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

Gelfi, M.

  • Google
  • 13
  • 36
  • 281

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (13/13 displayed)

  • 2024The corrosion resistance of maraging steel 1.2709 produced by L-PBF in contact with molten Al-alloys1citations
  • 2023Wear Behavior of Nb Alloyed Gray Cast Iron for Automotive Brake Disc Application8citations
  • 2023White steel slag from ladle furnace as calcium carbonate replacement for nitrile butadiene rubber: A possible industrial symbiosis9citations
  • 2023OPTIMIZATION OF HTC VALUE BY INVERSE MODEL BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT OF A 26.6-ton STEEL INGOTcitations
  • 2022Evolution of Melt Pool and Porosity During Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Ti6Al4V Alloy: Numerical Modelling and Experimental Validation11citations
  • 2021Wear Behavior of AlSi10Mg Alloy Produced by Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion and Gravity Casting31citations
  • 2020Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Cracking, Sulfide Stress Cracking, Galvanic-Induced Hydrogen Stress Cracking, and Hydrogen Embrittlement Resistance of Aged UNS N06625 Forged Bars4citations
  • 2020Development of Heat Treatments for Selective Laser Melting Ti6Al4V Alloy: Effect on Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, and Corrosion Resistance30citations
  • 2020Effect of a New High-Pressure Heat Treatment on Additively Manufactured AlSi10Mg Alloy18citations
  • 2017Optimization of heat treatment parameters for additive manufacturing and gravity casting AlSi10Mg alloy35citations
  • 2016A critical comparison between XRD and FIB residual stressmeasurement techniques in thin films67citations
  • 2015On the ageing of a hyper-eutectic Zn-Al alloycitations
  • 2014A critical comparison between XRD and FIB residual stress measurement techniques in thin films67citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Marchini, L.
1 / 4 shared
Tonolini, P.
3 / 3 shared
Montesano, L.
5 / 8 shared
Pola, A.
9 / 20 shared
Bontempi, G.
1 / 2 shared
Ramorino, G.
1 / 9 shared
Gobetti, A.
1 / 7 shared
Cornacchia, G.
2 / 8 shared
Svanera, M.
1 / 1 shared
Bergamaschi, F.
1 / 1 shared
Mantelli, A.
1 / 2 shared
Viscardi, C.
1 / 2 shared
Tocci, M.
4 / 14 shared
Ceretti, E.
1 / 18 shared
Ginestra, P.
1 / 5 shared
Ransenigo, C.
1 / 2 shared
Palo, F.
1 / 1 shared
Cavagnola, M.
1 / 1 shared
Montani, R.
1 / 1 shared
Veronesi, C.
1 / 1 shared
Brognoli, E.
1 / 1 shared
Febbrari, A.
1 / 1 shared
Ferrario, D.
1 / 4 shared
Cecchel, S.
1 / 7 shared
M., La Vecchia G.
1 / 3 shared
Girelli, L.
1 / 1 shared
Korsunsky, A.
1 / 91 shared
Sebastiani, M.
2 / 18 shared
Lunt, A.
1 / 6 shared
Depero, L.
1 / 1 shared
Bemporad, E.
2 / 20 shared
Brisotto, M.
2 / 2 shared
La Vecchia, G. M.
1 / 4 shared
Korsunsky, A. M.
1 / 18 shared
Depero, L. E.
1 / 2 shared
Lunt, Alexander J. G.
1 / 31 shared
Chart of publication period
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2017
2016
2015
2014

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Marchini, L.
  • Tonolini, P.
  • Montesano, L.
  • Pola, A.
  • Bontempi, G.
  • Ramorino, G.
  • Gobetti, A.
  • Cornacchia, G.
  • Svanera, M.
  • Bergamaschi, F.
  • Mantelli, A.
  • Viscardi, C.
  • Tocci, M.
  • Ceretti, E.
  • Ginestra, P.
  • Ransenigo, C.
  • Palo, F.
  • Cavagnola, M.
  • Montani, R.
  • Veronesi, C.
  • Brognoli, E.
  • Febbrari, A.
  • Ferrario, D.
  • Cecchel, S.
  • M., La Vecchia G.
  • Girelli, L.
  • Korsunsky, A.
  • Sebastiani, M.
  • Lunt, A.
  • Depero, L.
  • Bemporad, E.
  • Brisotto, M.
  • La Vecchia, G. M.
  • Korsunsky, A. M.
  • Depero, L. E.
  • Lunt, Alexander J. G.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

A critical comparison between XRD and FIB residual stress measurement techniques in thin films

  • Sebastiani, M.
  • Korsunsky, A. M.
  • Bemporad, E.
  • Depero, L. E.
  • Brisotto, M.
  • Gelfi, M.
  • Lunt, Alexander J. G.
Abstract

<p>Residual stress has a significant effect on the performance of thin films, in terms of adhesion, hardness, wear and fatigue resistance. Thus, when assessing innovative coatings or new deposition technologies, it is important to perform residual stress evaluation by means of a suitable and reliable technique. X-ray diffraction (XRD) is one of the commonly used techniques, because it is non-destructive, surface sensitive and phase selective. However, it is subject to certain limitations: X-ray diffraction allows stress evaluation (i.e. its indirect deduction from the measured diffraction profile) only in case of crystalline materials, and the results may be subject to aberrations in the presence of texture or stress gradients often occurring in thin films. Recently, a new class of methods for residual stress evaluation has been proposed, based on incremental focused ion beam (fib) milling, combined with high-resolution in situ scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging and full field strain analysis by digital image correlation (DIC). The aim of the present paper is to explore in some detail the significance of the stress values obtained for the same coating by X-ray diffraction and focused ion beam milling, and to demonstrate that the analysis of residual stress depth gradients is possible by using FIB-DIC techniques. Finally, a comparative assessment of the weaknesses and strengths of the two techniques will be carried out. For this purpose, a chromium nitride highly textured thin film sample was chosen. The residual stress state evaluation by the two methods was carried out for the coating deposited by the cathodic arc evaporation (CAE-PVD) technique. Although many significant differences were identified between the X-ray diffraction and focused ion beam milling methods, careful consideration of the gauge volumes and weighting demonstrated that satisfactory agreement was obtained. The analysis highlighted the importance of the issues related to (a) probe-to-sample interaction volume (gauge volume), (b) film texture, and (c) the elastic anisotropy. All these factors must be taken into account in order to enable valid comparisons to be drawn.</p>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • surface
  • chromium
  • phase
  • scanning electron microscopy
  • x-ray diffraction
  • thin film
  • grinding
  • milling
  • physical vapor deposition
  • nitride
  • strength
  • fatigue
  • hardness
  • focused ion beam
  • texture
  • evaporation