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

Sinaei, Hamid

  • Google
  • 2
  • 6
  • 109

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2013Comparison of behaviour between channel and angle shear connectors under monotonic and fully reversed cyclic loading109citations
  • 2011Assessing the strength of reinforced concrete structures through Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Schmidt Rebound Hammer testscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Shariati, Ali
1 / 3 shared
Suhatril, Meldi
1 / 2 shared
Khanouki, M. M. Arabnejad
1 / 3 shared
Shariati, Mahdi
2 / 6 shared
Shafigh, Payam
1 / 2 shared
Arabnejad, Mohammad Mehdi
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2013
2011

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Shariati, Ali
  • Suhatril, Meldi
  • Khanouki, M. M. Arabnejad
  • Shariati, Mahdi
  • Shafigh, Payam
  • Arabnejad, Mohammad Mehdi
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparison of behaviour between channel and angle shear connectors under monotonic and fully reversed cyclic loading

  • Shariati, Ali
  • Suhatril, Meldi
  • Sinaei, Hamid
  • Khanouki, M. M. Arabnejad
  • Shariati, Mahdi
Abstract

<p>Channel shear connectors are used to transfer longitudinal shear forces through the steel-concrete interface in composite beams. Angle shear connectors without bottom flange compared to channel shear connectors could be cheaper and more economic by saving more steel material. This paper presents an experimental evaluation for comparison of the behaviour of channel and angel shear connectors under monotonic and fully reserved cyclic loading based on 16 push-out tests. The connection shear resistance, ductility and failure modes are presented and discussed. By comparing the channel and angle shear connectors, it was concluded that angle shear connectors showed 7.5-36.4% less shear strength than channel shear connectors under monotonic loading and 23.6-49.2% under fully reversed cyclic loading. Connector's fracture type of failure was experienced for both channel and angle connectors. After the failure, more cracking was observed in slabs with channels compared to slabs with angles. Furthermore, in despite of sufficient ductility for all channel connectors, angle connectors showed less ductility. The results indicate that the angle shear connector gave good behaviour in terms of the ultimate shear capacity; however, this type of connector cannot satisfy the ductility criteria imposed by some codes. In the end, the shear load capacities obtained from the experiments are compared with those suggested by the design codes.</p>

Topics
  • experiment
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • strength
  • steel
  • composite
  • ductility