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

Bilberg, Arne

  • Google
  • 3
  • 5
  • 12

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (3/3 displayed)

  • 2022Value Chain Comparison of Additively and Conventionally Manufactured Multi-Cavity Tool Steel Inserts:An Injection Molding Industrial Case Study for High-Volume Production6citations
  • 2022Value Chain Comparison of Additively and Conventionally Manufactured Multi-Cavity Tool Steel Inserts6citations
  • 2011Bio-inspired smart sensors for a hexapod robotcitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Sahlab, Mohamed
2 / 2 shared
Tosello, Guido
2 / 101 shared
Malik, Ali Ahmad
1 / 1 shared
Raza, Mohsin
1 / 4 shared
Moshiri, Mandaná
2 / 8 shared
Chart of publication period
2022
2011

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Sahlab, Mohamed
  • Tosello, Guido
  • Malik, Ali Ahmad
  • Raza, Mohsin
  • Moshiri, Mandaná
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Value Chain Comparison of Additively and Conventionally Manufactured Multi-Cavity Tool Steel Inserts

  • Sahlab, Mohamed
  • Bilberg, Arne
  • Tosello, Guido
  • Moshiri, Mandaná
Abstract

The development of injection molding tools is an expensive, time-consuming, and resource-intensive process offering little to no flexibility to adapt to variations in product design. Metal additive manufacturing can be used to produce these tools in a cost-effective way. Nevertheless, in an industrial context, effective methods are missing for the selection of the most suitable technology for the given tooling project. This paper presents a method to compare process chains based on additive and conventional subtractive technologies for the manufacturing of metal tooling for injection molding. The comparison is based on a technology focused-performance analysis (TFPA) through computer simulation performed using Tecnomatix Plant Simulation developed by Siemens Digital Industries Software combined with a customized cost–benefit economic analysis tool. The analysis of the technology comparison highlights potential bottlenecks for production, such as the printing phase and the heat treatment. It also gives a deeper understanding of the technology maturity level of conventional milling machines against laser powder bed fusion machines. The result is that the total costs for an insert made by AM and CM are indeed rather similar (the cost difference between the two tooling process chains is lower than 5%). The cost analysis reveals major costs drivers in the production of high-performance molding tools, such as the cutting tools employed for the milling steps and their changeover frequency. The industrial case of a 32-cavity mold insert for plastic injection molding is used to perform the study, develop the analysis, and validate the results.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • polymer
  • phase
  • simulation
  • grinding
  • milling
  • selective laser melting
  • tool steel
  • injection molding