 23-27, 2009.
[39] F. Barari, E.M.E. Luna, R. Goodall, R. Woolley, J. Mater. Res. 28 (2013)
2474–2482.
[40] J.F. Despois, A. Marmottant, L. Salvo, A. Mortensen, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 462
(2007) 68–75.
23
[41] E.M. Elizondo Luna, F. Barari, R. Woolley, R. Goodall,J.Vis. Exp. (2014),
e52268.
[42] K.S. Chou, M.A. Song, Scr. Mater. 46 (2002) 379–382.
[43] R. Goodall, J.F. Despois, A. Marmottant, L. Salvo, A. Mortensen, Scr. Mater. 54
(2006) 2069–2073.
[44] Y. Xue, X. Wang, W. Wang, X. Zhong, F. Han, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 722 (2018)
255–262.
[45] A.H. Brothers, D.C. Dunand, Adv. Eng. Mater. 8 (2006) 805–809.
[46] Y. Yamada, K. Shimojima, Y. Sakaguchi, M. Mabuchi, M. Nakamura, T.
Asahina, T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, K. Higashi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 280 (2000)
225–228.
[47] A. Jinnapat, A. Kennedy, Metals 2 (2012) 122–135.
[48] Y. Xue, F. Han, Mater. Lett. 254 (2019) 99–102.
[49] Y. Huang, Y. Xue, X. Wang, F. Han, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 696 (2017) 520–528.
[50] H. Wang, Y. Fu, M. Su, H. Hao,Mater. Des. 167 (2019), 107631.
[51] Y. Yosida, C. Hayashi, Proc. Conf. Casting Science and Technology,
September, 1990, p. 103.
[52] Y. Yamada, K. Shimojima, Y. Sakaguchi, M. Mabuchi, M. Nakamura, T.
Asahina, T. Mukai, H. Kanahashi, K. Higashi, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2 (2000)
184–187.
[53] W.C. Sun, Device and Preparation Method of Aluminum Foam Roll Blanket,
Chinese patent, No. CN1515700, 2004. (in Chinese).
[54] W.C. Sun, X.J. Wu, Metallic Functional Materials. 10 (2003) 19–21 (in
Chinese).
[55] Y. Yamada, C. Wen, K. Shimojima, M. Mabuchi, M. Nakamura, T. Asahina, T.
Aizawa, K. Higashi, Mater. Trans. 41 (2000) 1136–1138.
[56] J.H. Kim, R.H. Kim, H.S. Kwon, Electrochem. commun. 10 (2008) 1148–1151.
[57] C. San Marchi, J.F. Despois, A. Mortensen, Microstr. Inves. Analys. 4 (2000)
34–39.
[58] Y.Y. Zhao, D.X. Sun, Scr. Mater. 44 (2001) 105–110.
[59] H. Bafti, A. Habibolahzadeh, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 4122–4129.
[60] N. Michailidis, F. Stergioudi, A. Tsouknidas, E. Pavlidou, Mater. Sci. Eng. A
528 (2011) 1662–1667.
[61] R. Kumar, H. Jain, S. Sriram, A. Chaudhary, A. Khare, V.A.N. Ch, D.P.
Mondal,Mater. Chem. Phys. 240 (2020), 122274.
[62] P. Heinl, L. Muller, C. Korner, R.F. Singer, F.A. Muller, Acta Biomater. 4 (2008)
1536–1544.
[63] S. McKown, Y. Shen, W.K. Brookes, C.J. Sutcliffe, W.J. Cantwell, G.S. Langdon,
G.N. Nurick, M.D. Theobald, Int. J. Impact Eng. 35 (2008) 795–810.
[64] M. Agarwala, D. Bourell, J. Beaman, H. Marcus, J. Barlow, Rapid Prototyping J.
1 (1995) 26–36.
[65] N.A. Meisel, C.B. Williams, A. Druschitz, the 23rd Annual International Solid
Freeform Fabrication Symposium - An Additive Manufacturing Conference,
Austin, TX, U.S., August 6-8, 2012.
[66] C. Yan, L. Hao, A. Hussein, S.L. Bubb, P. Young, D. Raymont, J. Mater, Process.
Technol. 214 (2014) 856–864.
[67] C. Qiu, S. Yue, N.J.E. Adkins, M. Ward, H. Hassanin, P.D. Lee, P.J. Withers, M.M.
Attallah, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 628 (2015) 188–197.
[68] I. Maskery, N.T. Aboulkhair, A.O. Aremu, C.J. Tuck, I.A. Ashcroft, R.D.
Wildman, R.J.M. Hague, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 670 (2016) 264–274.
[69] D. Snelling, Q. Li, N. Meisel, C.B. Williams, R.C. Batra, A.P. Druschitz, Adv. Eng.
Mater. 17 (2015) 923–932.
[70] A. Lyons, S. Krishnan, J. Mullins, M. Hodes, D. Hernon, 20th Annual
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Texas, U.S.,
August 3-5, 2009.
[71] S. Chiras, D.R. Mumm, A.G. Evans, N. Wicks, J.W. Hutchinson, K. Dharmasena,
H.N.G. Wadley, S. Fichter, Int. J. Solids Struct. 39 (2002) 4093–4115.
[72] L.C. Wang, F. Wang, Acta Metall. Sin. (Eng. Lett.)14 (2009) 27–32.
[73] L. Wang, H. Li, F. Wang, J. Ren, China Foundry 2 (2005) 56–59.
[74] A.M. Matz, B.S. Mocker, D.W. Müller, N. Jost, G. Eggeler, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2014 (2014) 1–9.
[75] A.H. Brothers, D.C. Dunand, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 489 (2008) 439–443.
[76] R. Goodall, A. Mortensen, Adv. Eng. Mater. 9 (2007) 951–954.
[77] R. Goodall, J.F. Despois, A. Mortensen, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 26 (2006)
3487–3497.
[78] A. Jinnapat, A. Kennedy, Metals 1 (2011) 49–64.
[79] S. Yu, J. Liu, M. Wei, Y. Luo, X. Zhu, Y. Liu, Mater. Des. 30 (2009) 87–90.
[80] L. Stanev, B. Drenchev, A. Yotov, R. Lazarova, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 22 (2014)
44–53.
[81] B. Jiang, N.Q. Zhao, C.S. Shi, X.W. Du, J.J. Li, H.C. Man, Mater. Lett. 59 (2005)
3333–3336.
[82] R. Goodall, A. Marmottant, L. Salvo, A. Mortensen, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 465
(2007) 124–135.
[83] B. Jiang, Z. Wang, N. Zhao, Scr. Mater. 56 (2007) 169–172.
[84] A. Jinnapat, A.R. Kennedy, J. Alloys Compd. 499 (2010) 43–47.
[85] J.A. Liu, F. Gao, Y.Q. Rao, C.L. Wu, Y. Liu, Mater. Trans. 55 (2014) 1906–1908.
[86] C. Gaillard, J.F. Despois, A. Mortensen, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 374 (2004) 250–262.
[87] M. Bahraini, L. Weber, J. Narciso, A. Mortensen, J. Mater. Sci. 40 (2005)
2487–2491.
[88] V. Michaud, A. Mortensen, Compos. Pt. A-Appl. Sci. Manuf. 32 (2001)
981–996.
[89] J. Hilden, K. Trumble, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 267 (2003) 463–474.
[90] C. Garcia-Cordovilla, E. Louis, J. Narciso, Acta Mater. 47 (1999) 4461–4479.
[91] F. Chen, A.W. Zhang, D.P. He, J. Mater. Sci. 36 (2001) 669–672.
[92] K. Berchem, U. Mohr, W. Bleck, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 323 (2002) 52–57.
24 T. Wan et al. / Journal of Materials Science & Technology 62 (2021) 11–24
[93] S.F. Fischer, P. Schüler, C. Fleck, A. Bührig-Polaczek, Acta Mater. 61 (2013)
5152–5161.
[94] P. Schüler, R. Frank, D. Uebel, S.F. Fischer, A. Bührig-Polaczek, C. Fleck, Acta
Mater. 109 (2016) 32–45.
[95] R. Surace, L.A.C. De Filippis, A.D. Ludovico, G. Boghetich, Mater. Des. 30
(2009) 1878–1885.
[96] H. Gilani, S. Jafari, R. Gholami, A. Habibolahzadeh, M. Mirshahi, Met.
Mater.-Int. 18 (2012) 327–333.
[97] J. Banhart, Adv. Eng. Mater. 2 (2000) 188–191.
[98] S. Prabhu, V.K.B. Raja, R. Nikhil, Appl. Mech. Mater. 766 (2015) 511–517.
[99] L. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structures and Properties, second ed.,
Cambridge University Press, London, 1997, pp. 175–234.
[100] J.T. Beals, M.S. Thompson, J. Mater. Sci. 32 (1997) 3595–3600.
[101] I.W. Hall, M. Guden, C.J. Yu, Scr. Mater. 43 (2000) 515–521.
[102] O.B. Olurin, N.A. Fleck, M.F. Ashby, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 291 (2000) 136–146.
[103] A.R. Kennedy, J. Mater. Sci. 39 (2004) 3085–3088.
[104] U. Ramamurty, A. Paul, Acta Mater. 52 (2004) 869–876.
[105] T.J. Lu, H.A. Stone, M.F. Ashby, Acta Mater. 46 (1998) 3619–3635.
[106] T.J. Lu, C. Chen, Acta Mater. 47 (1999) 1469–1485.
[107] E. Solórzano, J.A. Reglero, M.A. Rodríguez-Pérez, D. Lehmhus, M. Wichmann,
J.A. De Saja, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 51 (2008) 6259–6267.
[108] T. Fiedler, E. Solórzano, A. Garcia-Moreno, F. Öchsner, I. Belova, G. Murch,
Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. 40 (2009) 139–143.
[109] J.W. Paek, B.H. Kang, S.Y. Kim, J.M. Hyun, Int. J. Thermophys. 21 (2000)
453–464.
[110] R. Dyga, S. Witczak, the 20th International Congress of Chemical and Process
Engineering CHISA 2012, Prague, Czech Republic, August 25-29, 2012.
[111] E. Solórzano, M.A. Rodriguez-Perez, J.A. de Saja, Adv. Eng. Mater. 10 (2008)
596–602.
[112] J.J. Hwang, G.J. Hwang, R.H. Yeh, C.H. Chao, J. Heat Transfer 124 (2002)
120–129.
[113] H.R. Seyf, M. Layeghi,J. Heat Transfer 132 (2010), 071401.
[114] J.P. Arenas, M.J. Crocker, Sound Vib. 44 (2010) 12–18.
[115] X. Wang, T.J. Lu, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106 (1999) 756–765.
[116] R. Destefanis, F. Schäfer, M. Lambert, M. Faraud, E. Schneider, Int. J. Impact
Eng. 29 (2003) 215–226.
[117] ERG. Available online: http://ergaerospace.com/photo-gallery/ (Accessed on
11 December 2019).
[118] Exxentis. Available online: http://www.exxentis.co.uk/porous-aluminium/
applications/ (Accessed on 11 December 2019).
[119] Shanghai Zhonghui Foam Aluminum Co., Ltd. Available online:
http://www.zhonghuiaf.com/02300054/php/pic.php?menuid=3&lang=0/
(Accessed on 11 December 2019).