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

Bagehorn, Timo

  • Google
  • 2
  • 4
  • 28

Aalborg University

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2023The Effect of Footwear Outsole Material on Slip Resistance on Dry and Contaminated Surfaces with Geometrically Controlled Outsoles18citations
  • 2022Evaluation of an actuated force plate-based robotic test setup to assess the slip resistance of footwear10citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Lysdal, Filip Gertz
2 / 3 shared
Jakobsen, Lasse
2 / 4 shared
Kersting, Uwe G.
2 / 2 shared
Sivebaek, Ion Marius
2 / 2 shared
Chart of publication period
2023
2022

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Lysdal, Filip Gertz
  • Jakobsen, Lasse
  • Kersting, Uwe G.
  • Sivebaek, Ion Marius
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

The Effect of Footwear Outsole Material on Slip Resistance on Dry and Contaminated Surfaces with Geometrically Controlled Outsoles

  • Bagehorn, Timo
  • Lysdal, Filip Gertz
  • Jakobsen, Lasse
  • Kersting, Uwe G.
  • Sivebaek, Ion Marius
Abstract

<p>Previous studies have compared slip resistance of commercially available footwear, however, often lacking the ability to isolate factors such as material and surface properties, or/and geometry. The aim of this study was to compare slip resistance of geometrically identical shoes with varying outsole materials. Three left Ecco Xpedition III shoes were constructed out of three different outsole materials: polyurethane (PU), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and vulcanised rubber (RU). The shoes were tested for dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) on a steel and a tile surface, without contamination and with glycerine and canola oil as contaminants. The shoes were significantly (p &lt; 0.001) different from each other across all surface/contaminant conditions/combinations, with the PU having a significantly 61–125% (p &lt; 0.001) higher DCOF on contaminated surfaces compared to the RU outsole. Practitioner summary: Previous research has suggested the importance of studying individual parameters separately of footwear in relation to slip resistance. In this study, we managed to construct geometrically identical shoes and compare the slip resistance between three different outsole materials. We found that the polyurethane outsole was the least slippery choice of material for this specific footwear model on contaminated surfaces.</p>

Topics
  • surface
  • steel
  • thermoplastic
  • rubber
  • coefficient of friction