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

Kerr, W.

  • Google
  • 4
  • 19
  • 55

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (4/4 displayed)

  • 2019Ultrasonic phased array inspection of wire + arc additive manufacture samples using conventional and total focusing method imaging approaches19citations
  • 2019Ultrasonic phased array inspection of wire + arc additive manufacture samples using conventional and total focusing method imaging approaches19citations
  • 2018Ultrasonic phased array inspection of wire plus arc additive manufacture (WAAM) samples using conventional and total focusing method (TFM) imaging approachescitations
  • 2016Investigation of synthetic aperture methods in ultrasound surface imaging using elementary surface types17citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
G., Pierce S.
2 / 6 shared
Vasilev, M.
3 / 5 shared
Javadi, Y.
2 / 6 shared
Mineo, C.
2 / 7 shared
Williams, S.
2 / 18 shared
N., Macleod C.
2 / 5 shared
Dziewierz, J.
2 / 3 shared
Ding, J.
2 / 6 shared
Gachagan, A.
2 / 4 shared
Su, R.
3 / 5 shared
Ding, Jialuo
1 / 39 shared
Dziewierz, Jerzy
1 / 9 shared
Mineo, Carmelo
1 / 15 shared
Gachagan, Anthony
1 / 76 shared
Williams, Stewart
1 / 39 shared
Javadi, Yashar
1 / 31 shared
Macleod, Charles N.
1 / 45 shared
Pierce, Stephen
2 / 51 shared
Rowe, Philip
1 / 4 shared
Chart of publication period
2019
2018
2016

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • G., Pierce S.
  • Vasilev, M.
  • Javadi, Y.
  • Mineo, C.
  • Williams, S.
  • N., Macleod C.
  • Dziewierz, J.
  • Ding, J.
  • Gachagan, A.
  • Su, R.
  • Ding, Jialuo
  • Dziewierz, Jerzy
  • Mineo, Carmelo
  • Gachagan, Anthony
  • Williams, Stewart
  • Javadi, Yashar
  • Macleod, Charles N.
  • Pierce, Stephen
  • Rowe, Philip
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Investigation of synthetic aperture methods in ultrasound surface imaging using elementary surface types

  • Kerr, W.
  • Rowe, Philip
  • Pierce, Stephen
Abstract

Synthetic aperture imaging methods have been employed widely in recent research in non-destructive testing (NDT), but uptake has been more limited in medical ultrasound imaging. Typically offering superior focussing power over more traditional phased array methods, these techniques have been employed in NDT applications to locate and characterise small defects within large samples, but have rarely been used to image surfaces. A desire to ultimately employ ultrasonic surface imaging for bone surface geometry measurement prior to surgical intervention motivates this research, and results are presented for initial laboratory trials of a surface reconstruction technique based on global thresholding of ultrasonic 3D point cloud data.In this study, representative geometry artefacts were imaged in the laboratory using two synthetic aperture techniques; the Total Focusing Method (TFM) and the Synthetic Aperture Focusing Technique (SAFT) employing full and narrow synthetic apertures, respectively. <br/>Three high precision metallic samples of known geometries (cuboid, sphere and cylinder) which featured a range of elementary surface primitives were imaged using a 5MHz, 128 element 1D phased array employing both SAFT and TFM approaches. The array was manipulated around the samples using a precision robotic positioning system, allowing for repeatable ultrasound derived 3D surface point clouds to be created. A global thresholding technique was then developed that allowed the extraction of the surface profiles, and these were compared with the known geometry samples to provide a quantitative measure of error of 3D surface reconstruction. The mean errors achieved with optimised SAFT imaging for the cuboidal, spherical and cylindrical samples were 1.3 mm, 2.9 mm and 2.0 mm respectively, while those for TFM imaging were 3.7 mm, 3.0 mm and 3.1 mm, respectively. These results were contrary to expectations given the higher information content associated with the TFM images. However, it was established that the reduced error associated with the SAFT technique was associated with significant reductions in side lobe levels of approximately 24dB in comparison to TFM imaging, although this came at the expense of reduced resolution and coverage. <br/>

Topics
  • surface
  • extraction
  • defect
  • ultrasonic