J O U R N A L O F M A T E R I A L S S C I E N C E L E T T E R S 1 8 (1 9 9 9 ) 1007 – 1010
Correlation between Young’s modulus and porosity
in porous materials
J . K O V ÁČI K
Institute of Materials and Machine Mechanics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Račianska 75, P.O. Box 95, 830 08
Bratislava, Slovak Republic
E-mail: ummsjk@savba.savba.sk
During the last few years, progress in predicting the
elastic properties of porous materials over an entire
porosity range has been closely related to the power-law
empirical relationship of Phani and Niyogi [1]
µ ¶
p f
E = E0 · 1 − (1)
pc
where E is the effective Young’s modulus of porous
material with porosity p, E 0 is Young’s modulus of
solid material, pc is the porosity at which the effective
Young’s modulus becomes zero and f is the parameter
dependent on the grain morphology and pore geome-
try of porous material [1]. As was noted by Wagh et al.
[2], fittings of the experimental data to Equation 1 often
give pc = 1 [1, 3] and do not explain the data accurately.
In recent experimental works, either pc ≡ 1 is prefer-
ably used [4–6] or a linearized model ( f ≡ 1) by Lam
et al. [7] is used, where pc is considered to be an initial
powder porosity.
In this letter, it will be shown that the empirical rela-
tionship shown in Equation 1 is identical with the per-
colation theory equation for the behavior of Young’s
and shear modulus with porosity. Further, the applica-
bility of the percolation model for Young’s modulus of
porous materials will be demonstrated and the results
will be discussed.
The porous materials are preferably prepared from
powders, the particle size and shape of which can vary
significantly. During the powder consolidation, various
porosities can be achieved by varying the technologi-
cal parameters such as temperature, external pressure or
time. Compacting starts from just touching powder par-
ticles and goes to the lower porosity by the creation and
growth of the necks between particles. The subsequent
closure of the pore channels leads to the elimination
of the pores. Three various porosity ranges can be usu-
ally identified, e.g., Danninger et al. [8] observed for
sintered iron the following porosity ranges:
1. porosity ≤3%: fully isolated pores of nearly spher-
ical or elliptical shape
2. porosity ≥20%: fully interconnected pores of
complex shape
3. porosity between 3% and 20%: both isolated and
interconnected pores are present in various amounts.
This indicates that the powder consolidation is in
general a connectivity problem, which is studied by
the percolation theory [9]. According to the percola-
tion theory, there exists a critical volume fraction nc ,
0261–8028 °
C 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers
called a percolation threshold, at which a solid phase
forms a continual network spanning the whole system.
At and above the percolation threshold, the geometri-
cal, physical and mechanical properties of the system
behave as
E ∝ (n − n c ) f for n ≥ n c (2)
where E is an investigated property, n is the volume
fraction of the solid material and f is the critical expo-
nent theoretically predicted for the investigated prop-
erty.
The percolation theory expects that the values of the
critical exponents are universal, i.e., they do not de-
pend on the structure and geometrical properties of the
system but only depend on the dimension of the prob-
lem [9]. On the other hand, the value of the percolation
threshold depends significantly on the structure. In a
three-dimensional (3D) structure, the experimental val-
ues of the percolation threshold as low as 0.06 vol %
and as high as 60 vol % were found [10, 11].
When in Equation 2 the porosity instead of the vol-
ume fraction of powder is used, p = 1 − n, one obtains
E ∝ ( pc − p) f for p ≤ pc (3)
Hence, Equation 3 ought to satisfy the boundary con-
dition E = E 0 ; at p = 0 it can be expressed as follows
µ ¶f
pc − p
E = E0 for p ≤ pc (4)
pc
which is identical to Equation 1.
The percolation theory predicts f = 2.1 for Young’s
modulus in 3D [12]. This value is determined for an in-
finite cluster or when all dimensions of the system tend
to infinity. In the continuum, however, this universal be-
havior is often affected by the finite size of the system
[13], thus giving a characteristic exponent instead of a
critical exponent. It implies that for all porous materi-
als the characteristic exponent f ought to be nearly the
same. On the other hand, the value of the percolation
threshold is a function of the powder size, shape, their
distributions and the preparation method. This is often
missed in the literature [1, 3, 6], where the experimen-
tal data from various sources are joined in an attempt
to obtain the wider porosity range for the investigated
material, thus leading to the unrealistic values of the
fitting parameters pc and f .
1007
T A B L E I Fitting results for powder size influence on Young’s mod- T A B L E I I I Fitting results for porosity range influence on Young’s
ulus porosity dependence for porous Th2 O [14] (χ 2 is a minimization modulus porosity dependence for sintered iron
function)
Sintered iron Porosity
Th2 O powder Porosity reference range E 0 (GPa) pc f χ2
size (µm) range E 0 (GPa) pc f χ2
[16] 0–0.22 212.1 ± 3.5 0.41 ± 0.09 1.13 ± 0.36 33.2
0–2 0–0.33 263.9 ± 3.4 0.37 ± 0.02 1.22 ± 0.10 18.7 [8] + [16] 0–0.28 213.2 ± 3.1 0.42 ± 0.05 1.19 ± 0.28 31.5
2–4 0–0.39 264.2 ± 3.9 0.52 ± 0.04 1.36 ± 0.17 18.9
4–44 0–0.27 262.9 ± 3.3 0.46 ± 0.06 1.13 ± 0.23 11.3

T A B L E I I Fitting results for preparation method influence on Young’s

modulus porosity dependence for porous Si3 N4 [15]

Si3 N4 doped Porosity

with range E 0 (GPa) pc f χ2

5 wt % MgO 0–0.44 315.7 ± 6.7 0.53 ± 0.03 1.66 ± 0.18 14.1

5 wt % CeO2 0–0.38 284.1 ± 4.3 0.44 ± 0.02 1.13 ± 0.12 28.0
12 wt % Y2 O3 + 0–0.12 264.9 ± 3.6 0.31 ± 0.19 0.94 ± 0.75 29.2
8 wt % SiO2

Figure 2 Influence of preparation method on Young’s modulus porosity

dependence for porous Si3 N4 [15] doped with: (—䊊—) 12 wt % Y2 O3 +
8 wt % SiO2 ; (- -䊉- -) 5 wt % MgO; (· · · 䉫 · · ·) 5 wt % CeO2 .

Figure 1 Influence of powder size on Young’s modulus porosity depen-

dence for porous Th2 O [14]: (- - 䊊 - -) 0–2 µm; (· · · 䊉 · · ·) 2–4 µm;
(—䉫—) 4–44 µm.

The influence of the powder size can be illustrated

using the data for sintered Th2 O [14]. The percolation
threshold increases with increasing size of used Th2 O
powder (see Table I). It is due to the fact that the finer
powder (0–2 µm) possesses higher packaging capabil-
ity than the larger one (2–4 µm). The fitting results for
the powder size of 4–44 µm deviates from this (see
Fig. 1), but the porosity range for this powder is signif-
icantly smaller than for finer ones.
The influence of the preparation method can be
shown using porous Si3 N4 [15]. The characteristic ex-
ponent for porous Si3 N4 doped with 5 wt % MgO is
much higher than characteristic exponents for porous
Si3 N4 doped either with 5 wt % CeO2 or 12 wt % Y2 O3
+ 8 wt % SiO2 (see Table II and Fig. 2). Also in this case,
the small porosity range of Si3 N4 doped with 12 wt %
Y2 O3 + 8 wt % SiO2 gives a very low estimate of the
fitting parameters.
It indicates that the increase of the porosity range up
to the percolation threshold can lead to the increase of
the values of fitting parameters. This can be demon-
strated using the experimental data of sintered iron:
1008
Figure 3 Young’s modulus porosity dependence for sintered iron: (䊊)
data by Panakkal et al. [16], (䊉) extended by Danninger et al. [8]. Solid
line is Equation 4 for all data.
The same data by Panakkal et al. [16] in the porosity
range 0–0.22 were extended by Danninger et al. [8]
to the porosity range of 0–0.28. Even such a small in-
crease of the porosity range significantly increases the
values of the obtained fitting parameters (see Table III
and Fig. 3).
The influence of the powder shape can be illustrated
using sintered α-Al2 O3 trigonal corundum [17]. There,
an egg-shaped powder possesses smaller packaging ca-
pabilities and, therefore, the higher percolation thresh-
old than the spherical powder (Figs. 4 and 5). Hence,
the sonic measurements of Young’s modulus were per-
formed for porosity from 0.2 up to pc , and it was nec-
essary to include the Young’s modulus of solid alumina
E 0 = 401 GPa [17] into the fitting data. Table IV shows
T A B L E I V Fitting results for powder shape influence on Young’s modulus porosity dependence for porous alumina [17]
α-Al2 O3 Powder shape Porosity range E 0 (GPa)
Spherical–bending 0–0.39 399.6 ± 7.7
Spherical–sonic 0–0.39 398.7 ± 6.5
Egg-shaped–bending 0–0.42 425.2 ±10.9
Egg-shaped–sonic 0–0.43 401.6 ± 7.0
Figure 4 Young’s modulus porosity dependence for α-Al2 O3 trigo-
nal corundum [17], sonic measurement: (—䊊—) spherical powder;
(· · · 䉬 · · ·) egg-shaped powder.
Figure 5 Young’s modulus porosity dependence for α-Al2 O3 trigo-
nal corundum [17], bending measurement: (— 䊊—) spherical powder;
(· · · 䉬 · · ·) egg-shaped powder.
also that there exists significant difference between the
sonic and bending fitting parameters for both powder
types.
The available experimental data of Young’s modulus
of porous materials are usually from a narrow low-
porosity range far from the percolation threshold. This
problem can in some cases be overcome by using the tap
porosity as the percolation threshold. The characteris-
tic exponent can then be better estimated. Fig. 6 il-
lustrates this approach for sintered alpha–two titanium
alumide [5] and sintered glass [18]. From Table V, it can
be seen that the obtained estimates of the characteris-
tic exponent are more reasonable. The fitting results
for both materials, however, do not fit well with the
high-porosity data, possibly because the value of the
pc f χ2
0.43 ± 0.02 1.25 ± 0.13 96.2
0.43 ± 0.01 1.15 ± 0.06 43.3
0.47 ± 0.03 1.39 ± 0.18 234.1
0.46 ± 0.01 1.20 ± 0.06 51.4
Figure 6 Log–log plot of Young’s modulus versus 1 − p/ pc ; pc ≡
0.37 is tap porosity: (· · · 䊊 · · ·) sintered alpha–two titanium alumide [5];
(—䉬—) sintered glass [18], bending measurement.
Figure 7 Log–log plot of Young’s modulus versus 1 − p/ pc for sintered
glass [18], bending measurement. pc ≡ 0.42 is initial powder porosity.
percolation threshold corresponds to the initial pow-
der porosity. Unfortunately, the initial powder porosity
was mentioned only for sintered glass [18]. Setting this
value into Equation 1 also gives a good fit for high-
porosity data (Fig. 7).
In summary, the percolation model was found to de-
scribe fairly well the Young’s modulus–porosity depen-
dence of porous materials. It was further shown that it
is necessary to have a porosity range as wide as possi-
ble for the investigated material prepared by the same
preparation method from the same type of the powder,
to incorporate the property of the solid material into
fitting process (when known) and to estimate the per-
colation threshold (preferably the initial powder poros-
ity). Only when these requirements are fulfilled can one
1009
T A B L E V Influence of estimation of percolation threshold on the characteristic exponent for Young’s modulus of sintered alpha–two titanium
alumide [5] and sintered glass [18]

Material Porosity range E 0 (GPa) pc f χ2

Alpha–two titanium alumide 0–0.30 97.2 ± 3.3 0.45 ± 0.12 1.64 ± 0.62 12.1
Alpha–two titanium alumide (tap porosity) 0–0.30 95.9 ± 3.2 ≡0.37 1.18 ± 0.10 14.1
Glass–static 0–0.35 55.6 ± 4.3 0.53 ± 0.15 2.03 ± 0.98 1.0
Glass–static (tap porosity) 0–0.35 52.6 ± 2.7 ≡0.37 1.02 ± 0.13 32.6
Glass–static (initial porosity) 0–0.35 54.2 ± 2.6 ≡0.42 1.32 ± 0.15 29.3
Glass–dynamic 0–0.30 73.2 ± 2.6 0.95 ± 0.87 4.35 ± 4.57 14.4
Glass–dynamic (tap porosity) 0–0.30 69.4 ± 1.8 ≡0.37 1.28 ± 0.07 17.2
Glass–dynamic (initial porosity) 0–0.30 70.3 ± 1.8 ≡0.42 1.56 ± 0.08 15.7

obtain the realistic value of the characteristic exponent References

for Young’s modulus of porous material. When they are
not fulfilled, the obtained values are merely the best fit-
ting parameters valid only for the investigated porosity
range.
Almost all investigated materials possess the value
of the characteristic exponent f for Young’s modulus
in the range of 1.10–1.70. As was mentioned previ-
ously, in 3D f = 2.1 [12]. Low value of f can probably
be explained by the mechanical stability of the porous
material at early stages of the consolidation process:
The stability of the system is provided by small vol-
umes in and around the necks between the particles.
There, the created bonds are significantly weaker than
inside the particles due to the high concentration of the
surface inhomogeneities, cracks and impurities. The re-
gions of unbound particles encapsulated inside the cre-
ated skeleton can be also found. Uncertainty about the
precise determination of the percolation threshold,
however, can be another reason for low values of f.
Only the porous Si3 N4 doped with 5 wt % MgO can
be clearly considered as a 3D system, f = 1.66 ± 0.18.
It is probably due to the fact that MgO improves
the binding between Si3 N4 powder particles, thus in-
creasing the load-carrying volume near the percola-
tion threshold. The obtained result is similar to f =
1.66 ± 0.07 for the Young’s modulus of porous alu-
minum foam (porosity range 0–0.85, pc ≡ 1) [19]. In
this case, the lower value of the characteristic exponent
is due to the finite size of the system.
It must be noted that all presented ideas need further
investigation in the field of Young’s and shear modulus
of porous materials.
1. K . K . P H A N I and S . K . N I Y O G I , J. Mater. Sci. 22 (1987) 257.
2. A . S . W A G H , R . B . P O E P P E L and J . P . S I N G H , ibid. 26
(1991) 3862.
3. K . K . P H A N I and S . K . N I Y O G I , J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 6 (1987)
511.
4. A . R . B O C C A C I N I , G . O N D R A C E K and E . M O M B E L L O ,
ibid. 14 (1995) 534.
5. T . E . M A T I K A S , P . K A R P U R and S . S H A M A S U N D A R ,
J. Mater. Sci. 32 (1997) 1099.
6. A . K . M A I T R A and K . K . P H A N I , ibid. 29 (1994) 4415.
7. D . C . L A M , F . F . L A N G E and A . G . E V A N S , J. Amer.
Ceram. Soc. 77 (1994) 2113.
8. H . D A N N I N G E R , G . J A N G G , B . W E I S S and R .
S T I C K L E R , pmi 25 (1993) 170 and 219.
9. D . S T A U F F E R and A . A H A R O N Y , “Introduction to Percola-
tion Theory,” 2nd ed. (Taylor & Francis, London, 1992).
10. R . S C H U E L E R , J . P E T E R M A N N , K . S C H U L T E and H . P .
W E N T Z E L , J. Appl. Pol. Sci. 63 (1997) 1741.
11. I . B A L B E R G and N . B I N E N B A U M , Phys. Rev. B 35 (1987)
8749.
12. M . S A H I M I , “Applications of Percolation Theory” (Taylor &
Francis, London, 1994) p. 185.
13. I . B A L B E R G and N . B I N E N B A U M , Phys. Rev. B 33 (1986)
2017.
14. S . S P I N N E R , F . P . K N U D S E N and L . S T O N E , J. Res. Natl.
Bur. Std. 67C (1963) 39.
15. G . de P O R T U and P . V I N C E N Z I N I , “XIII Siliconf.,” Vol. 1
(Budapest, Hungary, 1981) p. 265.
16. J . P . P A N A K K A L , H . W I L L E M S and W . A R N O L D ,
J. Mater. Sci. 25 (1990) 1397.
17. J . C . W A N G , ibid. 19 (1984) 801 and 809.
18. L . C O R O N E L , J . P . J E R N O T and F . O S T E R S T O C K ,
ibid. 25 (1990) 4866.
19. J . K O V ÁČI K and F . S I M A N ČÍK , Scripta Mater. 39 (1998) 239.
Received 6 October 1998
and accepted 11 February 1999

1010