Materials and Design 30 (2009) 1282–1287

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Technical Report

A comparison among FE models to simulate metallic foams forming – An

experimental validation
F. Gagliardi, L. De Napoli, L. Filice, D. Umbrello *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy

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

Article history: Metallic foams are new materials mainly produced by expansion in a proper chamber and mainly char-
Received 30 April 2008 acterized by internal voids: a material characterized by a very low density is obtained in this way. A lot of
Accepted 21 June 2008 foamed components are commonly produced, directly by injecting a gas or foaming agent into molten
Available online 2 July 2008
metal inside a closed die. However, secondary operations on these materials can play an important role
in order to enhance the foam production flexibility. From the above considerations, the deformation
behaviour of an aluminium foam was investigated by compression tests. The study compares three dif-
ferent numerical analyses highlighting their points of strength and weakness in order to verify their
applicability in process design. More in detail, two models based on the implicit formulation were inves-
tigated; in one case, the billet material was set as porous object with the material density which was cal-
culated and updated as part of the simulation. The second implicit analysis, instead, was built using the
plastic material formulation; the porosity, in this case, was physically created introducing voids within
the workpiece.
The latter simulation class was carried out through an explicit investigation; an efficient model con-
struction was proposed introducing spherical surfaces connected each other with plans. Experimental
data were used to validate the calculated results and a discussion concerning the three different numer-
ical analyses was finally reported.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ferent test cases were analyzed and compared to experimental

The interest in metallic foams has grown quickly bringing to
excellent results in innovative parts where, for example, low
weight, high stiffness and high energy absorption are strict design
parameters [1,2]. A lot of foamed components are commonly made
by injecting gas or foaming agents into molten metal inside a prop-
er closed die as reported in a literature review [3].
The behaviour of metallic foams during forming has to be taken
into account to have good components, even, through secondary
operations [4–7]. In this way, manufacturing cost could be signifi-
cantly reduced.
In fact, it is sometimes more convenient to produce standard-
ized parts which are subsequently worked to approach a desired
geometry. In the past years, several researches were focused on
the deformation behaviour of metal foams utilizing the finite ele-
ment methods. However, most of them simply utilized built-in
porous material modelling when the metallic foams were studied.
In detail, Reyes et al. [8] evaluated an existing constitutive model
applicable for aluminium foam through LS-Dyna code; a lot of dif-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0984494820; fax: +39 0984494673.
E-mail addresses: f.gagliardi@unical.it (F. Gagliardi), ldenapoli@unical.it (L. De
Napoli), l.filice@unical.it (L. Filice), d.umbrello@unical.it (D. Umbrello).
URL: http://www.unical.it (D. Umbrello).
data. The same explicit, non linear, code was utilized during differ-
ent studies carried out, fore example, by Lopatnikov et al. [9] and
Hanssen et al. [10].
A similar numerical investigation was conducted by Chen [11].
He used a rigid-plastic finite element software investigating the
relative density distribution, the void closure behaviour, the defor-
mation mechanisms and the stress–strain distribution around the
internal voids for various rolling conditions using the commercial
FE code DeformÒ [12]. Some of the authors of the paper here pro-
posed, used this approach in previous researches [13–15]; basi-
cally, aforementioned works were focused on the secondary
processing of foam materials where shapes of simple billets have
to be bent or modelled into complex sculptured parts.
Meguid et al. [16] developed a modified unit cell model which
was replaced more times before creating the final one. The multi-
ple cell FE model, in fact, used 125 units with a total of 11,500 shell
elements. The explicit LS-DYNA code was used for the proposed
analysis and obtained results were compared with experimental
investigation. Czekanski et al. [17], instead, proposed a new closed
unit cell formed by use of ellipsoids which are interconnected
through a truncated pyramid. In this case, mostly spherical cells
are firstly created, followed by small ellipsoidal cells, which fill
the remaining space. A new way to build the complex foam micro-
structure was proposed by Shen et al. [18,19]; they developed a

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.051
 F. Gagliardi et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 1282–1287
method to efficiently construct both 2D and 3D models that cap-
ture the main features of the actual experimental material. A
foamed titanium was investigated since applications are growing
in different industrial fields [20]. However, at the early stage of
foaming, when porosity is less than 25%, pores are mostly rounded,
generally equiaxed, and un-merged [21]. Then, three-dimensional
(3D) pore size and pore distribution information were derived from
several 2D sections using the function of a microstructural distance
distribution to characterize the spatial location of pores. Then, the
microstructure of the foam at high porosity was obtained by a geo-
metric simulation of pore growth and movement during foaming
process. The built model was used to develop a numerical cam-
paign simulating uniaxial stress–strain tests.
In this work, experimental and numerical upsetting analyses
were carried out on AlulightÒ aluminium foams; the numerical
campaign was developed using both explicit and implicit formula-
tion. The first one was run through Ls-Dyna; a novel model con-
struction [22] was proposed introducing spherical surfaces that
represent the internal voids existing in a metallic foam. The code
Deform 3D, instead, was used for two different implicit studies.
In fact, beyond the workpiece definition in which the porous mate-
rial model was used, a further analysis was carried out ‘‘subtract-
ing” the voids from the homogeneous material by Boolean
operations. These voids, similarly to the explicit model, had differ-
ent dimensions according to the real spatial density distribution.
The latter one was rebuilt using an image processing analysis
(IPA) technique, proposed by some of the authors [13,23]. All the
numerical analyses were finally compared highlighting their points
of strength and weakness related to predicting ability and CPU re-
quired time.
2. Experimental campaign
Compressive tests were performed to obtain experimental data
to be used for the validation of the proposed numerical analyses.
As above mentioned, an AlulightÒ foam was selected, based on
the AA6061 Aluminum alloy; the material presents an average
density equal to about 20% of the solid material. The foam was
compressed between two steel platens on an electronically con-
trolled hydraulic testing machine with a load cell able to provide
a maximum ram load equal to 100 kN. Circular billets were used
for the upsetting tests; their initial thickness and diameter were,
respectively 10 mm and 50 mm (Fig. 1a). The workpieces were ob-
tained cutting along the billet axis cylindrical parts (Fig. 1b).
The upper die velocity was set equal to 1.0 mm/s to avoid any
dynamic effect during the forming sequence. Moreover, the test
was repeated five times in order to consider the effects due to
the material in-homogeneity. The crushing foam sequence was ob-
served and the ram load was acquired.
Fig. 1. (a) The billet used for the upsetting test and (b) the initial cylindrical part.
1283
3. Numerical analyses
Three different numerical analyses were carried out in order to
point out, first of all, the differences and their discrepancies from
experimental results. In fact, each of them starts from different ba-
sics and, up to now, the best methodology is not yet described, also
because it is impossible to take into account only one performance
index. However, these techniques are the most utilized in forming
process simulations. The simulations were set up taking into ac-
count the same input variables. The friction modelling was based
on the constant shear hypothesis, fs ¼ mk [12]. In the above model
fs is the frictional stress, k the shear yield stress and m is the shear
factor. The latter was set equal to 0.75 according to Manisekar et al.
[24], who investigated a cold compression process without any
lubrication.
The three analyses used the following material flow rule,
r ¼ 210e0:2 MPa; such data were obtained through tensile tests
on specimens cut from Al6061 solid material. Finally, the mesh
was modelled using approximately 200,000 elements; one fourth
of the whole geometry was used due to symmetry conditions. On
the contrary, the upper and lower dies were modelled as rigid
tools. The peculiarities of different simulations are highlighted in
the following.
3.1. Implicit porous formulation
The yield condition proposed by Shima and Oyane [25] was uti-
lized. This yield function depends on the first invariant of the stress
tensor, on the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor and
on a scalar parameter, which is the relative density, R; its formula-
tion is reported in Eq. (1):
 
1
A ½ðrx  ry Þ2 þ ðry  rz Þ2 þ ðrz  rx Þ2  þ ðs2xy þ s2yz þ s2zx Þ
6
 
A
þ 1 ðrx þ ry þ rx Þ2 ¼ dr20 ð1Þ
3
where A = 2 + R2, d = 2R21 and the strain hardening is given by the
aforementioned flow rule. It must be highlighted that the formula-
tion of the porous material takes into account the possibility of
growth or closure of the existing porosity. In other words, at the
end of each deforming process step, the value of the relative den-
sity, calculated at the integration points within each element, is up-
_
dated taking into account that the relative density variation rate, R,
and the volumetric strain rate, e_ c , are linked by
R_
e_ c ¼  ð2Þ
R
By integration of the equation, the updated relative density is calcu-
lated as
 Z 
R ¼ R0 exp  e_ V dt ffi R0 ð1  DeV Þ; ð3Þ
where R0 is the relative density at the previous step and DeV is the
volumetric strain increment during the analyzed step.
Following the above considerations, it is easy to understand
that the porous materials formulation can be applied introducing
an initial relative density less than 100%.
For this analysis, Deform 3D was utilised; in this software, the
porous objects are treated as plastic objects (compressible rigid
viscoplastic materials) except that material density is calculated
and updated during the simulation.
The limiting strain rate and the flow stress must be specified at
the fully dense state. The material density is specified at each ele-
ment. Objects with changing material densities such as materials
used in powder forming, should be modelled as porous objects.
1284 F. Gagliardi et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 1282–1287
This method does not allow convergence capabilities, subsequently
a porous simulation may be very long [12].
The used model was built starting from an initial circular billet
with variable density along its radius; the material distribution
was uploaded changing elements density for different concentric
rings, according to the experimental evidences. The FE model is
showed in Fig. 2 and tetrahedral elements were utilized to discret-
ize the initial workpiece.
3.2. Implicit formulation of physical voids
In this case, the billet was modelled with a rigid-plastic formu-
lation. The material porosity was physically created in the model
not using mathematical formulation as in the previous methodol-
ogy. In fact, hollow spherical cavities with different diameters were
generated inside the billet in order to consider a growing material
distribution along its radius starting from the center.
The model (Fig. 3a) was generated through a parametric solid-
surface modeler (Pro-Engineer Wildfire 2). The cavities were dis-
tributed according to a suitable pattern following a random distri-
bution which respects the statistically revealed density along the
radius; subsequently, the model was implemented within the FE
code, Deform 3D, and the geometry was meshed by tetrahedral
elements (Fig. 3b).
It is important to highlight that, due to the particular geometry,
the generated mesh for this numerical simulation underwent
highly localized deformations. For this reason an action of severe
remeshing policy is implemented to replace the distorted mesh.
Obviously, this procedure increases the simulation time required
to complete the analysis.
3.3. Model for an explicit analysis
As far as the explicit analysis is concerned, the geometric model
was developed starting from the observation that, if the number of
voids is very high and their diameter is large, a good approxima-
tion is possible utilizing interconnected spheres. The strategy is
based on the definition of a triplet of spheres [22], joined by a tri-
angular flat surfaces with the vertexes located in the sphere cen-
ters (Fig. 4a). The assembling of several of these triplets is
required to have the final workpiece (Fig. 4b).
Of course, the voids diameter and the triplets position were
decided according to the density distribution along the radius. Also
in this case the model was built using Pro-Engineer Wildfire 2
Fig. 2. The model used for the implicit porous analysis.
Fig. 3. (a) The geometrical and (b) FE model the model used for the implicit analysis
using physical voids.
modeler. The model was then exported in Eta/Dynaform environ-
ment where numerical analysis was carried out (Fig. 5). Thus, the
final model is composed by a large number of spheres and flat
planes whose areas require a lot of element to be suitably meshed.
Moreover, the dimension of each element has to be as small as pos-
sible to correctly reproduce the CAD shape. To avoid short critical
time-step and, consequently, to reduce the computational time,
mass scaling was used. More in particular, a value of DT2MS
(time-step size for mass scaled solutions) less than zero was fixed;
the mass of each element whose time-step is below abs(DT2MS) is
so increased in order to guarantee a reasonable computation time
[26].
Belytschko-Lin-Tsay shell element with reduced integration and
hourglass control were used. A uniform shell thickness was chosen
in the analysis; the value, equal to 0.24 mm, was determined
respecting the actual specimen mass.
4. Results and discussion
The differences on the result qualities are highlighted through a
comparisons between the calculated and experimental evidences.
First of all, the required die load to upset the foamed workpiece
for the different analyses is reported in Fig. 6.
It is very easy to distinguish a higher startpoint for both the
curves obtained by implicit analyses, especially the plastic one;
the one obtained by the porous formulation is characterized by a
soft slope that gradually increases above all when severe deforma-
tions are applied. This is due to a not correct management of the
internal structure.
However, the plastic formulation presents a satisfactory behav-
iour, similar to the experimental evidence, in particular after the
process starting.
Even for the explicit analysis, the results are not effective at the
process beginning but, in this case, a slope lower than the experi-
mental one is obtained. The collapse mechanism of the planes con-
necting the spheres is, in fact, not exactly consistent with reality.
However, when the upsetting process begins to involve a relevant
number of spheres the predicted load draws near the experimental
one, even if a little bit overestimated. The accuracy could increase
using a different thickness of the spheres and connecting planes.
As far as the material distribution during compression test is
concerned, both explicit and implicit porous formulations showed
a similar behaviour as compared to the real case. In fact, at the
beginning of the process the metallic foam, usually, undergoes a
more emphasized crushing action near to the upper plates (Fig. 7).
 F. Gagliardi et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 1282–1287 1285

Fig. 4. (a) The single triplet of spheres and (b) their union to built the model.

Fig. 5. The constructed model used for the explicit analysis.

Fig. 6. Upper die load for the different analyses for upsetting process.

Aforementioned aspect regarding the implicit porous formula-

tion was discussed by some of the authors in a previous work
[23] where it was pointed out how the material density increases
by greater crushing action.
Moreover, the suitability of the explicit model can be observed
even for different compression direction (Fig. 8).
The ability to predict material accumulation is an important
point and it can be very useful in order to improve the quality of
the foamed products obtained through secondary operations.
On the contrary, in the plastic model the crushing mechanism
does not show the above described mechanics. The billet, in fact,
deforms mainly at the middle plane (Fig. 9).
Finally, an important variable from the user point of view is the
‘‘CPU time” including in this term both the model setup time and
the simulation one. The porous model is, surely, faster to set; in
fact, the workpiece is a simple cylindrical billet and the main time
consuming operation is due to the density elements description.
Fig. 7. Experimental (a), implicit porous (b) and explicit formulations (c) of the
billet before and after upsetting process.
On the contrary, different considerations have to be done for
both plastic and explicit model definition; the distribution of sev-
eral spherical beads inside the material was done developing a
proper algorithm in order to keep under control the density state
along the billet radius. Taking into account this aspect, the model
building is obviously time consuming.
However, it is important to point out that the plastic model re-
sulted to be easier to build as compared to the explicit one; in fact,
the material, contained by the spherical beads, can be easily re-
1286 F. Gagliardi et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 1282–1287
Fig. 8. The compressed billet: (a) experimental and (b) explicit model.
moved through Boolean operations, leading the initial billet totally
holed. For the explicit simulation, instead, the model was defined
directly by the beads surfaces introducing another variable due
to the definition of suitable planes; in fact, these ones have to guar-
antee the material continuity and, obviously, their contribution on
the total mass cannot be neglected.
However, moving the attention on the required simulation time
the scenario totally changes; the explicit simulation resulted to be
the faster as compared to both the implicit analyses.
This conclusion can be easily explained taking into account the
potentiality of the explicit formulation concerning the simulation
time reduction properly using mass scaling and time-step vs.
velocity control.
Most onerous analysis was carried out using the porous formu-
lation; this is in agreement with the above considerations concern-
ing the direct iteration method and its number of iterations trying
to approach the converged step solution. In Table 1, the CPU time
for each numerical investigation is reported. In the case of porous
materials, the direct method is the only method currently available
in Deform 3D [12]. This method does not have fast convergence
capabilities, and consequently, using the same number of ele-
ments, a porous simulation is longer than a simple plastic analysis.
Fig. 9. Implicit plastic simulation before and after upsetting process: (a) internal and (b) external side of the billet.
Table 1
‘‘Time consuming” for the three investigated numerical analyses
Porous (h) Plastic (h) Explicit (h)
Model building time 1 20 40
CPU time 198 60 15
Total time 199 85 65
However, for the case here analyzed, the porous model needs less
elements to correctly mesh the billet due to its simplicity. Never-
theless, the same number of tetrahedra was used for both implicit
analyses carried out through Deform 3D; this choice was suggested
with the aim of comparing the effective time difference between
the two numerical studies using the same initial variables. From
this point of view, even remeshing action has relevant influence;
in fact, the plastic model is characterized by irregular mesh that,
during forming simulation, needs more remeshing sequences to
complete the analyses. This aspect determines a consistent CPU
time increment with a substantial reduction of velocity in simula-
tion analyses.
It has to be highlighted, obviously, that the quality of the model
building time and the CPU time is not the same: the latter, in fact,
is a continuous operation that can be run with few human dedi-
cated resources. On the contrary, model building requires an active
human work and, for this reason, sometimes a longer CPU time can
be preferred.
5. Conclusions
The behaviour of metallic foams under deformation is very dif-
ficult to simulate with the available numerical codes. This is due to
the obtainable accuracy and the long CPU time depending on the
chosen methodology. In the paper an interesting benchmark was
carried out, not with the aim to select the best solution but to high-
light all the aspects involved in the different options.
At the end, it is possible to state that a general purpose model is
not yet available because a good prediction of the process mechan-
ics is possible but a proper model setup is required. Unfortunately,
the last issue can be expensive in terms of involved human
resources.
The use of explicit codes currently is the right way but more ef-
fort have to be spent performing automated procedures able to
build reliable models in a reasonable time.
 F. Gagliardi et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 1282–1287
Acknowledgements
This research is funded by Italian Ministry of University and Re-
search (MUR).
The authors would like to thank Mr. F. Pulice and M. Risoli for
their contribution to the development of this work and Prof. L.
Fratini from University of Palermo for his kind support in FEA.
References
[1] Simone AE, Gibson LJ. Aluminum foam produced by liquid-state process. Acta
Mater 1998;46:3109–23.
[2] Sugimura Y, Meyer J, He MY, Bart-Smith H, Grenstedt J, Evans AG. On the
mechanical performance of closed cell AL alloy foams. Acta Mater
1997;45:5245–59.
[3] Banhart J. Manufacture, characterisation and application of cellular metals and
metal foams. Prog Mater Sci 2001;46:559–632.
[4] Banhart J, Baumeister J. Deformation characteristics of metal foams. J Mater Sci
1998;33:1431–40.
[5] Kenesei P, Kàdàr CS, Rajkovits ZS, Lendvai J. The influence of cell-size
distribution on the plastic deformation in metal foams. Scripta Mater
2004;50:295–300.
[6] Benouali AH, Froyen L, Delerue JF, Wevers M. Mechanical analysis and
microstructural characterisation of metal foams. Mater Sci Technol
2002;18:489–94.
[7] Körner C, Singer RF. Processing of metal foams – challenges and opportunities.
Adv Eng Mater 2000;2:159–65.
[8] Reyes A, Hopperstad OS, Berstad T, Hanssen AG, Langseth M. Constitutive
modeling of aluminum foam including fracture and statistical variation of
density. Eur J Mech A/Solids 2003;22:815–35.
[9] Lopatnikov SL, Gama BA, Haque MJ, Krauthauser C, Gillespie Jr JW, Guden M,
et al. Dynamics of metal foam deformation during Taylor cylinder–Hopkinson
bar impact experiment. Compos Struct 2003;61:61–71.
[10] Hanssen AG, Hopperstad OS, Langseth M, Ilstad H. Validation of constitutive
models applicable to aluminium foams. Int J Mech Sci 2002;44:359–406.
1287
[11] Chen D-C. Rigid-plastic finite element analysis of plastic deformation of
porous metal sheets containing internal void defects. J Mater Process Technol
2006;180:193–200.
[12] Deform-TM 3D V5.0.3-user manual.. Columbus, OH, USA; 2006.USA: DeformTM,
Scientific Forming Technologies Corporation; 2006.
[13] Filice L, Gagliardi F, Shivpuri R, Umbrello D. Numerical simulation of foam
forging to reproduce biomechanical components. In: Proceedings of ninth
Numiform, Porto, Portugal 2007; p. 1225–31.
[14] Contorno D, Filice L, Fratini L, Micari F. Forming of aluminum foam sandwich
panels: numerical simulations and experimental tests. J Mater Process Technol
2006;177:364–7.
[15] Filice L, Fratini L, Umbrello D. On the finite element simulation of secondary
operations on metallic foams. Mater Sci Forum 2007:539–43.
[16] Meguid SA, Cheon SS, El-Abbasi N. FE modelling of deformation localization in
metallic foams. Finite Elem Anal Des 2002;38:631–43.
[17] Czekanski A, Elbestawi MA, Meguid SA. On the FE modeling of closed-cell
aluminum foam. Int J Mech Mater Des 2005;2:23–34.
[18] Shen H, Brinson LC. Finite element modeling of porous titanium. Int J Solids
Struct 2007;44:320–35.
[19] Shen H, Oppenheimer SM, Dunand DC, Brinson LC. Numerical modeling of pore
size and distribution in foamed titanium. Mech Mater 2006;38:933–44.
[20] Salimon A, Brechet Y. Potential applications for steel and titanium metal
foams. J Mater Sci 2005;40:5793–9.
[21] Murray NGD, Dunand DC. Microstructure evolution during solid-state foaming
of titanium. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:2311–6.
[22] Gagliardi F, Filice L, Umbrello D. Simulation of aluminium foam behavior in
compression tests. Submitted to AMPT 2008.
[23] Gagliardi F, Filice L, Umbrello D, Shivpuri R. Forging of metallic foams to
reproduce biomechanical components. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;480(1–2):510–6.
[24] Manisekar K, Narayanasamy R, Malayappan S. Effect of friction on barrelling in
square billets of aluminium during cold upset forging. Mater Des
2006;27:147–55.
[25] Shima S, Oyane O. Plasticity theory for porous metals. Int J Mech Sci
1976;18:285–91.
[26] LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual. Livermore, California, USA: Livermore
Software Technology Corporation; 2003.