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

Rehman, Hafeez Ur

  • Google
  • 1
  • 3
  • 14

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2020Repeatability and agreement between methods for determining the Atterberg limits of fine-grained soils14citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Arthur, Emmanuel
1 / 3 shared
Pouladi, Nastaran
1 / 1 shared
Pulido Moncada, Mansonia Alejandra
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2020

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Arthur, Emmanuel
  • Pouladi, Nastaran
  • Pulido Moncada, Mansonia Alejandra
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Repeatability and agreement between methods for determining the Atterberg limits of fine-grained soils

  • Rehman, Hafeez Ur
  • Arthur, Emmanuel
  • Pouladi, Nastaran
  • Pulido Moncada, Mansonia Alejandra
Abstract

<p>The Atterberg limits (plastic limit [PL] and liquid limit [LL]) of fine-grained soils are important for civil engineering and agronomic applications. Several methodologies exist to determine the PL and LL, each with associated merits and shortcomings. The reproducibility and uncertainties associated with the various methods have not been evaluated for different samples that differ in terms of clay mineralogy and geologic origin. The objectives were to (i) assess the repeatability of two methods each for determining the PL (thread rolling and rolling device) and LL (Casagrande cup and drop cone penetrometer), and compare the subsequent plasticity indexes for 30 samples from 10 countries; and (ii) evaluate the effect of particle size (2 mm and 425 µm) on the plastic and liquid limits for 28 Venezuelan samples. For the PL, the repeatability (estimated as the repeatability coefficient, RC, among replications) for the thread rolling and rolling device methods was similar (2.28 and 2.39%, respectively). For the LL, the drop cone method was 16% more repeatable than the Casagrande cup method. There was a strong correlation between the two respective methods for PL (r<sup>2</sup> = 0.98) and LL (r<sup>2</sup> = 0.99). For samples that have LL &lt; 45, the LL from the Casagrande cup was slightly higher than LL from the drop cone, and vice versa for samples with LL &gt; 45%. No significant differences were observed between PL measured on &lt;2-mm or &lt;425-µm samples; for samples with LL &lt; 35% the two particle sizes gave similar values. There were however larger discrepancies between the two particle sizes for samples with LL &gt; 36%.</p>

Topics
  • polymer
  • plasticity