SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Journal of Technique (EJT) / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Experimental Investigation of Tensile Behavior of St37 Steel Repaired with Graphene Nano-Oxide Reinforced Epoxy Adhesive

Grafen Nano-Oksit Takviyeli Epoksi Yapıştırıcı ile Onarılan St37 Çeliğinin Çekme Davranışının Deneysel İncelenmesi

Edip Çetkin(BATMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0217-5897
Feremez Yüce(BATMAN UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE)0009-0007-7953-5663
Muhammet Enver Gökdemir(HAKKARİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Pages
16–22
Publication Date
2026-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed that increasing patch size enhanced load-bearing capacity, while GNOP addition significantly improved bonding strength.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the mechanical behavior of St37 steel repaired with epoxy adhesive (DP460) reinforced by different ratios of graphene nano-oxide particles (GNOP: 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results showed that increasing patch size enhanced load-bearing capacity, while GNOP addition significantly improved bonding strength.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, GNOP reinforcement effectively improves adhesive repair of St37 steel, with 0.2% identified as the optimal ratio.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:yapıştırma bağlantısı · Epoksi yapıştırıcı · Grafen nano oksit

Abstract

This study investigates the mechanical behavior of St37 steel repaired with epoxy adhesive (DP460) reinforced by different ratios of graphene nano-oxide particles (GNOP: 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%). Steel specimens with channels were bonded using patches and subjected to tensile tests. Results showed that increasing patch size enhanced load-bearing capacity, while GNOP addition significantly improved bonding strength. The optimum performance was obtained at 0.2% GNOP added samples, achieving a maximum tensile load of 15,138 N and elongation of 13.4 mm. Higher reinforcement ratios reduced performance due to non-uniform particle distribution. Fracture surface analysis confirmed stronger adhesion at 0.2% GNOP. Overall, GNOP reinforcement effectively improves adhesive repair of St37 steel, with 0.2% identified as the optimal ratio.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, farklı oranlarda grafen nano-oksit parçacıkları (GNOP: %0,1, %0,2, %0,3) ile güçlendirilmiş epoksi yapıştırıcı (DP460) ile tamir edilen St37 çeliğinin mekanik davranışı araştırılmıştır. Kanallı çelik numuneler yamalar kullanılarak yapıştırılmış ve çekme testlerine tabi tutulmuştur. Sonuçlar, yama boyutunun artırılmasının yük taşıma kapasitesini artırdığını, GNOP ilavesinin ise bağlama mukavemetini önemli ölçüde iyileştirdiğini göstermiştir. Optimum performans, %0,2 GNOP eklenmiş numunelerde elde edilmiş ve maksimum çekme yükü 15.138 N ve uzama 13,4 mm olmuştur. Daha yüksek takviye oranları, homojen olmayan parçacık dağılımı nedeniyle performansı düşürmüştür. Kırık yüzey analizi, %0,2 GNOP'de daha güçlü yapışma olduğunu doğrulamıştır. Genel olarak, GNOP takviyesi St37 çeliğinin yapıştırıcı tamirini etkili bir şekilde iyileştirmekte olup, optimum oran olarak %0,2 belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çetkin, E., Yüce, F., Gökdemir, M. E. (2026). Experimental Investigation of Tensile Behavior of St37 Steel Repaired with Graphene Nano-Oxide Reinforced Epoxy Adhesive. European Journal of Technique (EJT), Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.36222/ejt.1796089

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Z. Li, X. Jiang, and H. Hopman, “Surface crack growth in offshore metallic pipes under cyclic loads: A literature review,” J. Mar. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, no. 5, p. 339, May 2020, doi: 10.3390/jmse8050339.
  2. S. Deng, X. Tian, Y. Liu, B. Zhao, W. Shi, and J. Tan, “Optimizing guided wave propagation for sensitive axial stress measurement in steel pipes,” NDT & E Int., vol. 147, p. 103182, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2024.103182.
  3. D. K. Singh, A. Villamayor, and A. Hazra, “Numerical and experimental analysis of loctite adhesive composite wrapping on EN 10028 steel pipe,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 44, pp. 4158–4165, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2023.104003.
  4. Y. Feng et al., “Research progress and prospect of key technologies for high-strain line pipe steel and pipes,” Nat. Gas Ind. B, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 146–153, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ngib.2020.09.015.
  5. S. Vishnuvardhan, A. R. Murthy, and A. Choudhary, “A review on pipeline failures, defects in pipelines and their assessment and fatigue life prediction methods,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Piping, vol. 201, p. 104853, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2022.104853.
  6. A. Eidaninezhad, P. Ziyaei, and A. Zare, “An overview of marine pipeline repair methods,” in Proc. 8th Int. Offshore Ind. Conf., Jun. 2019.
  7. K. Mohammadi, “Repair methods for damaged pipeline beyond diving depth,” M.S. thesis, Univ. Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway, 2011.
  8. Z. Lin and S. Li, “Study on interfacial mechanical properties of bonded pipe joint under dynamic load,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 16, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36369.
  9. C. R. De Luca, J. F. Sathler, F. F. Enne, J. M. Reis, and H. S. Da Costa Mattos, “Cyclic inelastic behaviour of a bonded patch repair system used for pipes with through-wall corrosion damage,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 164, p. 108657, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2024.108657.
  10. D. K. Singh, A. Villamayor, and A. Hazra, “Numerical and experimental analysis of loctite adhesive composite wrapping on EN 10028 steel pipe,” Mater. Today: Proc., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 4158–4165, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.525.
  11. A. Dorigato, A. Pegoretti, F. Bondioli, and M. Messori, “Improving epoxy adhesives with zirconia nanoparticles,” Compos. Interfaces, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 873–892, 2010, doi: 10.1163/092764410X539253.
  12. A. M. Pinto, J. Martins, J. A. Moreira, A. M. Mende, and F. D. Magalhães, “Dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets in poly(vinyl acetate) latex and effect on adhesive bond strength,” Polym. Int., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 928–935, 2013.
  13. H. R. Borghei, B. Behjat, and M. Yazdani, “The impact of graphene nanoparticle additives on the strength of simple and hybrid adhesively bonded joints,” J. Compos. Mater., vol. 53, no. 23, pp. 3335–3346, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0021998318817588.
  14. S. Han, Q. Meng, S. Arababy, T. Liu, and M. Demiral, “Mechanical and electrical properties of graphene and carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy adhesives: Experimental and numerical analysis,” Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 120, pp. 116–126, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.02.027.
  15. S. M. J. Razavi, M. R. Ayatollahi, A. G. Nemati, and H. Khoramishad, “Single lap joints bonded with structural adhesives reinforced with a mixture of silica nanoparticles and multi walled carbon nanotubes,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 80, pp. 76–86, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.10.007.
  16. M. A. S. Sadigh and G. Marami, “Enhancing fatigue life in adhesively bonded joints using reduced graphene oxide additive: Experimental and numerical evaluation,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 84, pp. 283–290, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.04.001.
  17. I. A. Akpinar, K. Gültekin, S. Akpinar, H. Akbulut, and A. Ozel, “Experimental analysis on the single-lap joints bonded by a nanocomposite adhesive which obtained by adding nanostructures,” Compos. B: Eng., vol. 110, pp. 420–428, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.046.
  18. E. Çetkin, “Investigation of the effects of use of GNP and GNP reinforced nano-fibers with epoxy adhesive on tension tests,” Eur. J. Tech., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 175–181, 2021.
  19. A. Ozel, M. Aydin, and Ş. Temiż, “The effects of overlap length and adherend thickness on the strength of adhesively bonded joints subjected to bending moment,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 313–325, 2004.
  20. D. Quan, D. Carolan, C. Rouge, N. Murphy, and A. Ivankovic, “Mechanical and fracture properties of epoxy adhesives modified with graphene nanoplatelets and rubber particles,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 81, pp. 21–29, 2018.
  21. X. Wang, L. Song, W. Pornwannchai, Y. Hu, B. Kandola, “The effect of graphene presence in flame retarded epoxy resin matrix on the mechanical and flammability properties of glass fiber-reinforced composites,” Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf.; 53:88-96, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2013.05.017.
  22. T. Topkaya, Y. H. Çelik, and E. Kilickap, “Mechanical properties of fiber/graphene epoxy hybrid composites,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., vol. 34, pp. 4589–4595, 2020.
  23. H. Ejaz, A. Mubashar, E. Uddin, Z. Ali, and N. Arif, “Effect of functionalised and non-functionalised GNPs addition on strength properties of high viscous epoxy adhesive and lap shear joints,” Polym. Test., vol. 113, p. 107680, 2022.
  24. I. Kılınç, “Evaluation of biological and fire resistance of Scots pine wood impregnated with commercial copper-based preservatives,” BioResources, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 9804–9816, 2025.
  25. M. Budakçı, D. Şağban, M. Korkmaz, and I. Kılınç, “Laminated wood material reinforced with bacterial cellulose sheets derived from kombucha pellicles: Part 1—Some physical properties,” BioResources, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 8976–8992, 2025, doi: 10.15376/biores.20.4.8976-8992.
  26. S. Chatterjee et al., “Mechanical reinforcement and thermal conductivity in expanded graphene nanoplatelets reinforced epoxy composites,” Chem. Phys. Lett., vol. 531, pp. 6–10, 2012.