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

Kotsovos, Michael

  • Google
  • 1
  • 3
  • 0

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2015RC structural walls under cyclic loading - Experimental verification of code overestimation of transverse reinforcement reduction potentialscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Giannakis, Ioannis
1 / 1 shared
Paine, Kevin A.
1 / 49 shared
Papatzani, Styliani
1 / 21 shared
Chart of publication period
2015

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Giannakis, Ioannis
  • Paine, Kevin A.
  • Papatzani, Styliani
OrganizationsLocationPeople

document

RC structural walls under cyclic loading - Experimental verification of code overestimation of transverse reinforcement reduction potentials

  • Giannakis, Ioannis
  • Paine, Kevin A.
  • Papatzani, Styliani
  • Kotsovos, Michael
Abstract

In the present study a shear wall of 1.7 m length, 1.7 m height and 0.15 m<br/>width was designed, in compliance with the Greek Code for Reinforced Concrete (GCRC) and the Compressive Force Path method (CFP). The 1.7 m long wall, designed according to the current GCRC was constructed and tested under cyclic loading, applied in two phases. Under the first one, the specimen reached a displacement of 38.5 mm and a load of 710 kN and under the second one, the maximum displacement was 72 mm and the load 675 kN. It was concluded that the load carrying capacity of the wall was 25% greater than the design value estimated by the GCRC. The experimental value of uncracked stiffness was ¼ of the value delivered according to the GCRC. The ductility of the specimen was 3.3 in the first phase of the testing procedure (uncracked state) while in the second (first crack had occurred) was 6.2. The widest and longest crack was formed at the base of the wall, where predicted. Moreover, the steel structure used for the experiment remained flexible, notwithstanding alterations made. The comparison of the wall reinforcement designed according to the GCRC and the CFP showed that the latter method demands less amount of transverse reinforcement to achieve the same objectives as the former.

Topics
  • phase
  • experiment
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • crack
  • steel
  • ductility