Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Omosa, Geoffrey Barongo

  • Google
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2024Matrix‐phase material selection for shape memory polymer composites2citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Mutua, J. M.
1 / 1 shared
Jen, T. C.
1 / 17 shared
Akinlabi, Esther Titilayo
1 / 235 shared
Chart of publication period
2024

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Mutua, J. M.
  • Jen, T. C.
  • Akinlabi, Esther Titilayo
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Matrix‐phase material selection for shape memory polymer composites

  • Mutua, J. M.
  • Jen, T. C.
  • Akinlabi, Esther Titilayo
  • Omosa, Geoffrey Barongo
Abstract

In the present study, the selection of suitable shape memory polymers (SMPs) to be used as the matrix‐phase material with various (In)organic filler materials to achieve the required optimum multi‐stimuli response in shape memory polymer composites (SMPC) systems is analyzed. The selection of these materials is based on their mechanical and physical properties as well as other underlying factors such as cost, availability, shape recovery rate, and aesthetic characteristics. In this study, the entropy method was applied to estimate the weightages of the various criteria while the gray relation analysis (GRA) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). Multi‐criteria decision‐making (MCDM) approaches have been used to rank the suitable matrix‐phase polymer materials for manufacturing shape memory polymer composites (SMPC) system. A total of eight alternative SMP matrix‐phase materials based on a set of nine criteria were analyzed and ranked. The proposed methodology and the result obtained thereof have been illustrated in detail. The results obtained from TOPSIS and GRA methods have been compared to conclude the effects of the material properties on the ranking and the selection of the SMP materials. Among all the eight alternatives considered, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) was found to be the best material in both the MCDM methods. The material cost, resistivity, % elongation, and hydrophobicity present the most influencing properties on the SMP material selection, whereas density presents no effect on the SMP matrix material selection. The robustness of the results for the comparative analysis was verified using TOPSIS methodology to validate its reliability. It was revealed that the TPU, polycarbonate, polypropylene, and epoxy‐resin/poly(lactic acid) are the most dominant matrix‐phase SMP material alternatives when a deviation in the entropy weights of the primary evaluation criteria is applied. The novelty of this study is the exploration and application of statistical MCDM methods of engineering material selection problems based on a set of decision criteria, which can be time‐consuming and costly while using experimental analysis methods. Highlights: SMPCs are applicable engineering materials thus making their research viable. SMPC systems can undergo various shape changes under external stimuli. Selection of matrix‐phase polymer is critical in achieving desired objectives. GRA and TOPSIS MCDM approaches have been applied in the selection process. TPU was found as the best material in both methods.

Topics
  • density
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • resistivity
  • phase
  • composite
  • resin
  • thermoplastic