journal article·2025-08-20Open access

Feasibility and performance evaluation of randomly oriented strand recycled composite skins in sandwich structures: A green cost‐effective solution for aerospace secondary load‐bearing applications

Yağız Özbek, Abdulrahman Al‐Nadhari, Sinem Elmas, Volkan Eskizeybek, Mehmet Yıldız, Hatice S. Sas

Polymer Composites· Volume 46· Issue 12

Abstract

Abstract Despite the advantages of recycled randomly oriented strand (ROS) composites over recycled grinded ones, the warpage issue hinders their adaptation in the industry due to tolerance requirements. To address this challenge, ROS composites are incorporated into secondary bonded sandwich structures such that the core material ensures the straightness of the ROS composite skins. Additionally, atmospheric plasma activation (APA) is utilized to enhance the skin/core bonding to prevent skin separation under loading. The ROS composite skins are manufactured via vacuum‐assisted hot press to achieve a cost‐effective aerospace‐grade quality. The structural integrity of the sandwich structure is assessed through flatwise tensile and edgewise compression tests, while the mechanical and thermomechanical performance is evaluated using flexural, impact, and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) tests. The flatwise tensile and edgewise compression tests confirm that APA effectively prevents core detachment, as evidenced by an average tensile strength of 2.28 MPa and an average compressive strength of 171.7 MPa. Moreover, the flexural and impact tests show that no premature skin failure occurs, supported by an average facing strength of 59.23 MPa in flexural testing and an average impact energy of 49.96 kJ/m 2 . The DMA test indicates that most of the stiffness loss is due to the core material. This comprehensive analysis highlights recycled ROS composites as a sustainable and cost‐effective alternative for quasi‐isotropic skins in aerospace secondary load‐bearing sandwich structures such as floors, doors, engine cowls, and spoilers. Highlights The core material serves as a structural stabilizer, eliminating skin warpage. Flatwise tensile test proves the efficiency of APA treatment. Edgewise compression test shows warpage does not induce skin/core debonding. The absence of premature failure illustrates the robustness of the structure.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Cellular and Composite Structures

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Sabanci University Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Research and Application Center & Composite Technologies Center of Excellence, Manufacturing Technologies Sabanci University Istanbul Turkey

Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences Sabanci University Istanbul Turkey

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Çanakkale Turkey

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering The University of Sheffield Sheffield UK

Funding

Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştirma Kurumu · Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi

References (59)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2021.10930110.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2021.109301 ↗
2. 10.1016/J.JCOMC.2020.10000410.1016/J.JCOMC.2020.100004 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.tws.2020.10687410.1016/j.tws.2020.106874 ↗
4. 10.4172/2169‐0022.100034110.4172/2169‐0022.1000341 ↗
5. 10.3390/jcs703010210.3390/jcs7030102 ↗
6. 10.1016/J.TWS.2020.10696110.1016/J.TWS.2020.106961 ↗
7. 10.1177/0892705715604681/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0892705715604681‐FIG13.JPEG10.1177/0892705715604681/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0892705715604681‐FIG13.JPEG ↗
8. 10.1016/J.MATDES.2007.03.00310.1016/J.MATDES.2007.03.003 ↗
9. 10.1533/9780857093554.3.39710.1533/9780857093554.3.397 ↗
10. 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2006.07.01010.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2006.07.010 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10607110.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106071 ↗
12. 10.1177/0731684416687042/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0731684416687042‐FIG10.JPEG10.1177/0731684416687042/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0731684416687042‐FIG10.JPEG ↗
13. 10.1115/1.403743210.1115/1.4037432 ↗
14. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2005.07.00510.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2005.07.005 ↗
15. 10.1002/pc.2929010.1002/pc.29290 ↗
16. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2024.10810110.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2024.108101 ↗
17. SunD StyliosGK.Effect of low temperature plasma treatment on the scouring and dyeing of natural fabrics.2004;74(9):751‐756. doi:10.1177/00405175040740090110.1177/004051750407400901 ↗
18. MandegarianS HojjatiM MoghaddarH.Thermoplastic composite sandwich panels with recycled PET foam core: a manufacturing process assessment.2024. doi:10.1177/0892705724129102110.1177/08927057241291021 ↗
19. 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2024.11834010.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2024.118340 ↗
20. 10.1177/109963622090994910.1177/1099636220909949 ↗
21. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2024.10821110.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2024.108211 ↗
22. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2018.04.00510.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2018.04.005 ↗
23. 10.1177/089270571984455010.1177/0892705719844550 ↗
24. 10.1002/PC.2919910.1002/PC.29199 ↗
25. 10.1002/pi.622010.1002/pi.6220 ↗
26. 10.31399/ASM.HB.V21.A000347110.31399/ASM.HB.V21.A0003471 ↗
27. 10.1002/PC.2713910.1002/PC.27139 ↗
28. 10.3390/JCS501002810.3390/JCS5010028 ↗
29. 10.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2015.10.01510.1016/J.COMPSCITECH.2015.10.015 ↗
30. WangY SavageL.Manufacturing of pre‐impregnated discontinuous PAEK/CF composite.Proceedings of the 21st international conference on composite materials.2017.
31. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.10781710.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107817 ↗
32. 10.1177/002199831561312910.1177/0021998315613129 ↗
33. LeblancD LandryB JancikM HubertP.Recyclability of randomly‐oriented strand thermoplastic composites. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on composite materials.2015.
34. EguémannN GigerL MasaniaK DransfeldC ThiebaudF PerreuxD.Processing of characterisation of carbon fibre reinforced peek with discontinuous architecture. Proceedings of the 16th European conference on composite materials.2014.
35. 10.1177/0021998321100224710.1177/00219983211002247 ↗
36. 10.1177/002199831984459010.1177/0021998319844590 ↗
37. 10.1177/0731684422114344810.1177/07316844221143448 ↗
38. Toray Cetex® TC1320 PEKK · 2022
39. Aerospace Grade Nomex® Honeycomb.AXIOM materials.https://axiommaterials.com/products/aerospace-grade-nomex-honeycomb/
40. Scotch‐Weld 3M.Technical datasheet AF 163‐2 structural adhesive film.2009.
41. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2025.11223210.1016/j.compositesb.2025.112232 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.03.02910.1016/j.compositesa.2005.03.029 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.10850710.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108507 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11254510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112545 ↗
45. Singh MK · 2021
46. KhanS LokenHY.Bonding of sandwich structures—the facesheet/honeycomb interface: a phenomenological study. Proceedings of SAMPE.2007.
47. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.00610.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.006 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.03410.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.034 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.10946310.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109463 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.09.04610.1016/j.compstruct.2009.09.046 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2003.07.00110.1016/j.compositesb.2003.07.001 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.10.00710.1016/j.compstruct.2006.10.007 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.finel.2007.08.00510.1016/j.finel.2007.08.005 ↗
54. 10.1177/1099636223115992510.1177/10996362231159925 ↗
55. 10.1002/pc.2731110.1002/pc.27311 ↗
56. 10.1080/14328917.2019.164049710.1080/14328917.2019.1640497 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.11.00910.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.11.009 ↗
58. 10.37358/mp.17.1.478810.37358/mp.17.1.4788 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.10013610.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100136 ↗