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

Al-Rifaie, Hasan

  • Google
  • 2
  • 6
  • 23

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2023Quasi-static and impact behaviour of foam-filled graded auxetic panel23citations
  • 2022Comparative Assessment of Commonly Used Concrete Damage Plasticity Material Parameterscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Krstulovic-Opara, Lovre
1 / 2 shared
Novak, Nejc
1 / 7 shared
Vesenjak, Matej
1 / 8 shared
Łodygowski, Tomasz
1 / 1 shared
Airoldi, Alessandro
1 / 2 shared
Ren, Zoran
1 / 11 shared
Chart of publication period
2023
2022

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Krstulovic-Opara, Lovre
  • Novak, Nejc
  • Vesenjak, Matej
  • Łodygowski, Tomasz
  • Airoldi, Alessandro
  • Ren, Zoran
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparative Assessment of Commonly Used Concrete Damage Plasticity Material Parameters

  • Al-Rifaie, Hasan
Abstract

The non-homogeneous and non-linear mechanical behaviour of concrete complicates the numerical simulations of its corresponding material model. The concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model is one of the most popular constitutive models for concrete. State-of-the-art CDP material parameters are introduced in Abaqus documentation [1], Jankowiak and Łodygowski [2], and Hafezolghorani et al. [3]. Accordingly, this paper presents a novel comparative study of these commonly-used concrete CDP parameters by assessing the response of plain concrete specimens under quasi-static loading conditions. The research conducts standard laboratory tests: compressive strength test of a concrete cube and three-point flexural test of a plain concrete beam. Sophisticated non-linear computational models are built using Abaqus/CAE and analysed using Abaqus/Explicit solver. The results discuss and compare deformations, damage patterns, reaction forces, compressive strength, tensile stress and modulus of rapture. The thorough study concludes that choosing CDP parameters is case-dependant and should be selected carefully.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • simulation
  • strength
  • plasticity
  • three-point flexural test