The Use of Waste-derived Materials in Road Construction

P Coopland and M G Winter

November 2021

Prepared for the Scottish Road Research Board

through the Roads Collaboration Programme under a contract placed by
Improvement Service
This report has been prepared for the Scottish Road Research Board through the Roads
Collaboration Programme under a contract placed by Improvement Service.
© Queen’s Printer for Scotland 2021

This report has been produced by Winter Associates Limited and Coopland Consultancy
Limited under a contract with Improvement Service. Any views expressed in this report are
not necessarily those of the Scottish Road Research Board, the Roads Collaboration
Programme or the Improvement Service.
The information contained in this report does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of
the customer for whom it was prepared. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that its
content is relevant, accurate and up-to-date, Winter Associates Limited and Coopland
Consultancy Limited cannot accept any liability for any error or omission, or reliance on part
or all of the content in another context.

This document is intended to be used and read electronically. In the event that it must be
printed it has been structured so as to read best when printed double-sided.

The cover image shows the construction of the Echline Recycled Road c. 2000.
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 5
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 9
2 SUSTAINABILITY AND WASTE ............................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Sustainable Innovation ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Waste Management ................................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Waste-derived Materials in Asphalt ........................................................................................... 15
2.5 When Recycling Becomes Disposal ............................................................................................. 16
3 MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Glass ............................................................................................................................................ 20
3.2 Rubber......................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Plastics......................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Health and Safety Considerations ............................................................................................... 31
3.5 Life Cycle Assessment ................................................................................................................. 33
3.6 Material Costs ............................................................................................................................. 34
4 EMISSIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND RECYCLABILITY.................................................................. 37
4.1 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 37
4.2 Particle Emission Potential.......................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Water Pollution Potential ........................................................................................................... 38
4.4 Recyclability of Rubber and Plastic Modified Asphalt ................................................................ 38
4.5 Critical Raw Materials ................................................................................................................. 40
5 OTHER OPPORTUNITIES ..................................................................................................................... 41
5.1 Pavement Foundation and Earthworks ...................................................................................... 41
5.2 Bound Lower Pavement Layers................................................................................................... 42
5.3 Footpath, Cycleway and Car Park Surfacings .............................................................................. 42
5.4 Drainage ...................................................................................................................................... 43
5.5 Street Furniture, Signs, Barriers and Traffic Cones ..................................................................... 43
5.6 Environmental Barriers ............................................................................................................... 44
5.7 Closed-loop Recycling ................................................................................................................. 44
6 INTRODUCING INNOVATIVE MATERIALS TO THE ROAD NETWORK .................................................. 47
6.1 Product and Design Standards and Construction and Maintenance Specifications ................... 47
6.2 Current Materials ........................................................................................................................ 47
6.3 Future Materials.......................................................................................................................... 48
6.4 Protocol for Material Introduction ............................................................................................. 49

3
7 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................ 53
7.1 Glass ............................................................................................................................................ 53
7.2 Rubber......................................................................................................................................... 53
7.3 Plastics......................................................................................................................................... 54
7.4 Microplastics in the Environment ............................................................................................... 55
7.5 Future Use ................................................................................................................................... 57
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 59
8.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 59
8.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 60
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX A: CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX B: LOCAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................... 77
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURERS ......................................................... 79
APPENDIX D: INFORMATION ON UK TRIALS ......................................................................................... 81

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Scottish road network is diverse, ranging from motorways, trunk roads and ‘A’-roads,
through city and town streets, to remote rural roads, including single-track roads with passing
places. Roads are key facilitators for socio-economic activity and growth, linking industry and
markets, supporting tourism and providing communities with access to employment, health,
educational, social and leisure opportunities and activities.
Road authorities must ensure an adequate level of service, including that the road is safe and
fit for purpose. In order to achieve this aim published standards and specifications are used
to define, or specify, the required quality, performance, compatibility and compliance of
materials and products used in road construction, operation and maintenance.
The use of recycled and waste-derived materials in road construction has been a key topic of
discussion within the roads construction and maintenance industry for several decades. In
recent years the use of waste-derived glass, rubber and plastics in bitumen or asphalt has
been promoted, sometimes with claims of dramatically increased performance and/or as an
effective means of managing such wastes that would otherwise be destined for landfill or
used as fuel.
A great deal of focus is currently placed, nationally and internationally, on the creation of new
construction products incorporating wastes or waste-derived materials that can substitute
for virgin raw materials or enhance product performance. Manufacturers, some with little or
no construction and/or materials background, are driving this ‘innovation’ often without
robust processes being followed to ensure the technical efficacy and performance of
products, thorough assessment of their whole life environmental impacts and costs, or the
development of robust standards and specifications.
For those who procure road surfacing materials, the volume and credibility of information is
a cause for concern. With constrained budgets and political pressure to increase the green
credentials of infrastructure construction and maintenance, a single authoritative reference,
pulling together the outcomes, results and conclusions of recent studies, is required to inform
decision-making so that costly and environmentally damaging mistakes can be averted.
This report focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on road surfacing materials containing
waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic, referencing information from the past five years or
so, from within Scotland and the rest of the UK, as well as internationally where relevant.
Following an introduction, Section 2 addresses key issues related to sustainability and waste
including how innovation can be achieved sustainably, the principles of waste management,
and the use of waste-derived materials in asphalt. Section 3 reviews available information on
the use of the three materials considered here – waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic – as
additives to bitumen and asphalt. This includes health and safety considerations, life cycle
assessment and material costs. Section 4 considers emissions to the environment and the
recyclability of these materials once they reach their end of life.

5
While the core of this report considers surfacing materials , opportunities for the use of waste-
derived rubber and plastic, in particular, in other parts of road infrastructure are described in
Section 5. In order to encourage the use of innovative materials and processes in road
surfacing a preliminary protocol is proposed (Section 6) for their introduction in a controlled
fashion so that adequate technical performance and environmental scrutiny is achieved.
In Section 7 the current state regarding the potential use of waste-derived glass, rubber and
plastic is discussed in road surfacings. Issues related to the release of nano and microplastics
to the environment and the potential future use of waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic
are also discussed. Conclusions are drawn and recommendations made in Section 8.

Key Conclusions
The use of glass in road surfacings, or other parts of the road asset, is unlikely to progress
further in the context of the strong lead being provided by the UK glass industry towards a
system of closed-loop recycling that effectively keeps waste-derived glass within that
industry.
The use of waste-derived rubber may increase if the claimed performance benefits of
rubberised road surfacings can be proven in the UK, particularly as currently there is a lack of
capacity for sustainably treating end of life tyres. However, concerns remain regarding waste-
derived material quality control (including the potential for contaminants and the suitability
of tyres for processing into asphalt additive materials) and the potential for the release of
microplastics during pavement service and at end of life.
The case for waste-derived plastics to improve the performance of bitumen or asphalt is far
from proven. There are also concerns around the quality control of mixed waste-derived
plastics and this needs to be addressed to prevent batch and ultimately pavement
performance variation.
Uses of plastic in roads in Scotland to date largely constitute demonstration projects rather
than formal trials to assess technical performance. The demonstrations all appear to use the
dry process, in which plastics, are added to the asphalt mix as a binder extender or enhancer.
No evidence is available to suggest that a formal design process has been undertaken to
optimise the performance of the final mix.
In addition, and as for rubber, there are significant concerns around the release of
microplastics to the environment. The Scottish Government has signalled its intention to
tackle the microplastic problem and has gone so far as to introduce legislation to prevent the
sale of goods such as cosmetics and personal hygiene products which contain plastic
microbeads (The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (Scotland) Regulations 2018).
Scotland is also a signatory to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy global
commitment to end plastic pollution and it is questionable therefore whether the use of
waste-derived plastics in road surfaces is aligned with government policy.

6
Modular plastic roads made with waste-derived materials have also been trialled, most
notably in the Netherlands. These also raise concerns regarding the release of microplastics
to the environment, particularly as a result of wear during their service life.
The issue of microplastics is one that is of great concern to society and in isolation would point
to a decision to cease the use of waste-derived plastics in road surfacings. In combination
with the lack of clear performance benefits from the addition of waste-derived plastics to
bitumen or asphalt a decision to not use such materials seems straightforward.
The use of waste-derived rubber or plastics in pavement foundations, earthworks and
unbound and bound lower pavement layers is also not recommended due to the same
concerns surrounding the release of microplastics at the end of the service life. It is perhaps
noteworthy that Highways England ceased the use of fibre reinforced soil in late-2018. For
footway, cycleways and car parks, where increased performance is not required, the use of
such materials can only be described as a means of linear landfill. This is not intended to
include fully-accredited geosynthetic materials that form discrete layers within the structure
rather than exist within the mix in a random distribution.
Where there does seem to be some potential to allow for the use of waste-derived plastic in
parts of the road asset is where these are non-composite/single-material, quality controlled
products. These might include drainage elements, kerbs, street furniture, signs, barriers,
traffic cones and environmental barriers. Indeed, the authors are aware of moves within the
industry to promote, trial and use such products. Notwithstanding this, there is a need to
ensure the control of the potential release of microplastics, particularly if the products may
need to be cut during construction. In addition, as with all such products particular attention
would need to be paid to ensuring in-service durability, including resistance to the deleterious
effects of UV-light on material stability, and end of life applications. Closed-loop recycling of
such products is to be encouraged.
A protocol for the introduction of innovative materials and processes, including those
containing waste-derived materials, to the road network has been proposed. This is tentative
and intended as a starting point for further development prior to implementation. The
protocol considers technical, financial, environmental, and health and safety aspects of
innovative materials and processes. The focus is on pavement surfacing materials but it could
be extended to encompass other asset features albeit that other disciplines, earthworks for
example, would require a rather different approach to the detailed evaluation process.
This work will help Scottish roads authorities to continue to assist and contribute to the
delivery of government priorities, including those related to climate change.

Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Based on the evidence currently available there is, as yet, no viable
technical, environmental or economic case for the use (addition or replacement) of waste-
derived glass or plastic in asphalt.

7
Recommendation 2: While the research is further advanced for waste-derived rubber
(addition or replacement) than for plastic, the available technical and environmental case for
its use in asphalt does not yet fully-support its use. Further research and trials are needed in
this area including through the use of the protocol described in Section 6.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that waste-derived (or virgin) rubber or plastic not be
used in unbound pavements layers, including the foundation layer(s), or in earthworks other
than as fully-accredited geosynthetic materials.
Recommendation 4: It is recommended that in the future the use of waste-derived materials
in road surfacing and other structural and foundation layers should be subject to the scrutiny
of the Transport Scotland Pavement Forum (TSPF) under the protocol described in
Recommendation 6.
Recommendation 5: Opportunities should be sought to use waste-derived materials and
products in other non-composite/single material-type, quality controlled products. These
might include drainage elements, kerbs, street furniture, signs, barriers, traffic cones and
environmental barriers. Such use should be subject to a full evaluation of the technical,
financial, environmental, and health and safety efficacy and impacts of the product.
Recommendation 6: A protocol to steer the appropriate and constructive use of waste-
derived materials and products in pavements should be introduced.
Recommendation 7: That the protocol in Recommendation 6 be extended to include
innovative (non-waste) materials, products and processes that are proposed for use in
pavements and innovative (waste-derived and non-waste) materials, products and processes
in other elements of the road asset.

8
1 INTRODUCTION
The Scottish road network is diverse, ranging from motorways, trunk roads and ‘A’-roads,
through city and town streets, to remote rural roads, including single-track roads with passing
places. Roads are key facilitators for socio-economic activity and growth, linking industry and
markets, supporting tourism and providing communities with access to employment, health,
educational, social and leisure opportunities and activities.
Road authorities must ensure an adequate level of service, including that the road is safe and
fit for purpose. In order to achieve this aim published standards and specifications are used
to define, or specify, the required quality, performance, compatibility and compliance of
materials and products used in road construction, operation and maintenance.
The use of recycled and waste-derived materials in road construction has been a key topic of
discussion within the roads construction and maintenance industry for several decades. In
recent years the use of waste-derived glass, rubber and plastics in bitumen or asphalt has
been promoted, sometimes with claims of dramatically increased performance and/or as an
effective means of managing such wastes that would otherwise be destined for landfill or
used as fuel.
A great deal of focus is currently placed, nationally and internationally, on the creation of new
construction products incorporating wastes or waste-derived materials that can substitute
for virgin raw materials or enhance product performance. Manufacturers, some with little or
no construction and/or materials background, are driving this ‘innovation’ often without
robust processes being followed to ensure the technical efficacy and performance of
products, thorough assessment of their whole life environmental impacts and costs, or the
development of robust standards and specifications.
For those who procure road surfacing materials, the volume and credibility of information is
a cause for concern. With constrained budgets and political pressure to increase the green
credentials of infrastructure construction and maintenance, a single authoritative reference,
pulling together the outcomes, results and conclusions of recent studies, is required to inform
decision-making so that costly and environmentally damaging mistakes can be averted.
This report focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on road surfacing materials containing
waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic, referencing information from the past five years or
so, from within Scotland and the rest of the UK, as well as internationally where relevant.
This project seeks to:
• Identify road surfacing materials and products that are currently being used by, and/or
promoted to, Scottish road authorities.
• Evaluate the use of such materials and products against robust suitability criteria.
• Identify future opportunities to meet such criteria and assist in the meeting of targets
for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

9
Specific aims of this project are as follows:
• The provision of consistent advice to Scottish road authorities on the relevance and
applicability of currently available new and innovative road surfacing materials
incorporating waste or waste-derived materials.
• Challenge claims of long-term benefits, including those related to technical
performance, cost-effectiveness, environmental credentials and end-of-life issues.
• Identify emerging areas where further research and development could be beneficial to
Scottish road authorities.
• Identify materials that could enhance the road sector contribution to national
environmental objects and priorities.
• Point towards the development of a process for assessment and control of the
introduction of new and/or innovative surfacing materials containing waste-derived
materials.
Section 2 addresses key issues related to sustainability and waste including how innovation
can be achieved sustainably, the principles of waste management, and the use of waste-
derived materials in asphalt. Section 3 reviews available information on the use of the three
materials considered here – waste-derived glass, rubber and plastics – as additives to bitumen
and asphalt. This includes health and safety considerations, life cycle assessment and material
costs. Section 4 considers emissions to the environment and the recyclability of these
materials once they reach their end of life.
While the core of this report considers surfacing materials , opportunities for the use of waste-
derived rubber and plastic, in particular, in other parts of road infrastructure are described in
Section 5. In order to encourage the use of innovative materials and processes in road
surfacing a preliminary protocol is proposed (Section 6) for their introduction in a controlled
fashion so that adequate technical performance and environmental scrutiny is achieved.
In Section 7 the current state regarding the potential use of waste-derived glass, rubber and
plastics is discussed in road surfacings. Issues related to the release of nano and microplastics
to the environment and the potential future use of waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic
are also discussed. Conclusions are drawn and recommendations made in Section 8.
The work presented in this report has been informed by consultation with the Scottish road
authorities (the local authorities, via the SCOTS Roads Working Group, and Transport
Scotland), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), trade bodies, professional
associations, manufacturers and other UK road authorities. A survey of Scottish local
authorities was undertaken as reported in Appendices A and B, while the details of
information requests made to manufacturers of waste-derived materials are contained in
Appendix C. Details of UK road trials using waste-derived materials are given in Appendix D.

10
2 SUSTAINABILITY AND WASTE
2.1 Background
The road construction and maintenance industry in Scotland, and more widely, has an
enviable track record in reusing and recycling waste materials. As an industry that operates
within challenging budget constraints there is a continued incentive to source cost-effective
materials, rationalise labour and plant usage, and compress the construction programme
where it is both safe and technically possible.
In addition to purely economic factors, the drive in recent years has been toward reduced
carbon use, in support of greenhouse gas emission targets, and increased asset and network
resilience, in order to improve network availability and improve journey time reliability. The
economic, environmental and resilience drivers in road transport are linked by both simple
relations, as is the case for fuel costs and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and by more
complex relations as is the case for travel costs and resilience.
Such activities were given a greater focus by the declaration of a ‘climate emergency’ by
Scotland’s First Minister in April 2019; Scottish Government and local authorities have been
tasked with improving their environmental credentials within their procurement policies and
activities. Whilst data from the European Asphalt Pavement Association (EAPA) estimates that
up to 80%1 of asphalt planings generated from road maintenance are recycled, there is an
increasing awareness of the potential to substitute virgin materials with less traditional
materials such as waste-derived glass, rubber and plastics in asphalt mixes. This is not a new
concept, but despite extensive research activity, particularly related to the use of rubber, in
the last 20 years or more there has been limited interest in the widespread use of products
containing such materials until recently.
There has also been an increasing global awareness of the need to ‘remanufacture’ products
(closed-loop recycling) to reduce reliance on the use of virgin raw materials. Currently
technology gaps, processed capacity, increased CO2 and costs associated with
remanufacturing still mean that alternative uses for some waste-derived products are a
preferable option.
The route to market acceptance for waste-derived materials in the construction industry is
complex. There is no single source of reference information for both technical and
environmental acceptance of asphalts incorporating wastes or waste-derived materials other
than conventional asphalt planings and often the requirements of these two different forms
of acceptance can seem contradictory.
Whilst innovation is welcomed within the road construction industry, this needs to be
controlled. In the case of waste-derived materials it is clear that the use of such materials is
beneficial to the broad objectives of sustainable construction if it is at least as technically
effective as the conventional alternative, it does not increase and preferably decreases CO2
(or other greenhouse gas) emissions, and it does not create other unacceptable
environmental emissions including noise and air and water borne pollutants.

1
https://www.asphaltadvantages.com/en/advantages/sustainability/81 (interrogated September 2020)

11
In order to meet sustainability and by association, climate change criteria, the following must
be considered as a minimum by those procuring road surfacing materials:
• Adequate technical product performance (i.e. suitability for use recognising that
different asphalt mixes are required depending on road usage and local conditions).
• Acceptable longevity to ensure resilience of the network.
• Ensure end of life issues are adequately dealt with and that future reuse or recyclability
is assured (Figure 1).
• Environmental impacts (also considering carbon usage and CO2 emissions during
product manufacture), including whether the use of a particular waste-derived material
as a substitute for a virgin component in asphalt is the best option or simply a disposal
route.
• Value for money.
• The health and safety of workers and the general public during processing, application
and use are assured. In the case of road surfacing materials this includes emissions such
as noise, air and water borne pollutants, and the skid resistance throughout the life of
the product.

Figure 1. Cycle of aggregate use and potential reuse from extraction to final disposal (from Winter
& Henderson 2001, modified from Kennedy 1999).
This accords with circular economy principles and that of the waste hierarchy, namely
prevention, minimisation, reuse, recycling, energy recovery (not relevant for this project) and
disposal.

12
2.2 Sustainable Innovation
New materials and products comprising or containing waste-derived materials rarely emerge
fully-formed from within an industry, and construction is no exception. More typically such
ideas emerge from those outside the industry who make a link between an available waste
material (which is often problematic to manage within the circular economy framework) and
a common construction material-type to create an apparently green solution or opportunity.
Often relatively little knowledge of the construction industry or the true function of the asset
that it is proposed to replace, or be incorporated into, is brought to bear during the
development of the product.
Typically, the introduction of a new material to the construction market follows the sequential
stages set-out in Figure 2. First applications are often undertaken with little civil engineering
input. However, where these are successful, and the beneficial properties and cost
advantages of the materials are clear these will often lead to the involvement of professionals
and to research, development, and demonstration and trial projects. Again, if these are
successful, there may be an opportunity to develop standards and specifications that conform
to national requirements. At this point large civil engineering contractors may begin to take
an interest in the product. Indeed, this mirrors the experience of tyre bales that were used in
the repair works on Interstate Highway 30 (Prikryl et al. 2005) in Texas and the construction
of a major English strategic road, the A421, linking the A1(M) and M1 (Winter 2011). Another
example is steel slag which now appears in Portuguese construction standards (Gomes
Correia et al. 2016).

Figure 2. The development of business-based on the production and sale of waste-derived

material products (from Winter & Gomes Correia 2019).
During this period, the interest in using the product can be significant, but the experience in
the UK is that actual take-up is limited by environmental regulation constraints and the
limitations imposed on stock and distribution networks. For those materials that have been
removed from the waste stream at the point of production (e.g. recovered aggregates in the
UK) the uptake in use can be significant; figures from industry body the Mineral Products

13
Association (MPA) suggest that the use of recycled aggregate in the UK increased by almost
10% from 2015 to 2017 while remaining relatively constant for 20182.
The process outlined in Figure 2, while somewhat idealised, broadly represents the sequence
of activities in bringing products containing waste-derived materials to the market. However,
marketing aimed at the public and elected members unfamiliar with the rigorous testing
required to support manufacturers’ claims, can sometimes influence the procurement of
these products before adequate evidence of performance and risk assessment has been
provided. This ultimately creates a financial risk for road authorities, and particularly for local
authorities where budgets are tight, in that poor performance and legacy issues can further
erode resources in the long term.
This process broadly mirrors the Gartner Hype Cycle in which new products and techniques
go through five sequential development phases: the technology trigger, the peak of inflated
expectations, the trough of disillusionment, the slope of enlightenment and the plateau of
productivity. The latter is only reached as the product or technique becomes widely accepted
and ceases to become viewed as novel and no longer requires to be trialled (Hansford 2016;
Jones et al. 2017; Winter et al. 2018).

2.3 Waste Management

The fundamental principle of waste management is that it must be undertaken without
endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular:
a) without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals;
b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; and
c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
This precautionary approach has formed the basis for all waste regulation in the European
Union since the first Waste Framework Directive in 1975.
This predicates that where the consequences of an action are unknown it should either not
be permitted or should only be allowed subject to adequate controls being in place to
eradicate, as far as possible, any potentially negative consequences. In the context of this
project this might be applied to the potential for waste-derived material in road surfaces to
reach the aquatic and soil environments as a result of road surface wear or to consider
suitability for use where there is a lack of certainty on the end of life reuse options of road
surfaces containing these materials.
Another principle of effective waste management, which is also included in the Directive,
relates to proximity. At its most basic this means that there is a preference for dealing with
waste close to its point of arising, often meaning the reuse of site-won materials. The
construction industry has used this principle in the balancing of site-won materials in cut and
fill for earthworks operations since the onset of the first large-scale formally-designed

2
https://mineralproducts.org/documents/Contribution_of_Recycled_and_Secondary_Materials_to_Total_Aggr
egates_Supply_in_GB_in_2018.pdf (interrogated September 2020)

14
infrastructure networks for canals and railways in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
respectively.
The term waste-derived material is used throughout this report for two reasons:
1. Some materials may be classified as waste when used in asphalt production, and the
asphalt or bitumen manufacturing process and potentially the subsequent use of the
asphalt may need to be regulated in accordance with waste regulatory controls.
2. Some materials that were waste may be considered to be fully recovered for the
purpose they are being used for (in asphalt), usually if it can be shown that they will
be a substitute for a virgin equivalent material or will enhance the material they are
being used in. The exception to this will be if the use of the waste is likely to increase
the potential impact of the asphalt on the environment and/or human health. If a
waste is fully recovered, it is classified as a product and waste regulatory controls do
not apply.
As mentioned in Section 2.1, the best environmental option for most wastes is to use them in
the manufacture of similar products (e.g. use glass cullet to produce more glass products, and
so on) and many industries have signed up to commitments to do this. Despite this, there will
inevitably be instances where remanufacturing technology, capacity, facility proximity,
unacceptable increases in carbon use, CO2 emissions and cost, amongst other factors, will
mean that this is not always feasible and alternative beneficial uses of the waste need to be
identified.

2.4 Waste-derived Materials in Asphalt

The focus in this report is on the use of waste-derived materials as an alternative to, or an
enhancement of, virgin materials in the manufacture of asphalt. Asphalt planings (except
where they include waste-derived additives) are specifically excluded as their recyclability is
well-documented and controlled by current standards and specifications.
The concept of using problematic waste streams as a material substitute for virgin raw
materials from finite natural resources is a potentially environmentally acceptable approach.
However, it is important to establish the benefits associated with using the recovered waste
materials before adopting them, to ensure that solving one problem does not create another.
In addition, it is necessary to be sure that this does not compromise a more effective and
sustainable solution to the original waste problem.
Glass, rubber and plastic are the most commonly considered potential asphalt additives, but
some of the more unusual wastes that have been considered on an experimental basis include
cooking oil, cigarette butts and products derived from the pyrolysis of pig manure
(Tahmoorian at al. 2018). It is important to question whether the use of such waste-derived
materials in road construction constitutes a beneficial use or is simply an alternative means
of disposal, by creating a linear landfill. It is also important to establish whether asphalt
containing waste-derived additives can be recycled and whether any additional special
measures need to be taken to facilitate recycling at the end of the material life.

15
When considering the suitability for use of waste in asphalt, as a minimum, the following
questions must be posed:
• Is the waste-derived material a direct substitute for virgin material?
• Does it enhance the properties and quality of the binder/asphalt?
• Are there any additional health and safety precautions during manufacture and
construction to consider?
• Are there any additional environmental impacts associated with the use of asphalts
containing the waste-derived material?
• Is the use of the material cost-effective for the road industry?
• Can the asphalt subsequently be recycled at the end of life and are special precautions
necessary?
Conventional asphalt planings are generally fully recyclable and provide an exemplar of
closed-loop recycling; SEPA provides definitive guidance on when such materials have been
fully-recovered to the extent that it has ceased to be waste (SEPA Undated). An exception to
this is where coal tar has been used in asphalt manufacturing. Due to its high resistance to oil
corrosion and the fact it readily adheres to the aggregate components of asphalt, coal tar was
used as a binder until the mid-1980s in the UK at which point it became apparent that surfaces
containing it had low ductility and resistance to wear. It was subsequently established that
coal tar contains components that are hazardous to the environment and human health and
as such, coal tar planings are classified as hazardous (special) waste under European (and UK)
legislation. Consequently, the management of this waste is problematic and costly and until
relatively recently, the best option of dealing with it has been to dispose of it in hazardous
waste landfills. Methods to stabilise and encapsulate coal tar planings so that they may be
used in road construction below the surface layers, have been developed and emphasise the
importance of the precautionary principle when considering the use of any materials in
asphalt (McHale & Gordon 2020).

2.5 When Recycling Becomes Disposal

Clearly it is positive to substitute virgin material with a waste-derived alternative, if it can be
shown that it will perform in the same way or the material can result in product enhancement,
and there is no increased risk to the environment or human health. There is however a point
at which a waste recovery operation can cross the line to become a disposal operation.
If a waste or waste-derived material is used in greater quantities than is necessary to fulfil its
function or the use is unnecessary, then this is disposal as it is clearly a means of getting rid
of the material. This is sometimes referred to as ‘sham recovery’ and is an area that regulators
have been clamping down on in the last 20 years. What may have been considered to be a
waste recovery activity initially, will therefore fall back under waste regulatory controls due
to excessive use.

16
A recovery operation may also be deemed to be disposal if end-of-life uses are negatively
impacted; an example is where the use of a waste-derived material may provide benefits, but
inclusion beyond a certain mass or volume, even if benefits are still evident, prevents future
re-use. In terms of asphalt recycling, this is dealt with further in Section 4.4.
This problem has been encountered by the construction industry where it was discovered
that hazardous waste had been used in some precast concrete block products manufactured
overseas. Whilst the concept of encapsulating hazardous waste in construction materials was
reasonable in principle, there had been no consideration of how the concrete would need to
be managed when the time came to discard it (end of life). Clearly, the potential risk to human
health and the environment makes conventional on-site crushing and screening of this type
of waste untenable as it would potentially lead to the release of hazardous particles; the
future use of such materials would also be limited.

17
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

18
3 MATERIALS
Scotland’s road network is one of our largest and most visible assets, supporting the nation’s
economic and social well-being by facilitating connectivity. Around 93% of the 56,000km road
network is the responsibility of the 32 unitary authorities while the remaining 7%, comprising
the trunk road network which has an estimated construction value of £20bn and carries 35%
of all Scotland’s traffic, is the responsibility of Transport Scotland (Anon. 2016, 2020).
While all roads perform the same basic functions they are engineered differently depending
on their situation and the type of traffic using them. Trunk and other A-roads, for example,
must be able to withstand greater traffic numbers, higher vehicle speeds and heavier (by
weight) traffic. Rural roads tend to have less traffic with slower vehicle speeds, whilst roads
in conurbations often have to withstand more vehicle braking and surfaces may need to have
more noise reduction properties than those in other areas. Factors such as junctions and
bends are also a consideration along with local climate and morphology.
There is therefore a number of different types of asphalt mix designed for the conditions they
are to be used in. While road user safety is the main concern for those procuring road
surfacing materials, cost is also a factor as budgets will not always accommodate the highest
standards if there are cheaper acceptable alternatives.
Asphalt is the surfacing material for over 95% of all UK roads and is also used for footpaths,
playgrounds, cycle ways and car parks. Asphalt is a mixture of aggregates (crushed rock, sand,
gravel or slag), binder and filler materials. Its inherent qualities of flexibility, efficiency of
construction, ease of maintenance and value for money make it the number one choice, with
20 million tonnes of asphalt produced each year in the UK3.
In asphalt, bitumen is the agent most commonly used to bind the aggregate and it also
protects the aggregates from environmental effects; the amount of bitumen typically used in
asphalt in Europe is approximately 5% by weight4.
Bitumen is a thermoplastic, dark brown to black in colour, and solid or viscous liquid at room
temperature, produced by the distillation of crude oil, but which also occurs in natural
deposits (Anon. 2015). It is also a viscoelastic material. At high temperatures and/or when
subject to slow or stationary traffic it behaves as a viscous material. At low temperatures
and/or when subject to high speed traffic, it behaves like an elastic solid and can be
susceptible to cracking. Curing of bitumen in asphalt takes place both during heating, as the
bitumen is mixed with aggregate, and slowly throughout the lifetime of the asphalt
(Honarmand et al. 2019).
Both the amount of traffic and its speed impact the life of asphalt pavements. Consequently,
since the late 1980s, some of the bitumen used in asphalt has been modified with polymers
(Zhu et al. 2014) to increase the durability of the asphalt (Honarmand et al. 2019). The
polymer content in polymer modified bitumen constitutes between 3% and 10% by weight of
the bitumen (Porto et al. 2019).

3
https://www.asphaltuk.org/uk-asphalt/ (interrogated July 2020)
4
https://eapa.org/what-is-asphalt/ (interrogated July 2020)

19
The chemical compatibility of the components of an asphalt mix play a fundamental role in
determining behaviour and performance throughout the life of the mix. When a non-
bituminous or non-natural aggregate component is added to an asphalt mix, it is important
to ensure that this material does not adversely affect the expected life-cycle cost of the
project. Therefore, cost, performance and environmental concerns must be carefully
deliberated to holistically determine the value-added element of any additives or substitute
materials.
Project feasibility and cost-effectiveness are also affected by the availability and supply of
waste-derived material that are proposed for use. The introduction of a potentially value-
added material can result in a reduction in costs by saving on raw materials (bitumen binder
and aggregate) if its performance can be demonstrated to be equal to, or better than, mixes
composed solely of virgin material. Alternatively, and in rare instances, higher costs can be
tolerated if it can be demonstrated that the design life of an asphalt pavement will be
increased; it should be noted that this is very difficult to demonstrate other than through
long-term rigorously monitored trials.
Waste-derived materials can be added to bitumen and asphalt in one of two processes:
• ‘Wet’ process in which material is melted into the bitumen. Bitumen plants typically
operate at temperatures of >140°C to ensure that the bitumen behaves as a liquid to
facilitate transportation and handling (Anon. 2015) as well as to assist optimal coating
of the aggregates; any additive must melt below this temperature.
• ‘Dry’ process in which the material is mixed with aggregates prior to the addition of
bitumen. Whilst the material may not be required to melt to fulfil its function, it must
be tolerant of, and safe at, temperatures of up to 170°C.
In both processes the additive can modify the asphalt mix, making improvements to the
properties and behaviours, or extend it by replacing virgin materials.
In this section waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic are investigated as separate materials.
However, the similarities between rubber and plastic must be acknowledged as both consist
of either thermoplastic or thermoset polymers with chemical additives.

3.1 Glass
Glass cullet has been used as an aggregate in asphalt in the USA since the 1960s, but its use
has not grown significantly due to cost and availability. Interest in the use of glass in asphalt
(‘Glassphalt’ or ‘Glasphalt’) in the UK started to gather momentum in the early 2000s. This
may have been, at least in part, due to the introduction of the Aggregates Levy which applies
to virgin aggregates but is not payable on waste-derived alternatives such as glass.
Clearly the high melting temperature of glass (>1000°C) means that it will not melt in either
the wet or dry process and is an aggregate replacement. Trials by Lincolnshire County Council
in 2001 and 2002 used varying amounts of glass and Recycled Asphalt Planings (RAP) to
replace virgin aggregate in 20mm base course recipe mixes. The non-absorbent nature of
glass particles means that the binder (bitumen) content could potentially be reduced without

20
impacting on fatigue performance and accordingly filler contents were maintained in order
to reduce the potential for deformation. This was further addressed by using crushed rock or
crushed slag fine aggregate rather than using natural sand for locations of high traffic and/or
stress.
Even when used as an aggregate replacement the non-absorbent nature of the particles
meant that the binder content had to be reduced to facilitate handling of the asphalt and the
post-compaction air voids value was slightly increased.
However, longer term monitoring found a tendency for the bond between layers to be
compromised in contrast to the typical experience that marginal bonds improve over time.
Some of the trial sites remain in service and it is reportedly common to encounter a lack of
bond when coring ‘Glassphalt’ material for deflectograph or future works purposes. The trial
concluded that that 30% glass (without RAP) was the optimum performance mix. However,
the market for waste-derived glass has changed and ‘Glassphalt’ seems to no longer be
marketed.
Concerns regarding the performance of asphalt containing glass include increased
susceptibility to stripping and ravelling, the content of deleterious materials in the recovered
waste glass, reduced adhesion at the bitumen-glass interface, and potential loss of skid
resistance (WRA 2019).
Re-melting cullet back to glass products (closed-loop recycling) is usually the best
environmental option and every tonne of glass re-melted saves 246kg of CO2 emissions as
well as decreasing the energy needed to make ‘new’ glass and reducing reliance on virgin raw
materials5. British Glass5 advocates, in line with circular economy principles, that re-melt uses
should be prioritised, and glass maintained at its highest material value for as long as possible.
While there are some advantages to the use of glass as an aggregate substitute, it is
considered that they are outweighed by the disadvantages (Table 1) and ‘Glassphalt’ is
considered to be neither a ‘green’ nor an economically viable alternative to traditional
asphalt.

3.2 Rubber
End of life tyres are often referred to as a ‘difficult waste’. Whilst this term has no statutory
meaning, it is often used by the waste industry to describe a waste that is problematic. Tyres
cannot be easily and economically recycled to produce more tyres because the rubber
content is thermoset in nature (i.e. cannot be melted or re-moulded without de-
vulcanization) and the disposal of whole and shredded tyres to landfill has been outlawed
since 2003 and 2006, respectively, in compliance with EU Landfill Directive requirements.

5
https://www.britglass.org.uk/ourwork/recycling/ (interrogated July 2020)

21
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of utilization of glass in asphalt mixture (after Tahmoorian
et al. 2018). Some of the claims made in the review by Tahmoorian et al. (2018) seem to the
authors to be somewhat aspirational and commentary has been added where it seems necessary
in square parentheses […].
Advantage Description
Increased road safety Since the glass particles have low water absorption, the
pavement surface gets dry faster after rain. [While the
decreased water absorption is not disputed the faster drying
seems to be somewhat speculative and the effect of surface
water on glass may have a greater detrimental effect on skid
resistance that on stone.]
Easier to compact and transport Glass asphalt mixtures hold heat longer compared to
over longer distance conventional asphalt mixtures.
Improved night-time road Glass asphalt surfaces are more reflective in comparison with
visibility conventional asphalt surfaces. [The details of this are
somewhat sketchy and it is not clear that any in crease in
reflection will give a corresponding increase in the
retroreflectivity of the road surface let alone that this would
provide a road safety benefit.]
Improved workability The presence of long and flat particles will positively affect
the workability of asphalt mixtures. [Such particles will not
meet general aggregate standards and as noted below would
likely cause a decrease in skid resistance.]
Improved resistance to thermal The small inflation coefficient of glass improves the thermal
cracking cracking resistance
Disadvantage Description
Reduced road safetya High amount of large size glass particles causes a decrease in
skid resistance. [Large particles are not defined and in general
would not be desirable from a performance perspective.]
The angularity and friction angle of glass particles provides
inadequate transverse stability, particularly at braking or
start-up.
Increased bitumen bleeding Low bitumen absorption and density may cause a bleeding
problem.
Increased stripping The smooth surface of glass particles reduces the adhesion of
asphalt film to the crushed glass, which may cause stripping
of the asphalt mixture.
Sensitive to water damage The high silica content in glass particles will make asphalt
mixtures made with glass have more moisture sensitivity
depending on the glass particle size or the glass content in
the asphalt mixture.
Abrasion of tyres The presence of long and flat particles (particularly in case of
large glass particles size) may result in abrasion of tyres.
a
The pothole.info project points out that this means that ‘Glassphalt’ is entirely unsuitable for high speed
roads: https://www.pothole.info/2011/07/glassphalt-have-roads-made-with-recycled-glass-changed-
pavement/ (interrogated July 2019)

22
Waste tyres can be recycled to produce new rubber products by either mechanical processing
to produce fillers or aggregates or can go through a process of devulcanization. The latter
allows remanufacturing and results in a high value product that can melt and be used in the
same way as the virgin, non-vulcanized thermoplastic equivalent. Devulcanization6, whilst
preferable from a circular economy perspective, consumes large amounts of energy and
chemicals and coupled with equipment costs, it is generally accepted that the processing cost
is higher than the value of the product when compared with virgin equivalents.

3.2.1 History of Use

Rubber from end of life tyres has been used as an additive to asphalt for several decades in
countries such as the USA, South Africa and Australia although the first experimental use of
virgin natural rubber in bitumen dates to the 1840s (Heitzman 1992; WRAP 2008a). The
theory behind using tyre rubber in asphalt is to delay surface cracking and ageing (improved
durability) and provide additional waterproofing (to prevent water ingress weakening the
asphalt) as it is suggested that it reduces air voids that are present in stone mastic asphalts
(SMAs), for example. Controlled laboratory experiments demonstrate that asphalt
incorporating waste-derived rubber can at least provide similar mechanical performance
when compared to conventional materials such as SMA provided that good quality control is
exercised (WRAP 2008b). Studies include the addition of natural and synthetic (general
purpose) rubber from end of life vehicle tyres, which may or may not be devulcanized and
can sometimes be used in combination with virgin natural non-vulcanized rubber.

3.2.2 Types of Tyre Rubber

Rubber components in tyres can vary widely. Passenger vehicles tyres tend to comprise
general purpose rubber with a high styrene butadiene content. Those used for trucks are
often a blend of general purpose and natural rubber and tyres on vehicles used for
predominantly off-road activities (e.g. quarry vehicles) mainly comprise natural rubber due to
its excellent fatigue resistance and high strength.
Devulcanized natural rubber crumb from off-road tyres will dissolve in bitumen more readily
at lower temperatures than general purpose rubber and can provide low-temperature
performance in cold weather. Crumb containing general purpose rubber will require higher
blending temperatures and is generally regarded as being more suitable for hot climates
(Gursel et al. 2018). Quality control on the type and source of waste rubbers used in an asphalt
mix is therefore essential.

6
Vulcanization is the process by which the rubber is hardened and made thermoset. Vulcanization works by
forming cross-links between sections of polymer chain which result in increased rigidity and durability, as well
as other changes in the mechanical and electrical properties of the material. Devulcanization reverses this
process returning the rubber to a thermoplastic state; both processes are energy intensive.

23
The type of rubber, chemical additives and manufacturing process, amongst other things, all
influence the performance of an asphalt product. In very simple terms:
• Rubber that has been devulcanized is thermoplastic and will melt. The source
(natural/general purpose or a mixture) will dictate the temperature at which it will
melt and whether it is more suited for use in hot or cold climates.
• Rubber that has been mechanically treated but not devulcanized is thermoset and
does not melt. It therefore performs the function of an aggregate. End of life tyre
rubber may be considered to be a bitumen modifier as it reacts with bitumen and is
thought to improve asphalt performance.

3.2.3 Asphalt Manufacturing Incorporating Rubber

Rubber can be incorporated into an asphalt mix using either a wet or dry process.
In the wet process, crumb rubber (typically 0.15mm to 0.6 mm) is blended with bitumen for
a minimum of 45 minutes at elevated temperatures prior to contact with aggregates. Light
fractions of bitumen transfer into the rubber making the rubber particles swell, and the
bitumen hardens. Porto et al (2019), notes that many studies concluded that while a low
rubber content (around 4% of the weight of bitumen) has almost no effect on the
performance and mechanical properties of the binder, more than 20% was found to be
unsuitable.
In the dry process, ground rubber (typically 0.85mm to 6.4mm) is hot mixed with aggregates
prior to the addition of bitumen and the rubber changes from being an inelastic solid (in solid
mechanics this is also referred to as a material that exhibits plastic behaviour) to a gel (in part
due to the presence of carbon black in tyre rubber), preventing the formation of voids around
particles (Lopez-Moro et al. 2013). In the UK, trials have used rubber as a bitumen modifier
(see Appendix D).
Research by Rahman et al. (2004; 2010) determined that the wet process produced better
interaction and properties than the dry process and that the service life of dry process mixes
was inconsistent, varying from two to 20 years. Later research contradicted this and Shen et
al. (2015) concluded that if the dry process blending time is sufficient, there is little distinction
between the properties of wet and dry process rubberized asphalts.
In both processes, the bitumen undergoes modification.

3.2.4 Factors Affecting Performance

Many factors can influence the performance and mechanical properties of rubberised binders
(Porto et al. 2019), including:
• Size and content of rubber additives.
• Chemical structure.
• Particle surface properties.

24
 • Blend production method.
• Temperature.
Bitumen modified with rubber is reported to have high elasticity and no viscous behaviour
and makes asphalt pavements more resistant to rutting and cracking than unmodified
asphalts; in addition, these asphalt pavements have a longer life and there is reduced traffic
noise (Porto et al. 2019). Various researchers suggest that using tyre rubber in an open-graded
asphalt mixture could decrease tyre noise by up to almost 50%7 (Way & Evans 2006).
Despite these benefits, Porto et al. (2019) reported that rubber modified asphalts are not
common for paving applications. This is because the technological (and economic) properties
of these asphalts are almost immediately deteriorated by the rubber polymers due to their
hardening properties, as follows:
• The rigidity of the modified binder is increased at low temperatures resulting in
increased thermal sensitivity.
• The cost of the rubber additive tends to increase the cost of the asphalt.
• The effectiveness of rubber (as a thermosetting plastic) is usually due to the relatively
large quantities in bitumen (more than 10% by weight).
Porto et al. (2019) also reports that the thermodynamic instability of the wet process mix
induces a phase separation (or sedimentation) under the influence of gravity. It cannot
tolerate being transported over long distances as it has a tendency to separate. Separation
has also been observed with asphalts produced using the dry mix process, with rubber
particles sinking to the bottom of the mix. Separation can also occur with conventional
asphalts, so travel time is always a consideration but not perceived to be a major problem in
Scotland.

3.2.5 In-situ Trials

There is a considerable amount of published research comparing the performance and
mechanical properties of asphalts containing different types, sizes and amounts of rubber.
There is consensus that outcomes greatly depend on the application method (dry or wet
process – although Shen et al. (2015) suggest that differences in performance can be
minimised by extending the dry process blending time), the characteristics of the base binder,
together with the climate where it is being laid and the travel time of the material. For this
reason, in situ trials carried out in the UK and in particular Scotland are more relevant to this
study than those undertaken overseas. Information on UK trials can be found in Appendix D.

7
http://www.rubberpavements.org/faq (interrogated July 2019): note that the Rubber Pavements Association
website while still accessible appears to indicate that the Association is no longer active.

25
3.3 Plastics
3.3.1 Plastics and Plastic Recycling
Plastics are widely-used and their versatility has enabled significant innovation and industrial
progress. Popular estimates suggest that up to 20 times more plastics are used now than 50
years ago in the UK. As a consequence the amount of plastic discarded is significant and issues
surrounding the distribution of microplastics in the aquatic and soil environments have come
to the forefront of public attention in recent years.
There are seven main types of plastic each of which is used to create different primary and
waste-derived products (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Types of plastic resin, their chemical types, identification codes, and their primary and
secondary uses.
All plastics are theoretically recyclable although due to a shortfall in processing capacity and
a lack of financial incentives, this does not always happen in the UK. The Waste & Resource
Action Programme (WRAP) introduced The UK Plastics Pact8 in 2019, which is set to transform
the way plastics are manufactured, used and managed at their end of life with key targets for
substantive change by 2022 and 2025. Publicly Available Specification (PAS 510) is being
developed in support of the Plastic Pact, with the aim of preventing nano and microplastic
pollution, and is expected to be available in mid-2021 (BSI 2021). It is expected to focus on
‘using, processing, handling, storing or transport of plastic pellets, flakes and powders’ and
could be an important tool for companies to demonstrate good practice in pellet loss
prevention measures across the supply chain. It will introduce measures to prevent the
emission of such materials to the environment.

8
www.wrap.org.uk/content/the-uk-plastics-pact-roadmap-2025 (interrogated July 2020)

26
Irrespective of this Anon (2019a) reported that in 2018, 78% of plastic packaging was
recovered. Examples of the types of plastic that can be recycled in Scotland for the purpose
of remanufacturing can be found at a specialist site in Dumfries operated by Plastic
Technology Services Ltd9.
Plastics exhibit one of two different types of behaviour:
• Thermoset materials can burn but not melt and cannot be used in the
remanufacturing of similar products. They can, however, still be reused or recycled.
One example of such recycling is polyurethane foam being used as carpet underlay.
• Thermoplastics melt and can therefore be used to remanufacture new plastic
products. Whether they are or not is not covered by this research, but in principal all
thermoplastics can be remanufactured and are 100% recyclable10.
There is also a perception that different thermoplastics cannot be recycled together. This is
because they do not always mix when melted together (they can be immiscible). To address
this, researchers have identified chemical additives, sometimes referred to as compatibilizers,
that facilitate mixing (Lin et al. 2020).

3.3.2 Technical Aspects of Plastic Recycling

The use of waste-derived plastics as an asphalt additive has generated a great deal of interest
in recent years, not least due to the abundance and high cost of managing this waste stream.
As with rubber, plastics in the form of pellets or shreds can be added to the binder prior to
mixing with aggregate (wet process) or to hot aggregate prior to the addition of the binder
(dry process). Whilst researchers appear to favour the wet process, there are associated
practical and cost issues in that storage of plastic modified binder requires continuous
agitation to avoid phase separation which renders the bitumen mix unusable and from which
the mix cannot be recovered. The dry process, although it requires prolonged mixing to
ensure that a homogeneous mix is achieved, is more common in the UK.
If plastic is to be added to an asphalt mix, it is important to understand that although plastics
can be differentiated into broad categories, there is a very wide variety of different types,
each with its own chemical composition and mechanical characteristics. Co-mingled waste
plastics can therefore perform differently when utilised in an asphalt manufacturing process
depending on the ratios of the different plastic types and their compatibility. Bearing this in
mind, the source type, or provenance, and consistency of waste-derived plastic used as an
asphalt additive is particularly important, whether the material is designed to be a bitumen
enhancer or as a partial replacement.
The strength of the bond developed between the bitumen and aggregate is one of the key
factors in the performance of a pavement. One of the challenges with using waste-derived
plastic as an aggregate replacement in asphalt is the potential weakening of the bonding
between the aggregate and bitumen. Guru et al. (2014) reported that, when aggregate was

9
https://www.ptsltd-uk.com/ (interrogated July 2020)
10
https://www.bpf.co.uk/sustainability/plastics_recycling.aspx (interrogated July 2020)

27
replaced with polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the resistance to moisture damage
decreased but the resistance to permanent deformation, Marshall stability, stiffness and
fatigue life of the asphalt mix all increased.
Jafar (2016) suggested that the reason for the weakening of the bond between the bitumen
and plastic was due to the high stability and inert nature of the plastic surface. The
recommended treatment to overcome the issue was to introduce a strong oxidising agent
(dichromate/sulphuric acid solution) to activate the plastic surface. This would introduce an
active ionic functional group, which would then react further in the presence of a cross-linking
agent such as polyethyleneimine.
Although chemical treatment of plastic addresses the bitumen adhesion problem, the
feasibility of using waste plastic still needs to be driven by good economics. Quoting Jafar
(2016), ‘it is not economical to use these materials as alternative aggregates unless their use
adds sufficient value to the bituminous product, so that the cost of the materials can be
justified’.
It should be noted, that currently there are no waste-derived plastic products that are
marketed as meeting the standards for use as an aggregate substitute in asphalt in the UK.
Manufactured (artificial) aggregates that can be used must be “clean, hard and durable and
shall comply with BS EN 13043:2002 and be CE marked and have a declared performance …”
(MCHW 1, Clause 901(3)). The intention is that the aggregate should be uncontaminated and
stable both mechanically and chemically throughout the design life of the asphalt mix.
Chin & Damen (2019) noted the use of waste printer toner cartridges, which are comprised
of a mixture of different plastics, to modify the binder in hot mix asphalt. Trials found that the
high-temperature resistance to permanent deformation was improved but that cracking was
increased and there was a negative effect on stiffness and issues related to the stability of the
mix during storage (Yildirim et al. 2003). In contrast, work by Sharp et al. (2017) on a different
toner cartridge modified asphalt suggested an 11% decrease in modulus, a 30% increase in
fatigue life and a 50% reduction in cracking relative to a conventional control mix.
Dahlat & Wahhab (2017) examined the use of high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density
polyethylene (LDPE) and polypropylene (PP) asphalt modifiers and found that all three
increased the resilient modulus compared to an unmodified mix. They also highlighted the
issue of oxidation of the bitumen at temperatures needed to melt some plastics while noting
that HDPE improved rutting performance, but that none of the waste-derived plastic-
modified mixes met American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) requirements for elastic recovery.
Some types of plastic such as high density polyethylene (HDPE: e.g. milk bottles and single
use shopping bags) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET/PETE: e.g. drink bottles) have been
reported as being unsuitable for use as binder extenders or modifiers as the melting points
are around 270°C and 260°C, respectively (White 2019; White & Reid 2019). These
temperatures are considerably in excess of typical bituminous binder and asphalt production
and storage temperatures, which would mean that such materials would not melt and thus
form an integral part of the binder mix. Nurfazilah (2012) reported that the use of higher

28
temperatures in a bitumen plant causes increased and potentially hazardous emissions to the
atmosphere, promotes subsequent increased oxidation and earlier hardening of the placed
surfacing, as well as causing poorer aggregate adhesion and thus potentially poorer durability
and shorter life.

3.3.3 In-situ Demonstrations and Trials

The examples given in Section 3.3.2 clearly demonstrate disagreement on the performance
of asphalts modified with waste-derived plastic and it should be noted that the majority of
experiments incorporating such additives were undertaken in laboratories rather than being
full-scale performance trials. As with rubber however, research indicates that the
performance and mechanical properties of asphalt modified with waste-derived plastic will
be dependent on:
• Size and content of plastic additives.
• Chemical structure.
• Particle surface properties.
• Blend production method.
• Temperature.
For this reason, in-situ demonstrations carried out in the UK and in particular Scotland, using
UK-derived plastic waste are more relevant to this study than those undertaken overseas.
A company in Southern Scotland is currently producing three plastic products for use as an
asphalt additive. Whilst the composition of these additives is described as being ‘proprietary
information’ they are described (based on MacRebur11) as follows:
• MR6 is a complex arrangement of polymers designed for the extension and
enhancement of bituminous binder for asphalt used in road surfaces. Initially provided
in pellet form, but to facilitate melting [in the asphalt mix], this product is now
produced as shreds.
• MR8 is a blend of polymers designed for the extension of bituminous binder for
asphalt used in road surfaces. This product is supplied as shreds.
• MR10 contains a block co-polymer designed for the extension and enhancement of
bituminous binder for asphalt used in road surfaces. This product is provided in pellet
form.
In MacRebur’s ‘Technical Data Change in form of products’ it is stated that, “The shredded
form of MR6 and MR 8 are not melted, extruded and cut into pellets”. White & Reid (2018)
however, state that “… melting allows removal of contaminants by filtration …”, so it is
therefore reasonable to assume that these products may contain varying proportions of a
range of contaminants. Whilst the impact of contaminants on bitumen/asphalt performance

11
https://www.macrebur.com/the-product (interrogated July 2020)

29
is unknown, it is accepted that small quantities are inevitable and are permissible when
recycling road planings, so it is debatable whether contaminants associated with waste-
derived plastic additives used in small quantities, would have any significant impacts.
Whilst information on the exact types of plastic used, or their relative proportions, in the
aforementioned products is not publicly available, it can be ascertained from MacRebur
research (White 2019) that neither plastic bottles nor bags are used in their products. A
statement on the landing page of the MacRebur website states that their “… products are
made from non-recyclable waste plastics that were destined for landfill or incineration …”12.
It is assumed therefore that, as all plastics are theoretically recyclable, those referred to are
not currently recycled in the UK due to a shortfall in processing capacity, logistics, technology
issues or cost.
It is also assumed that the feedstock is co-mingled plastic waste. A video on the MacRebur
website13 refers to agricultural waste plastic (LDPE silage wrap) together with household and
commercial plastic waste, being used in its MR6 and MR8 products that contain “… a complex
blend of polymers …” and a “… blend of polymers …” respectively. Potential immiscibility14 is
addressed through the use of “MacRebur activators (which) are added to the chosen waste
plastics in order to make sure the plastics fully mix in and melt with the remaining bitumen in
an asphalt mix making sure there are no lumps of plastic left in the asphalt”.15 As the
production of MR6 and MR8 does not involve melting, these activators must be applied to
the surface of the plastics in either powder or liquid form; asphalt manufacturers using these
products are not advised about the need for compatibilizer additives, so it is assumed that
they are added by MacRebur. To ensure these activators remain integral with the product,
storage and processing arrangements at asphalt plants must be discussed with the supplier
and the products should be accompanied by Safety Data Sheets identifying the properties of
the additives as also referred to in Section 6.
UK trials and demonstration projects have been, and are currently in the process of being,
undertaken (e.g. Anon. 2019b) in for example Cumbria, Enfield and Coventry. However, data
and information relating to these trials, whether detailed or otherwise, has proven very
difficult to obtain. This situation is characterised by the lack of pre-, during or post-
construction performance testing, including the extraction of cores. At present the
information available suggests that the work undertaken with waste-derived plastic in asphalt
constitutes demonstrations rather than formal trials of technical performance. Issues related
to the requirements of formal trials are detailed further in Section 6. To date all known
demonstrations of waste-derived plastic in road surfacings in Scotland have been using the
dry process and no evidence is available to suggest that a formal design process has been
undertaken to optimise the performance of the final mix.

12
https://www.macrebur.com/ (interrogated July 2020)
13
Available directly from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWYoDKYnQo&feature=emb_title
(interrogated July 2020)
14
The inability of two or more materials to mix.
15
https://www.macrebur.com/pdfs/product/MacRebur_MicroPlastics_Leaflet_v3.pdf (interrogated July 2020)

30
An international study concluded that a lot of research remained to be done on the
implementation of the technology associated with the use of waste-derived plastic in asphalt,
not least to address concerns related to performance (WRA 2019). In addition, the New
Zealand Product Stewardship Council expressed significant reservations regarding the use of
plastic in roads.16
Information on UK trials can be found in Appendix D.

3.3.4 Modular Plastic Roads

In the Netherlands, a new plastic road concept is being trialled and marketed. The
PlasticRoad17 is prefabricated and features a hollow space that can be used for various
purposes such as water storage and attenuation, utility cables and pipes, geothermal systems
for ensuring roads remain ice and snow free, generating energy, and so on. The road is made
predominantly from waste-derived plastic, is expected to last two to three times longer than
conventional surfaces and could reportedly reduce construction time by up to 70%. It is
proposed that these new types of road could be in use on an industrial scale from 2021.
Realistically, the potential for the use of this road system in Scotland is likely to be limited to
new housing developments and new commercial/retail parks. In addition, concerns regarding
the abrasion of the surface by traffic to produce micro-plastics that could enter the
environment would have to be fully-addressed through trials and analysis prior to widespread
adoption.

3.4 Health and Safety Considerations

Health and Safety in the UK is controlled by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and under
the primary legislation enacted as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA)18. The
HSWA places obligations on all employers in the UK, including asphalt manufacturers, to treat
the health, safety and wellbeing of their staff, their product users and the public as a priority.
Manufacturers are alert to any issues raised, share information nationally and internationally
and respond rapidly and decisively to deal with relevant issues through short-term campaigns
and longer-term initiatives. The goal of www.safequarry.com, for example, is stated as being
to “… ensure that by facilitating the sharing of information and learning from the experience
of others within the industry, we will achieve a safer environment for all those involved,
employees, contractors, suppliers, customers and members of the public.”

3.4.1 Glass
Respirable crystalline silica sand used to manufacture glass is linked to silicosis, however,
during the glass manufacturing process it is converted to amorphous silica, which is non-
hazardous. Dust from waste-derived glass products can be an irritant, but it is not linked to

16
https://www.nzpsc.nz/putting-plastic-packaging-waste-into-roads-is-not-recycling/ (interrogated July 2020)
17
https://www.plasticroad.eu/en/ (interrogated July 2020)
18
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37 (interrogated July 2020)

31
silicosis and if used in asphalt products requires no additional health and safety precautions
to be taken.

3.4.2 Rubber
A study in Sweden (Xu et al. 2018) found that there were no increased risks to asphalt workers
from crumb rubber modified asphalt when compared to conventional asphalts. The Institute
for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR) in Australia came to similar
conclusions in their March 2019 report (Moo et al. 2019).
Fume emissions have also been studied extensively in a number of paving projects in the US
since 1989. Separate studies undertaken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) determined that the use of
rubberized asphalt does not appear to increase health risks to paving personnel, however
there were some reports of an objectionable odour (Lo Presti 2013).

3.4.3 Plastics
Plastics may contain additives such as fillers, pigments, fire retardants and stabilisers,
depending upon product requirements. Plastic fumes, produced when the material is heated
during processing, can include respiratory sensitizers, irritants and carcinogens.
In order to prevent fume production, residence time (time in flue) and temperature control
parameters are critical. The HSE Plastics Processing Sheet No 13 (Revision 1) 19 specifically
states that safety data sheets obtained from the supplier/distributer should identify:
• The particular plastic formulation.
• Correct processing temperature.
• Degradation products.
• Any additives and their possible effects on fume production.
Chin & Damen (2019) concluded the research on occupational health and safety was
inconclusive with respect to plastic modified asphalt and that more research was required.
They did acknowledge that some laboratory work had been done in this area on MacRebur
products; White (2019) described a fuming generation evaluation test that was developed to
analyse binder samples modified with and without waste-derived plastics. These tests were
undertaken at temperatures between 100°C and 200°C to reflect material processing to laying
conditions. White concluded that the risk to human health is no greater for MacRebur
products than that for unmodified bitumen.
It should be noted that, in the absence of recognised test methods for asphalt fume analysis,
the White (2019) testing was undertaken by a specialist UKAS accredited laboratory to ISO/IEC
17025 (British Standards Institution, BSI, 2017) standards. Worker health and safety is a
critical issue and more research is needed to verify or otherwise these findings, although it

19
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/ppis13.pdf (interrogated July 2020)

32
should be noted that data from large cohorts over significant time periods for specific effects
may be required to inform Regulation.

3.5 Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an important tool to allow the comparison of the carbon budget
of different materials, products and processes. The boundaries, or the extent of the life cycle
considered, determine whether a comparison of different LCAs is valid. Ideally boundaries
that consider the full life cycle, usually called cradle-to-grave, are used.
However, while agreed national and international datasets increasingly make comparisons
between discrete life cycle stages easier, when the results are reported in such detail,
uncertainties in actions required in the later stages of a life cycle, typically the operation,
maintenance and disposal stages, can make full comparisons difficult. This often causes the
boundaries of the study to be narrowed and, in determining LCA of fibre reinforced concrete,
Tuladhar & Yin (2019) took a cradle-to-gate (pre-construction) approach, while Leal et al.
(2020) took a cradle-to-site (end of construction) approach to the LCA of slope repair
techniques.
To make valid comparisons between different LCAs single, independent LCAs covering
multiple materials or processes tend to be more useful (Wayman et al. 2011a, 2011b).
Comparative LCA would be a worthwhile exercise if, in future, different materials are to be
tested on the road network through the protocol outlined in Section 6. The work of Wayman
et al. (2011a, 2011b) which has been updated would provide a useful tool for such an exercise
updated (Reeves et al 2020; Wayman et al. 2020a, 2020b).
A comparative LCA study of hot-mix and warm-mix asphalts including mixes with RAP, crumb
rubber and waste plastic was conducted by Pratico et al. (2020). The boundaries of their study
appear to be cradle-to-grave, including a maintenance and disposal component, and the
results indicate that using recycled materials generally generates less CO2-equivalent
emissions than extracting, processing and using primary materials. Indeed, RAP and warm-
mix asphalt were the most favourable option with the use of RAP in warm-mix, unsurprisingly,
the most favourable option. However, these results do need to be treated with some caution
as the amounts of RAP assumed in the mixes was in the range 30% to 45%, which is
significantly higher than the maximum 20% typically used in the UK.
Adding waste-derived plastic pellets to bitumen has been shown to increase carbon emissions
compared to virgin bitumen by up to around 3% depending on the amount added (Santos et
al. 2021). Their work also showed that carbon emissions for virgin plastic modified binder
were, to some extent, dependent upon the type of plastic used while there was no
differentiation between the waste-derived plastic type strongly suggesting that the latter
material was mixed and potentially subject to variable performance. The increased carbon
emissions of virgin plastic asphalt modifiers compared to waste-derived plastic asphalt
modifiers were between 2.5% and 5% for a 2% replacement of material, rising to between
10% and 18% for an 8% replacement.

33
Santos et al. (2021) also examined the effect on carbon emissions of replacing virgin aggregate
with waste-derived plastic pellets in asphalt mixes intended for pavement surfacings and
found that the increase was around 19% for the replacement of 2.5% material, rising to
around 40% for the replacement of 5%20. It should be noted however, that in the UK, certain
standards must be met before potential waste-derived plastic can be used as an aggregate
replacement in asphalt and to date, none are marketed as meeting the relevant criteria.
Unsurprisingly, there is increasing interest in warm-mix asphalts (Anon. 2019c), particularly
in relation to their reduced cooling time (reducing construction times and road user
disruption), reduced emission of fumes, and carbon savings due to the (at least 20oC) lower
processing temperature. Carbon savings however, are only realised if there is adequate
demand as the carbon benefits are lost if asphalt plants have to constantly lower and
subsequently raise their temperature. All three waste-derived materials addressed in this
report can purportedly be used in warm mixes, but whereas this is clearly not an issue with
glass and there is evidence for the use of rubber, none has been identified for the plastic
product.
The results of a wide-ranging LCA (Wayman et al. 2012) indicate that recycling a relatively low
level of 15% RAP in the bound courses is significantly more environmentally beneficial than
warm mixing, particularly if the additives used to facilitate warm mixing are included in the
analysis. The combination of RAP in warm-mix asphalt was not included in the study.

3.6 Material Costs

The cost and production capacity of waste-derived materials compared to the virgin materials
that they are proposed to replace has a fundamental effect on the viability of recycling.
Bitumen and aggregate prices are difficult to obtain due to the constraints imposed by
competition law. The authors have used non-specific discussions with their contacts in the
road pavement construction industry to obtain generalised bitumen and aggregate prices.
Bitumen prices fluctuate on a traded market and are expected to fluctuate between about
£250 and £500 per tonne over a period of a few years with the typical price (average or
median) expected to be around £400 per tonne.
The costs of asphalt are complicated by the fact that when it is produced in a quarry where
the aggregate used is extracted, haulage costs are minimised. Production outside mineral
extraction sites may be higher. The costs are further complicated by the vagaries of economy
of scale and fixed base costs (for example, the order of magnitude of the fixed cost is more or
less the same for a blast regardless of the amount of aggregate to be produced). However,
working from more visible costs of uncoated aggregates for unbound layers, such as Type 1

20
Santos et al. (2021) also considered replacing 10% and 20% of the aggregate with plastic. However, as this
potentially corresponds to up to 60% plastic by volume these figures are not considered relevant in the
context of the current study as they would almost constitute a disposal activity and is clearly pointing towards
a rather different approach that involves replacing all of the rock aggregate with plastic or, indeed, creating an
entirely plastic road (see Section 3.3.4).

34
(MCHW 1, Clause 803), the production price plus profit of single-sized coated aggregate would
be expected to be around £10 to £15 per tonne.
The use of glass cullet in asphalt is referred to as down-cycling within the UK glass industry
that champions closed-loop recycling and there is no reason why glass cannot be recycled
100% and in perpetuity21. Data from the Waste & Resource Action Programme (WRAP) for
2018/19 suggest glass container prices vary between £8/tonne and £23/tonne22, clearly
showing costs vary between being price comparable with and higher than virgin aggregates,
with significant cost volatility. This supports closed-loop recycling within the glass industry
while predicating against the use of glass in asphalt.
Waste rubber sells locally in the Central Belt of Scotland for between around £250 and £460
per tonne depending upon the size. These prices clearly predicate against its potential use as
an aggregate replacement, unless significant performance enhancement of the asphalt it is
used in can be proven. The cost of rubber is broadly comparable with that of bitumen and
accordingly its use to extend and/or modify bitumen might well prove to be an appropriate
use subject to technical and environmental issues.
WRAP23 reports the prices of waste plastics in the range £50 to £490 per tonne in July 2019,
with prices generally having seen strong growth in recent years. Specific prices included:
• Clear PET bottles, £222.50 per tonne.
• Coloured PET bottles, £50 per tonne.
• Natural HDPE bottles, £490 per tonne.
• Mixed HDPE bottles, £385 per tonne.
• Mixed polymer bottles, £115 per tonne.
• LDPE 98:2 film, £275 per tonne.
These compare to average virgin plastic prices for the first half of 2019 for LDPE of £1,193 per
tonne, HDPE of £1,220 per tonne and PET £1,084 per tonne. These prices make a clear case
for the plastics industry’s stated preference of closed-loop recycling and make open-loop
recycling less attractive unless a definitive and significant performance advantage can be
obtained and effective solutions to environmental issues, including those related to end of
life waste, can be found. It is of course noted that the price of virgin plastics is linked directly
to the volatile oil market.
Notwithstanding this, none of the plastics appear to be cost-competitive with aggregates used
in road surfacings and only some are cost competitive with bitumen. PET may be one
exception to this but it is also important to note that it is resistant to solvents and this is likely
to introduce problems with miscibility of the plastic and bitumen. Mixed polymer bottles
would not be an option as the proportion of different materials will vary with time rendering
any form of quality control, let alone factory production control, impossible.

21
https://www.britglass.org.uk/our-work/recycling (interrogated July 2020)
22
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/recovered-glass-container-prices-0 (interrogated July 2020)
23
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/plastic (interrogated July 2020)

35
Certainly for plastics closed-loop recycling appears to be the most reasonable route to
recycling and there are emerging techniques, processes and markets that raise the prospect
of genuinely upcycling24 such materials including as energy storage products (Mirjalili et al.
2020).
It is important to note that the prices in this section are the most robust and accurate available
but that regional variations and temporal fluctuation in material prices are inevitable. It is also
clear that poor quality materials may be available at prices lower than those presented here.
For plastics in particular it is understood that the residual ‘sweepings’ from waste processing
plants may be cheaper but that the material constituents are highly variable and maybe
unsuited for a high value application such as asphalt.

24
Upcycling refers to a recycling process in which the secondary application has a higher utility than the
primary application; a hypothetical application might be one in which a pavement foundation layer is recycled
in bound pavement layers (Winter 2002).

36
4 EMISSIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND RECYCLABILITY
4.1 Noise
The use of tyre rubber in open-graded mixture binder has been reported to reduce tyre noise
by up to 50% (Way & Evans 2006) (see Section 3.2.1). Although the traffic noise reducing
properties of rubber modified asphalt are not disputed in any of the published documents
reviewed, most do not detail the mechanism for the noise reduction.

4.2 Particle Emission Potential

The issue of plastic contamination of the marine environment was brought to the attention
of the public in David Attenborough’s documentary series ‘Blue Planet II’, aired in the UK in
December 2017. Since then, there has been significant pressure to prevent, or at least curb,
the release of microplastics into the water environment.
The relevance to road construction and use is the potential for plastic debris from roads to
enter the water environment through surface water runoff. The term plastic includes
materials consisting of thermoplastic polymers and thermoset polymers with chemical
additives. It includes rubber from tyre wear and also particles from road markings and asphalt
modified with rubber or plastic. As polymer modified bitumen is a potential source of
microplastics that can be released into the water environment through road use (Andersson-
Sköld et al. 2020) it is important to establish whether the different modifiers enhance the
properties and qualities of the binder/asphalt or if they are simply a mechanism of disposing
of a problematic waste stream.
Particles released to the environment as a result of road surface wear may become airborne
or carried in surface water. Whilst bitumen is not classified as an environmental or health
hazard according to the EU classification and labelling system, some of the chemicals used in
Polymer Modified Binders (PMBs) are known to be hazardous to the environment and human
health. Notwithstanding this, there are limited studies about the extent to which these
substances are released from PMBs as microplastics. In addition, the physical and chemical
properties and composition of the different microplastics will affect their behaviour in the
environment and to date there has been no research on this issue. In recognition of this,
Andersson-Sköld et al. (2020) conclude that research is required on the presence, exposure,
effects and risks of microplastics in road wear particles.
From a ‘green’ procurement perspective, it is worth noting that waste legislation and
regulation take a precautionary approach when it comes to the management of wastes. That
is, that unless the impacts of an activity are known and can be adequately managed, it should
not be allowed to proceed. Rubber and plastic asphalt additives manufactured from waste
generated within the UK are however, generally considered to be fully-recovered waste by
environmental regulators so are not subject to waste regulatory controls when used in
asphalt manufacture. As the potential impact these materials have on the environment when
released as a result of road wear is as yet unknown, it would be pertinent for procurement
policies to consider whether a precautionary approach should be taken or whether the
performance and cost benefits outweigh the potential risk. It is recognised that those making

37
the decision on performance and cost benefits may not always be in the best position to make
the decision on the potential environmental risk.
Following an assessment of the health and environmental risks posed by intentionally added
microplastics the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has concluded that an EU-wide
restriction would be justified25. If approved it is expected that the ban would extend to the
use of tyre-derived rubber infill in sports surfaces26, and there seems to be no particular
reason why this would not extend to rubber and plastic added to road surfacing materials.

4.3 Water Pollution Potential

One study in the US examined the impact of leachate from in-situ crumb rubber asphalt on
surface water and groundwater (Azizian et al. 2003). Benzothiazole, aluminium and mercury
were of particular concern initially, with concentrations of 0.54mg/l, 1.81mg/l and 0.116mg/l
respectively. At these levels, these contaminants are considered to be potentially harmful.
However, it was concluded that due to degradation and soil sorption, they were unlikely to
be transported to nearby soils or groundwater. This research did not specify the asphalt
manufacturing process nor the source of rubber and taking into consideration that Scotland’s
climate and soils differ to those of the US (Oregon), this study is not considered to be
particularly relevant. Accordingly, similar research would need to be undertaken in Scotland
to ascertain whether leachate from rubber modified asphalt is likely to impact on the water
environment.
To date, no similar research has been identified for asphalt modified with waste-derived
plastic additives.

4.4 Recyclability of Rubber and Plastic Modified Asphalt

It is unsurprising that recycling asphalt pavements as bound, rather than unbound, pavements
and in surface, rather than base, courses, is preferential from an environmental perspective.
The reuse of asphalt in surface courses is particularly relevant as there is likely to be a decline
in new road construction in the future and therefore less opportunity to use the asphalt in
base layers. The potential to recycle road planings from waste-derived rubber or plastic
modified asphalts in the bound layers remains uncertain and such materials could be used
unbound on tracks, increasing the potential for microplastic release to the environment, or
would be landfilled if their reuse in surface course mixes were not feasible.
Mollenhauer et al. (2012) researched opportunities to increase the rate of recycled asphalt
pavement (RAP) in new asphalt courses and suggested that the substitution of virgin materials
with 15% RAP is significantly more environmentally beneficial than virgin aggregate warm mix
asphalt.

25
https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-proposes-to-restrict-intentionally-added-
microplastics#:~:text=ECHA%20has%20submitted%20a%20restriction,thousand%20tonnes%20over%2020%20
years (interrogated July 2020)
26
https://scraptirenews.com/2020/07/06/crumb-rubber-infill-facing-ban-in-europe/ (interrogated July 2020)

38
It must be established whether asphalts containing waste-derived materials are recyclable,
and if they are:
• Can this be done in the same way as traditional asphalts?
• Is more energy and/or chemical additives required?
• Will recycling impact on reuse performance?
• Does their recycling require additional health and safety precautions?
Despite the widespread use of rubberised asphalt in the US over several decades, there is
relatively little published literature on the use of reclaimed rubberized asphalt pavement in
new asphalt mixes. That which is available tends to be laboratory-based research such as Shen
et al. (2006), rather than field trials.
In California, where rubber modified asphalt is relatively common, forming up to 35% of new
asphalt laid annually, Alavi et al. (2016) note that RAP from mixed conventional and
rubberised stockpiles is used in small quantities (< 15% by weight) as a replacement for virgin
aggregate, sometimes referred to as ‘black rock’, in conventional dense-graded asphalt mixes
and ‘this generally did not result in any problems’. The properties of the aged RAP binders
were not taken into account in new mix designs due to the quantity used.
Alavi et al. (2016) examined whether virgin binders could be altered by the addition of aged
binders and hence affect pavement performance. It was concluded that adding RAP milled
from rubberized asphalt pavement will generally result in better rutting performance than
asphalt mixes without RAP, but there was diminished cracking performance at both high and
low temperatures. This concurs with work undertaken by Huang et al. (2015) which
questioned whether even RAP from non-rubberized roads should be considered as an inert
aggregate replacement (black rock) at any percentage due to the poor understanding of the
interaction between new and aged binders.
Mollenhauer et al. (2012) assessed opportunities to increase the rate of reclaimed asphalt
paving in new asphalt courses. Whilst the research undertaken covered RAP containing PMBs,
it did not include those containing waste-derived rubber or plastic. It did, however, suggest
that the same principles could theoretically apply.
When RAP is reused in new hot-mix asphalt the binder associated with the RAP (usually highly
aged) is softened during RAP heating and/or mixing with virgin aggregates and new binder.
To ensure the compatibility of the two binders, the aged RAP binder must be characterised
(Mollenhauer et al. 2012) and the blend mix adapted accordingly. As the aged binder may
affect the flexibility of the mix, rejuvenator agents may also be added. However, it was noted
that aged and new binders did not always fully mix, resulting in double-coating (new over old
binder). One method of addressing this would be to use a solvent to extract the aged binder
prior to mixing with the new binder (Alavi et al 2016). However, Alavi et al. note that
rubberised binders cannot be chemically extracted from aged RAP as the rubber separates
from the aged binder during the process. The rubber is also thermoset and it is therefore
reasonable to assume that it will not mix with new binders through heating alone and would

39
therefore simply be coated. No information on the effect this has on overall asphalt
performance has been identified.
From the available research it may be deduced that there is uncertainty whether
incorporating RAP containing rubber will have a positive, neutral or negative impact on
asphalt performance.
It is inferred by Alavi et al. (2016) that this lack of research may be a reflection of concerns
that reusing RAP containing rubber may lead to reduced demand for end-of-life tyre rubber
within the US, so support for the process has not been generated.
Whilst there would appear to be little concern about using RAP containing rubber modifiers
in small quantities (<15%) in new surface course material, more research, particularly field
trials, on multiple recycling and reuse of this material as a virgin aggregate replacement and
in quantities of 15% or greater, is required to confirm that the performance is acceptable.
To date, no known studies have been conducted on the future reuse of waste-derived plastic
modified road surfaces probably as a consequence of there being no aged plastic pavements
upon which to undertake research. Whilst it may be possible to treat this RAP as ‘black rock’
when used in small quantities in new surfacing, as indicated by Huang et al. (2015), it should
not be assumed that the black rock is inert. More research is needed on the quality, durability
and structural performance of new asphalt containing this type of RAP, the potential for
multiple recycling and the effect of reuse on process emissions.

4.5 Critical Raw Materials

The European Commission has created a list of critical raw materials for the European
Union27, which is reviewed and updated regularly. The list identifies raw materials of high
importance to the EU economy, which are also high risk due to their supply chain, the
governance in the country of origin and trade aspects. Essentially, the list has been drawn up
so that the materials on it can be prioritised for recycling and recovery in order to reduce
reliance on unstable markets outside the EU.
Natural rubber was added to the list in 2017; closed-loop recycling is therefore the preferred
option for tyres composed of natural rubber and should ideally not be considered for use in
asphalt.

27
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/specific-interest/critical_en (interrogated July 2020)

40
5 OTHER OPPORTUNITIES
While this report focusses primarily on the use of waste-derived materials in road surfacings
this section explores opportunities to use such materials in other elements of road
infrastructure. There are many areas of road construction that illustrate the industry’s
commitment to the reuse and recycling of its waste materials. The industry has long facilitated
the reuse of earthworks materials, the volumes of which can number in the 100s of thousand
cubic metres on larger construction sites. Closer to the theme of this report asphalt planings
have, in the preceding 25 years or so, progressed from being rarely recycled in public roads
to being a material that is routinely recycled in both bound and unbound layers.

5.1 Pavement Foundation and Earthworks

Tyre shreds and plastic have potential applications in road foundations (Huang et al. 2007).
The properties and behaviours of tyre shreds indicate that they might be a useful addition in
lower pavement layers due to their light weight/low density, higher hydraulic conductivity
and increased shear strength (particularly at large strains). The low thermal conductivity and
insulating properties may also render advantages from a winter service perspective as
outlined by Winter et al. (2005, 2006) and can help to reduce the depth of frost penetration
(Huang et al. 2007).
Contaminant leaching potential, principally heavy metals, associated with tyre shreds is
however, a concern (see also Section 5.4). Mohajerani et al. (2020) conclude that due to
variations in the environments in which tyre shreds are used, more research is required to
establish whether there will be any significant impacts on ground and surface water quality.
In addition, work on polymeric fibre reinforced soil (Seddon et al. 2018) indicated that there
were significant difficulties in effectively and economically mixing these synthetic fibres with
natural materials using both in-situ and ex-situ processes. This was partly due to the nature
of the plant used and the soil type but also a build-up of static electricity was suspected to
cause the fibres to clump together during mixing, negating the potential benefits of the
reinforcing function. Clumping of fibres was observed at two of the three trial sites inspected
by Seddon et al. (2018) and suspected at the third although excavation to confirm this was
not possible.
It was also recognised that the potential to reuse road foundation materials containing plastic
or rubber at end of life was both uncertain and problematic from both a technical point of
view and from a waste management perspective due to it being a composite of different
materials. As both road foundation and earthworks materials are processed and placed at
ambient temperatures any improvement in the properties from the addition of plastic would
rely on long polymeric fibres to provide the desired reinforcement (e.g. Seddon et al. 2018).
These issues combined with concerns associated with plastic and tyre particles being released
into the environment and end of life legacy issues led to a strong recommendation that the
use of polymeric (and rubber) reinforced soil and aggregate be ceased. While earthworks and
foundations tend to last longer than pavements, the technical issues surrounding end of life
are similar; however, the greater volumes of such materials and the fact that they have less

41
value than those associated with bound pavement layers mean that less resource and energy
can be justified in any associated recycling processes. Comments seemingly supporting the
use of plastic in the lower layers of roads, as they are not subject to abrasion meaning that
microplastics are not released to into the environment, rather miss the point that end of life
issues remain extremely problematic28.
As noted in Section 4.4, there is the potential to use RAP (including that modified with waste-
derived materials) in road foundations. However, as Mollenhauer et al. (2012) observe, there
is likely to be a decline in new road construction. From a practical point of view, the
opportunity to use RAP in foundation layers is likely to become limited and, from an
environmental perspective, the use of RAP in surface courses is preferable.
Significant strides were made towards the use of tyre bales in road foundations and other
related road asset-based applications (Winter et al. 2005, 2006) and a Publicly Available
Specification (PAS 108) was produced to specify the production of tyre bales for use in
construction (BSI 2007; Simm et al. 2008), including the all-important Factory Production
Control (see Section 6). Soon after that date the proliferation of those seeking to exploit
legitimate avenues for recycling tyres as bales without following the provisions of PAS 108 led
the UK Environmental Regulators to tighten the controls on the volume of tyre bale
production, storage and use leading to many legitimate operators deciding that the market
was no longer viable.

5.2 Bound Lower Pavement Layers

Similar arguments can be applied to the lower bound layers of pavements as are made for
pavement surfacings, pavement foundations and earthwork materials, particularly in the
context of end of life and the potential to recycle. While the value of such materials is greater
than for foundation materials and earthworks, the difficulties of effectively recycling the
materials without emitting plastic and rubber to the environment remain significantly
challenging.

5.3 Footpath, Cycleway and Car Park Surfacings

The bound surfacings of footpaths, dedicated cycleways and car parks typically incur
significantly less wear than those of roads suggesting that the release of waste-derived
materials to the environment will be less during the in-service period. However, the choice of
surfacing materials for these areas is generally based on cost and in some cases, longevity.
Performance properties such as skid resistance, noise reduction, resistance to cracking and
rutting are not as relevant and as these areas are not usually constructed to the same
standards as roads (attention to surface material quality and consistent thickness, base layer
stability, drainage considerations, and so on) their design is appropriate to the intended use.
The potential for waste-derived materials such as rubber and plastic to be released to the
environment as a result of surface degradation remains and their use in unbound footpaths,

28
http://www.htma.info/about-the-htma/news_detail.plastics-use-in-highways.html (interrogated July 2020)

42
dedicated cycleways and car park surfacings should not be permitted. For footpath and
cycleway surfaces in particular, maintenance will generate relatively small amounts of waste
making it difficult to manage, and tempting to use in unbound form.
If the surface being maintained is asphaltic, its incorporation in new asphalt mixes should not
be problematic from a technical point of view. However, on the basis that enhanced
pavement performance is not a consideration in these situations, it must be concluded that
the use of waste-derived materials in these environments, whether in bound or unbound
form, is a means of linear landfill.

5.4 Drainage
Drainage components, including those for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), are
often made from plastic. In particular, plastic ‘milk crate’ type spacers are used to create
subsurface attenuation voids. There are concerns regarding the emission of plastics to the
environment that relate to both virgin and waste-derived materials. The suitability of such
units containing waste-derived materials, and potentially virgin materials in the future, will
depend on an assessment of their likely degradation in the situation in which they are being
used and consequently the environmental regulator may permit their use in some but not
necessarily all drainage projects.
Plastic kerb blocks incorporating drainage channels are viewed similarly although there are
additional considerations, particularly those issues surrounding cutting, material composition
and UV degradation, as covered in Section 5.5.
Whole tyres and tyre bales can and have been used successfully in drainage (Hylands &
Shulman 2003; Winter et al. 2006; Simm et al. 2008). Concerns have been expressed regarding
the release of heavy metals from tyres and these have been found to be largely within
acceptable limits for whole tyres and tyre bales as leaching occurs from only the first 2mm or
so depth from the surface of the tyre (Collins et al. 1995, 2002; Simm et al. 2004). With a
much greater surface area the conclusion for tyre shred, chip and crumb is that the leaching
of heavy metals from such products used in a drainage environment would generally be
expected to be unacceptable.

5.5 Street Furniture, Signs, Barriers and Traffic Cones

There are clear opportunities for plastic to be recycled for use in street furniture, such as
bollards, warning reflectors, road signs, barriers, cones and seating and to some extent this is
already the case. Passively safe columns made of fibreglass-reinforced plastic designed to BS
EN 12767 (BSI 2019) are also used by some local authorities.
Trials by Doncaster Council of kerbs that are claimed to be made from plastic bottle tops and
closures have resulted in their adoption for use in future projects29 and similar trials are

29
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/cumbria-doncaster-participate-plastic-road-initiatives/
(interrogated July 2020)

43
underway in Wokingham30. As the blocks are made from a potentially uniform waste source,
recyclability at the end of life is more assured than if they were composed of several plastic
polymer types. However, the manufacturer’s literature suggests that 182 bottles caps and
closures are incorporated into each kerb, which appears to be inconsistent with the seemingly
greater 955mm×255mm×125mm kerb dimensions31. Notwithstanding this the blocks are
lighter than traditional concrete, reducing risks associated with handling-related
musculoskeletal injuries.
However, while cutting the plastic kerbs with a handsaw will eliminate the airborne respirable
crystalline silica dust potentially associated with cutting concrete blocks, it will produce
microplastics; both have potential health and safety impacts while the microplastics also have
an environmental impact and must be captured and dealt with effectively, preferably by being
returned to the manufacturer for reincorporation into future products. The potential for such
units to degrade under the action of UV-light also needs to be considered.

5.6 Environmental Barriers

Other alternative applications for waste-derived plastic and rubber include environmental
barriers. Typically, these are noise barriers constructed using waste-derived plastic and tyre-
derived rubber material and have been widely researched (e.g. Joynt 2005; Watts & Morgan
2005; Morgan et al. 2015). Noise barriers constructed from waste-derived plastic have been
available since the early-2000s, and it is understood that at least one form of such structure
is undergoing trial on the Highways England Strategic Road Network in northern England32.
Additionally, the use of plastic barriers and tunnel lining tiles to absorb pollutants, particularly
NO233, has been suggested (Anon. 2019d) and further trials and research by those interested
in potentially bringing such products to market may be appropriate.
As with all such products particular attention would need to be paid to ensuring in-service
durability, including resistance to the deleterious effects of UV-light on material stability, and
end of life applications.

5.7 Closed-loop Recycling

It seems clear that if plastic components such as those described in Sections 5.4 to 5.6 are to
be used in road construction, operation and maintenance then every effort should be made
to ensure that manufacturers operate an efficient, closed-loop recycling process with product
design and composition being targeted to facilitate end of life recycling. Ideally this should be
operated within the supply chain (e.g. recycling of material from end of life traffic cones as

30
https://www.wokingham.co.uk/plastic-eco-friendly-kerbs-part-of-new-cycleway/ (interrogated July 2020)
31
https://www.durakerb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Durakerb-Technical-Brochure-04.pdf (interrogated July
2020)
32
https://airqualitynews.com/2017/08/02/10613/ (interrogated July 2020)
33
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-8565023/Five-ways-UK-motorways-set-change-coming-
years.html (interrogated July 2020)

44
new traffic cones) but a broader approach may also be acceptable provided that recycling of
end of life materials is ensured.

45
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

46
6 INTRODUCING INNOVATIVE MATERIALS TO THE ROAD NETWORK
The Scottish road network is one of the largest and most visible community assets. It is used
for an estimated two million private vehicle journeys and a further one million bus journeys
daily (Anon. 2020) and is fundamental to the economic and social wellbeing of Scotland. Asset
owners are charged with the care of the nation’s infrastructure and to ensure that it is
available, and in a suitable condition, for those who wish and need to use it in pursuit of
business, education, leisure, health and other pursuits. It is particularly important that the
infrastructure is constructed and maintained in a safe condition.

6.1 Product and Design Standards and Construction and Maintenance Specifications
Standards and specifications are published documents that define, or specify, the required
quality, performance, compatibility and compliance of a particular asset or component
thereof.
In the UK, the design of road infrastructure is governed by the standards contained in the
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges34 (DMRB), including the National Application Annexes
of the four nations that constitute the UK, while for construction the Manual of Contract
Documents for Highway Works35 (MCHW), which includes the Specification for Highways
Works, is used. These standards and specifications call up detailed content from European
and International, including product and other, standards where necessary. It is important to
note that these standards and specifications are intended for use on the strategic, or trunk,
road and motorway networks in the UK rather than for more lightly trafficked roads that
usually fall under the jurisdiction of local authorities.
However, not all such roads are lightly trafficked and local authorities typically use these
standards and specifications for highly-trafficked roads albeit that there may be more latitude
to depart from these standards and specifications at the discretion of the roads authority
(Anon. 2017). For lightly-trafficked local authority roads designers refer to DMRB and MCHW
for detailed technical guidance or specification on technical aspects (Anon. 2017) while
following the key principles of Designing Streets (Anon. 2010).

6.2 Current Materials

Often standards and specifications define allowable products, materials and processes that
are suitable for use. If a particular material or product-type is not mentioned, then it is
considered not to be permitted. Standards and specifications form an important safeguard
for the road construction and maintenance industry and, more particularly, its customers.
Such standards and specifications rely on knowledge of the in-service performance of
materials. They enable asset owners to ensure that designs are appropriate and that the
methods and materials used to implement those designs will achieve both best value and the

34
https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/ (interrogated July 2020)
35
https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/mchw/index.htm (interrogated July 2020)

47
required performance, even when it is not possible to measure long-term performance at the
time of construction.
Currently, the MCHW 1 (Clause 901.2) permits the use in asphalt mixes up to 1% [by mass] of
other materials (Class X) including wood, plastic and metal, as contaminants within recycled
coarse aggregate or recycled concrete aggregate, but this would not apply to virgin aggregate
substitutes.
Clause 902.2 states that “Other recycled materials shall only be used in bituminous mixtures
with the approval of the Overseeing Organisation”; thus effectively allowing the possibility
that a Departure from Standards might be permitted provided that the performance of the
alternative mix can be adequately demonstrated and that it complies with the “…
requirements of all the relevant clauses in [the MCHW 1 900] Series.”
Stone mastic asphalt surface course (TS2010) (Clause 942TS) is essentially a method, or
recipe, specification that is based on trialling and subsequent type approval of individual
mixtures and potentially allows the use of waste-derived rubber, and/or waste-derived
plastic, in PMBs. However, it should be noted that this was not the intention of TS2010 and
the need for mixture specific trials to be conducted and evaluated in accordance with Anon.
(2018) remains for such materials (McHale et al. 2011).
Typically, materials used in the construction of road pavements are detailed in European
and/or International standards that are administered by the British Standards Institution in
the UK. Such standards require a robust, independently-audited quality control process,
usually in the form of a Factory Production Control (FPC) (e.g. Simm et al. 2008), to be
implemented and used by manufacturers. BS EN 1310836 details the standards applicable to
bituminous mixtures and material specifications with which the material must comply. These
standards are revised regularly and evidence of compliance with the most recent versions,
including test results, should always be sought.

6.3 Future Materials

Before any new or innovative material can be used on the trunk road network it needs to be
approved, and in order for that to happen robust, independently-audited technical evidence
demonstrating that the material meets the performance requirements of existing standards
and specifications is required.
This process will usually include laboratory tests to demonstrate material properties and
behaviours are within acceptable limits, full-scale trials to demonstrate constructability and
trials on live roads to demonstrate longer-term performance. In order to ensure the veracity
of the results of such activities the work would normally be expected to be undertaken, or at
least audited, by organisations independent of the manufacturers and suppliers.

36
BS EN 13108 comprises up to 31 individual parts (documents) parts and these are not referenced here but
the latest versions can be accessed from https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/ (interrogated July
2020)

48
Using this process, and working with the innovators, it is possible to develop a draft standard
and to undertake in-service monitoring of applications, the results of which can be used to
refine the standard. This iterative process continues until it is possible to bring the new
process or material into more routine use and broadly reflects the process used by Transport
Scotland to introduce the TS2010 material and associated specification (McHale et al. 2011;
Sanders et al. 2017; McHale & Martin 2017, 2019). However, it is important to note that this
process of refinement continues throughout the life of the product-type or process as it is
further developed and greater knowledge is gained; a good example of such long-term
evolution of specifications is given by Parsons (1992).
In addition to the technical requirements related to performance it is important to establish
whether any waste-derived materials to be used are considered to be fully recovered waste.
If they are not, their use may be subject to waste regulatory controls. Whilst it is the courts
that make the final judgement on whether a material is fully-recovered waste or not, if the
manufacturer and environmental regulator are in agreement, then legal intervention is
unnecessary. It is also important to remember that SEPA may take a different view to other
UK environmental regulators on whether a waste is fully-recovered and the material status
should be checked with the regulator in whose area it is to be used. SEPA guidance on
determining full waste recovery can be accessed on its website37.
Any additional health and safety issues associated with the manufacture, handling and use of
innovative products must also be considered.

6.4 Protocol for Material Introduction

The roads industry in Scotland has an enviable record of both innovation and recycling and it
is, from client to contractor, keen to encourage sustainable development.
There are two strands to the acceptance of a new material, product or process for use in
Scotland’s road pavements: technical and environmental. A protocol for the initial evaluation
of such materials, to be managed by the Transport Scotland Pavement Forum (TSPF), is
proposed in order to give the manufacturers of new and innovative materials rapid access to
a preliminary consideration on the potential future of a new process or material.
This preliminary protocol is based on a traffic light system, scoring a number of factors related
to cost, technical efficacy, environmental impact, and health and safety as either ‘green’,
‘amber’ or ‘red’ as set out in Table 2. It is intended that this scoring table should form the
basis of a governance system to be developed and evolved to provide initial feedback for
those intending to promote innovative materials and processes to those responsible for
procuring roads construction and maintenance goods and services. The intention is to give an
absolute assessment of one or more materials or technologies rather than necessarily to
facilitate a comparison of the purely technical state of development as is the case for the
Highways England Technology Readiness Level scheme (Sanders 2016) and which is generally
most effective in a comparative setting. It is acknowledged that a protocol is in development

37
https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/154077/is_it_waste.pdf (interrogated July 2020)

49
by Highways England in association with the Mineral Products Association but that its use in
Scotland will be effectively prevented by the differences between the English and Scottish
legislative and regulatory environments.

Table 2. Preliminary evaluation protocol for new and innovative systems and materials for road
pavements.

Factor Description Score

Whole Life Cost Lower WLC Green
(WLC) WLC neutral Amber
Higher WLC Red
Technical: Integrates easily with existing manufacturing and construction Green
Manufacturing and systems
construction Likely to create minor difficulties during manufacturing and Amber
construction (e.g. minor modifications to batching plant to
address process emissions, material handling/storage pre and
post production)
Likely to create major difficulties during manufacturing and Red
construction (e.g. major modifications to batching plant and/or
difficult to work)
Technical: Yields a demonstrable improvement in at least one performance Green
Material behaviour or behaviour parameter (e.g. durability, ease of use, ease of
and performance installation, …)
Likely to be behaviour and performance neutral Amber
Likely to have an adverse effect on behaviour and performance Red
Technical: Factory FPC in-place and independently-audited Green
Production Control FPC in-development Amber
(FPC) No FPC Red
Environment: Yields a demonstrable environmental benefit (e.g. reduced noise Green
Emissions and CO2 and/or CO2 use)
use Possible but unlikely to occur or can be satisfactorily managed Amber
Significant additional emissions or CO2 use Red
High risk emissions (e.g. containing hazardous materials, those Red
likely to have long term effects or with unknown consequences)
Environment: End Certainty of end of life waste reuse or recycling Green
of life waste reuse Lack of certainty or clarity as to the end of life waste reuse or Amber
or recycling recycling
No clear potential route to end of life waste reuse or recycling Red
Human health & Promotes a safer working environment and/or wider human Green
safety health and safety benefits
No known or suspected issues, or minor issues that can be Amber
effectively eliminated and COSHH available
Significant issues that cannot be effectively eliminated or no Red
COSHH

50
The primary aim of any such governance process must be to ensure that the same rigorous
standards and processes are applied to new and innovative materials as are applied to
standard materials. This will help road authorities to meet the obligations placed on them by
government and society. The intention is that a single ‘Red’ score would generally rule out
the material or process for use on the road network. One or more ‘Amber’ scores would
require further investigation which may deliver a potential route to use or rule out the
material or process.
It is intended that those materials and processes that pass this initial test would next be
subject to independently conducted and audited testing and trial as specified by the TSPF,
normally at the expense of the manufacturer or supplier of the material or process. Trials are
expected to be preceded by laboratory testing to inform the design of the in-situ trial and one
or more control sections will be required. Where possible trials of different materials of
processes will be combined with a view to reducing the financial burden of the manufacturer
or supplier; this shall be entirely at the discretion of the TSPF. It is further expected that tests,
evaluations and inspections shall be conducted during construction and thereafter, at
intervals specified by the TSPF, in order to assess long term performance.
This trial process will require the full disclosure of the material(s) and/or process(es) in order
that the tests and trials can be designed, specified, conducted, analysed and interpreted to
the benefit of all parties. Non-disclosure may be allowable if the material complies with a
recognised, audited industry specification that allows confidence in the material or product.
It is expected that the results will be published in an open, accessible and peer-reviewed
format. This information is also essential for assessments of human health and safety and
environmental issues. The minimum required is an assessment under the Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (often referred to as COSHH) (see HSE
2012, 2013, 2020). It is also important that throughout this process the materials to be
evaluated are maintained in a consistent form if a valid and acceptable outcome is to result;
it will be tempting to make adjustments and further innovations but these introduce
inconsistency and prevent an evaluation being completed successfully.
Any waste-derived product or material approval by the TSPF using the Protocol will be specific
to that proposed by a specific company and to the detailed constituents of that product or
material. Approvals will not be applicable to generic products, materials or processes (e.g.
rubber in asphalt) regardless of the way in which they are used.
In parallel, if proposals involve the use of waste, there is a requirement to enter into dialogue
with SEPA to ascertain what waste regulatory controls will apply. This would also be expected
where wastes that are purported to be fully recovered are to be used, if they are not identical
to their virgin equivalent. It is expected that SEPA and TSPF would mutually consult and that
a negative decision by either would render an overall negative decision on the future use of
the new and innovative material.
Enquiries should initially be submitted to the Transport Scotland Pavement Forum care of
the Head of Materials and Standards Branch at Transport Scotland and SEPA’s National
Operations Waste Unit.

51
In the longer term, consideration should be given to comparative LCA of any materials or
processes implemented on the road network through this process. It is, of course, essential
that the comparative LCA includes one or more established materials or processes in order to
ensure that a valid comparison can be made.

52
7 DISCUSSION
In this report the use of waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic in road surfacings is examined
from the viewpoint of technical efficacy, waste regulation and environmental impact. In
Section 2.4 a series of questions was posed as a means of evaluation of the use of such
materials. These questions are now answered for each material in the following paragraphs.

7.1 Glass
Is the waste-derived material a direct substitute for virgin material?
• Yes. The glass is a substitute for aggregate.
Does it enhance the properties and quality of the binder/asphalt?
• Potentially. Improved workability and resistance to thermal cracking of asphalt are
reported, but there may also be increased bleeding, stripping and sensitivity to water
damage.
Are there any additional health and safety precautions during manufacture and construction
to consider?
• No.
Are there any additional environmental impacts associated with the use of asphalts
containing the waste-derived material?
• No, but the preference within the glass industry is closed-loop recycling.
Is the use of the material cost-effective for the road industry?
• No.
Can the asphalt subsequently be recycled at the end of life and are special precautions
necessary?
• Yes it can be recycled at end of life and no special precautions are necessary.

7.2 Rubber
Is the waste-derived material a direct substitute for virgin material?
• Yes, it can potentially be used as a binder modifier.
Does it enhance the properties and quality of the binder/asphalt?
• Yes. Rubberised asphalt is reported to be more resistant to rutting and cracking,
extending the life of the asphalt, as well as reducing tyre noise.
Are there any additional health and safety precautions during manufacture and construction
to consider?
• No.

53
Are there any additional environmental impacts associated with the use of asphalts
containing the waste-derived material?
• Yes, there is the potential for the release of nano and microplastics as a result of road
wear as well as during planing and processing at the end of the pavement life, albeit
that the amounts used, and thus the emissions will be small.
Is the use of the material cost-effective for the road industry?
• No, but it is an inexpensive means of managing a problematic waste when compared
with other options for end of life tyres such as closed-loop recycling activities.
Can the asphalt subsequently be recycled at the end of life and are special precautions
necessary?
• Yes, but currently in limited quantities. Little is known about the interaction of old
(rubberised) binder with new binder and subsequently the impact on long-term
performance and pavement longevity.

7.3 Plastics
Is the waste-derived material a direct substitute for virgin material?
• Yes, potentially as a bitumen replacement and is marketed as a binder
extender/enhancer depending on the type of plastic but the amounts used are very
small. It is also being trialled as an aggregate replacement in some countries, but no
waste-derived plastic products marketed for use in asphalt in the UK currently meet the
MCHW 1 aggregates criteria.
Does it enhance the properties and quality of the binder/asphalt?
• Unproven, but there is potentially improved resistance to moisture damage, cracking
and rutting performance. This is dependent on the type of plastic used and whether it
melts fully in the asphalt mix. Some plastics are however, reported to increase moisture
damage potential. More work on this is required to provide evidence of benefits and
research must clearly identify the type or mixtures of component plastics and their
ratios in the material marketed.
Are there any additional health and safety precautions during manufacture and construction
to consider?
• Potentially. It has not been possible to obtain details on the ‘activators’ (compatibilizers)
used in materials marketed in Scotland, so it is not possible to provide a definitive
comment. Further work on fume analysis is also required.
Are there any additional environmental impacts associated with the use of asphalts
containing the waste-derived material?
• There is potential for nano and microplastics to be released during road surface wear
as well as during planing and processing at the end of pavement life. However, the
quantity of waste-derived plastic, and thus the emissions, will be small.

54
Is the use of the material cost-effective for the road industry?
• Where waste plastic types are separated (either at source or after collection to fulfil
product quality criteria) they have more value than co-mingled plastics due to their
potential for use in plastic remanufacturing. The costs may therefore be higher than the
virgin equivalent it is being used to substitute. This is dependent on waste reprocessing
capacity, proximity and demand. For mixed plastic types that have not been separated
and therefore have not been through a quality control procedure, the cost may be lower
than the virgin equivalent but material performance within an asphalt mix is unlikely to
be guaranteed.
Can the asphalt subsequently be recycled at the end of life and are special precautions
necessary?
• Potentially, but no evidence is available to demonstrate this and the interaction
between aged plastic binders and new binders needs to be investigated. Potential
release of nano and microplastics to the environment during reprocessing must also be
considered particularly as they have been found in human tissue.
While outside the scope of this report, it is recognised that virgin plastic is used in bitumen
mixes, commonly called Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB). It is important to note that the
quality and lack of contaminants in virgin materials are strictly controlled through accepted
standards and specifications, and, as the composition is known, miscibility of the plastics is
assured.
The potential for the use of waste-derived glass in asphalt is primarily limited by the efforts
of the UK glass industry to undertake closed-loop recycling and to maintain the value of the
resource. However, for rubber and plastic the situation is rather different. In Figure 2 (Section
2.2) the development of waste-derived material products was illustrated. The position of
rubber and glass on this continuum is potentially contentious as some demonstration projects
have been undertaken. In the US, the use of waste-derived rubber in asphalt is at the fully-
developed stage, whereas in the UK it is still being trialled; waste-derived plastic however, is
in the research phase (Figure 4).

7.4 Microplastics in the Environment

The issue of the release of microplastics in the environment is one that is of increasing
concern to society globally. Plastic is considered to be a potential marker for the
Anthropocene in the future sedimentary record (e.g. Corcoran et al. 2014, 2015, 2017; Bank
& Hansson 2019), with Corcoran et al. (2014) having identified ‘plastiglomerate’ materials
formed from waste plastic in the environment and naturally occurring geological materials.
Such a significant negative legacy is not considered to be one to which the road construction
and maintenance industry should actively seek to contribute.
The contribution of road transport to the problem of plastic in the environment is highlighted
by the work of Roychand & Pramanik (2019) who noted significant amounts of tyre wear
particles in road dust samples collected from Australian roads. The road transport industry in
Europe is responsible for the production of an estimated 500,000 tonnes of particulate matter

55
from tyre wear per annum. Such particulate matter is the second-largest microplastic
pollutant in the oceans38. While this is not a problem that Scottish, or UK, road authorities
have the power or the resources to tackle it is clear that this will need to be addressed by the
road transport and vehicle industries in the near future39.

Figure 4. The development of business-based on the production and sale of waste-derived

material products showing the progress of waste-derived rubber and plastic in bitumen or asphalt
in the UK (adapted from Winter & Gomes Correia 2019).
As if to reinforce this point yet further, recent research (Rolsky et al. 2020) found microplastics
in human organs that provide a filtration function, demonstrating the immediacy of the
problem of nano and microplastics entering the environment as well as the longer-term
impacts. Cingotti & Howard (2020) identify the synthetic chemicals in plastic that are thought
to be carcinogenic, neurotoxicants and may cause endocrine disruption in humans and Li et
al (2020) report on uptake by plants of microplastics in soils. This means they are entering the
human food chain either through direct ingestion of crops or indirectly through ingestion of
grazing animals and their products (e.g. meat and dairy products40).
The UK Plastics Pact supported by the development of PAS 510, with the aim of introducing
measures to prevent the leakage of such materials to the environment, demonstrates the
growing commitment to the issue of environmental microplastics in the influential charity
sector. Bournemouth Christchurch & Poole Council provide an example of leadership in this
area with funding for an Ecohub that will inter alia focus on “… behavioural change with

38
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/air-quality-brake-tyre-and-road-surface-wear-call-for-
evidence/outcome/brake-tyre-and-road-surface-wear-call-for-evidence-summary-of-responses (interrogated
September 2020)
39
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/device-to-curb-microplastic-emissions-wins-
james-dyson-award (interrogated September 2020)
40
www.ehn.org/plastic-in-farm-soil-and-food-2647384684.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4 (interrogated
September 2020)

56
visitors taking away a new awareness around plastic use and recycling …”41, including
microplastics in the environment.
The need for further work to allow the use of waste-derived plastic in road construction and
an associated governance structure similar to that proposed in Section 6 was highlighted by
Chin & Damon (2019) and this has been followed up by an Austroads technical research
project42. The stated objective of this newly-commissioned research is to develop evidence-
based and performance-based specifications to establish a road-grade plastic polymer
sourced from recycled plastic manufacturers and material recovery facilities. This reiterates
the need for significantly greater understanding and control of such uses of waste-derived
plastic compared to that available at present.
In parallel, it is considered essential that Scotland’s road authorities need to play their part in
controlling the emission of nano and microplastics to the environment by not adopting new
materials that have the potential to increase the emission of such materials to the
environment.

7.5 Future Use

It is proposed that waste-derived plastic and rubber should not be further used in road
surfacing, in bound layers of road construction, at the present time, unless in a trial situation.
It is further proposed that waste-derived plastic and rubber should not be further used in the
unbound layers of road construction, including the foundations layer(s), or in earthworks
other than as fully-accredited geosynthetic materials.
These statements are based on the current state-of-the-art and its application. While this
closes opportunities for such use in the short-term it is fully-accepted that this may change in
the future. It is entirely possible that the use of waste-derived rubber and/or plastic could
successfully meet the requirements of the protocol described in Section 6. However, in order
for that process to commence the following criteria must be met:
• Performance of the modified and/or extended material must be demonstrated to be
at least at the level expected of conventional materials. While international research
and trials provides helpful background, variations in the composition of waste-derived
additives, asphalt mixes and processes and climate mean their relevance to Scottish
road construction and maintenance is not assured.
• Issues surrounding the emission of microplastics (and other plastics) to the
environment must be satisfactorily addressed, including in the context of planer
removal of the material that has reached end of life.
• The end of life recyclability of the material must be demonstrated to be satisfactory
including the performance of the recycled material.

41
https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/News-Articles/Environmental-Innovation-Hub-planned-for-Dorset-
coast.aspx (interrogated September 2020)
42
https://austroads.com.au/projects/project?id=APT6305 (interrogated September 2020)

57
In terms of the development of waste-derived materials use in road construction and
maintenance it is important to consider the technical, financial, environmental, and health
and safety criteria set-out in Table 2 (Section 6). Taking an honest and open approach to the
necessary engagement with the TSPF will make the decision-making process easier and, most
likely, lead to more timely decisions on the potential way forward.

58
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Conclusions
In recent years the use of waste-derived glass, rubber and plastic in bitumen or asphalt has
been promoted with claims of dramatically increased performance and/or as an effective
means of dealing with such wastes. In this report the potential use of such materials has been
examined from the performance, financial, environmental, health and safety, and, as far as
possible, financial perspectives.
The use of glass in road surfacings, or other parts of the road asset, is unlikely to progress
further in the context of the strong lead being provided by the UK glass industry towards a
system of closed-loop recycling that effectively keeps waste-derived glass within that
industry.
The use of waste-derived rubber may increase if the claimed performance benefits of
rubberised road surfacings can be proven in the UK, particularly as currently there is a lack of
capacity for sustainably treating end of life tyres. However, concerns remain regarding waste-
derived material quality control (including the potential for contaminants and the suitability
of tyres for processing into asphalt additive materials) and the potential for the release of
microplastics during pavement service and at end of life.
The case for waste-derived plastics to improve the performance of bitumen or asphalt is far
from proven. There are also concerns around the quality control of mixed waste-derived
plastics and this needs to be addressed to prevent batch and ultimately pavement
performance variation.
In addition, and as for rubber, there are significant concerns around the release of
microplastics to the environment. The Scottish Government has signalled its intention to
tackle the microplastic problem and has gone so far as to introduce legislation to prevent the
sale of goods such as cosmetics and personal hygiene products which contain plastic
microbeads (The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (Scotland) Regulations 2018).
Scotland is also a signatory to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy global
commitment to end plastic pollution and it is questionable therefore whether the use of
waste-derived plastics in road surfaces is aligned with government policy.
Modular plastic roads made with waste-derived materials have also been trialled, most
notably in the Netherlands. These also raise concerns regarding the release of microplastics
to the environment, particularly as a result of wear during their service life.
The issue of microplastics is one that is of great concern to society and in isolation would point
to a decision to cease the use of waste-derived plastics in road surfacings. In combination
with the lack of clear performance benefits from the addition of waste-derived plastics to
bitumen or asphalt a decision to not use such materials seems straightforward.
The use of waste-derived rubber or plastics in pavement foundations, earthworks and
unbound and bound lower pavement layers is also not recommended due to the same
concerns surrounding the release of microplastics at the end of the service life. It is perhaps
noteworthy that Highways England ceased the use of fibre reinforced soil in late-2018. For

59
footway, cycleways and car parks, where increased performance is not required, the use of
such materials can only be described as a means of linear landfill. This is not intended to
include fully-accredited geosynthetic materials that form discrete layers within the structure
rather than exist within the mix in a random distribution.
Where there does seem to be some potential to allow for the use of waste-derived plastic in
parts of the road asset is where these are non-composite/single-material, quality controlled
products. These might include drainage elements, kerbs, street furniture, signs, barriers,
traffic cones and environmental barriers. Indeed, the authors are aware of moves within the
industry to promote, trial and use such products. Notwithstanding this, there is a need to
ensure the control of the potential release of microplastics, particularly if the products may
need to be cut during construction. In addition, as with all such products particular attention
would need to be paid to ensuring in-service durability, including resistance to the deleterious
effects of UV-light on material stability, and end of life applications. Closed-loop recycling of
such products is to be encouraged.
Uses of plastic in roads in Scotland to date largely constitute demonstration projects rather
than formal trials to assess technical performance. These demonstrations all appear to use
the dry process, in which plastics are added to the asphalt mix as a binder extender or
enhancer. No evidence is available to suggest that a formal design process has been
undertaken to optimise the performance of the final mix.
A protocol for the introduction of innovative materials and processes, including those
containing waste-derived materials, to the road network has been proposed. This is tentative
and intended as a starting point further development prior to implementation. The protocol
considers technical, financial, environmental, and health and safety aspects of innovative
materials and processes. The focus is on pavement surfacing materials but it could be
extended to encompass other asset features albeit that other disciplines, earthworks for
example, would require a rather different approach to the detailed evaluation process.
This work will help Scottish roads authorities to continue to assist and contribute to the
delivery of government priorities, including those related to climate change.

8.2 Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Based on the evidence currently available there is, as yet, no viable
technical, environmental or economic case for the use (addition or replacement) of waste-
derived glass or plastic in asphalt.
Recommendation 2: While the research is further advanced for waste-derived rubber
(addition or replacement) than for plastic, the available technical and environmental case for
its use in asphalt does not yet fully-support its use. Further research and trials are needed in
this area including through the use of the protocol described in Section 6.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that waste-derived (or virgin) rubber or plastic not be
used in unbound pavements layers, including the foundation layer(s), or in earthworks other
than as fully-accredited geosynthetic materials.

60
Recommendation 4: It is recommended that in the future the use of waste-derived materials
in road surfacing and other structural and foundation layers should be subject to the scrutiny
of the TSPF under the protocol described in Recommendation 6.
Recommendation 5: Opportunities should be sought to use waste-derived materials and
products in other non-composite/single material-type, quality controlled products. These
might include drainage elements, kerbs, street furniture, signs, barriers, traffic cones and
environmental barriers. Such use should be subject to a full evaluation of the technical,
financial, environmental, and health and safety efficacy and impacts of the product.
Recommendation 6: A protocol to steer the appropriate and constructive use of waste-
derived materials and products in pavements should be introduced.
Recommendation 7: That the protocol in Recommendation 6 be extended to include
innovative (non-waste) materials, products and processes that are proposed for use in
pavements and innovative (waste-derived and non-waste) materials, products and processes
in other elements of the road asset.

61
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

62
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded by the Scottish Road Research Board.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Roads Collaboration Programme,
we are particularly grateful for the support of Angus Bodie and Shaun Millar.
We would like to acknowledge the input and support of the Society of Chief Officers of
Transportation in Scotland (SCOTS) Road Working Group, particularly those members who
returned completed questionnaires.
The members of the Steering Group and those whom we consulted during the course of this
project were essential to the successful completion of this work and we thank them for the
time, effort and expertise that they applied to the project. The Steering Group comprised the
following individuals representing the organisations named:
Alan Ferguson, Transport Scotland.
Douglas Hill, SCOTS Road Working Group.
Malcolm Simms, Mineral Products Association.
Craig Baskin, The Institute of Asphalt Technology (IAT).
David Giles, Eurobitume.
Ken McNeil, Mineral Products Association Scotland.
Stephen Child, Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning &
Transport (ADEPT).
Angus Bodie, Roads Collaboration Programme.
Shaun Millar, Roads Collaboration Programme.
Scott Buchanan, Aggregate Industries (Scotland) (Corresponding).
Ian Carr, Tarmac (Corresponding).
SEPA was also consulted on the final draft report and provided useful feedback, in particular
support for the development of a protocol, as recommended in this report, which covers all
potential new and innovative asphalt additives.
The authors wish to additionally acknowledge the helpful discussion and advice offered by:
the SCOTS Road Working Group and John Ashcroft (North Lanarkshire Council), Peter
McGillivray (Glasgow City Council), Donald Scott (Scottish Borders Council), Neil Hutcheson
(Shetland Islands Council), Ian Lennock (Midlothian Council), John McCormick (Angus
Council), Dougie McKay (Tayside Contracts), Jamie Watson (The City of Edinburgh Council),
Neil Watson (Fife Council), North Ayrshire Council, East Dunbartonshire Council, Mark
Atherton (Moray Council) and Keith Jolly (Ayrshire Road Alliance).
We additionally thank Steve Betteridge (Lincolnshire County Council); Robin Hudson-Griffiths
(Highways England); Mathew Waning. Keith Field, Mark Robinson and Andy Brown (Cumbria
County Council); and Donna James, Orlando Walters (WSP) for sharing information and
insights.

63
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

64
REFERENCES
The Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (Scotland) Regulations 2018, Scottish Statutory
Instruments No. 162. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2018/162/contents/made
(Accessed: 22 September 2020).
Alavi, Z, Hung, S, Jones D & Harvey, J. 2016. Preliminary investigation into the use of reclaimed
asphalt pavement in gap-graded asphalt rubber mixes, and use of reclaimed asphalt rubber
pavement in conventional asphalt concrete mixes. Research Report: UCPRC-RR-2016-03,
p113. University of California, Pavement Research Center, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, CA.
Andersson-Sköld, Y, Johannesson, M, Gustafsson, M, Järlskog, I, Lithner. D, Polukarova, M &
Strömvall, A-M. 2020. Microplastics from tyre and road wear: a literature review. VTI rapport
1028A, 146p. VTI (Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute), Linköping.
Anon. 2010. Designing streets: a policy statement for Scotland, 68p. Scottish Government,
Edinburgh.
Anon. 2015. The bitumen industry – a global perspective: production, chemistry, use,
specification and occupational exposure, Third Edition. Information Series No 230 (IS-230),
60p. Eurobitume, Asphalt Institute, Lexington, KY.
https://www.eurobitume.eu/public_downloads/General/The%20Bitumen%20Industry%203
rd%20edition.pdf
Anon. 2016. Road asset management plan for Scotland’s trunk roads, 141p. Transport
Scotland, Glasgow.
Anon. 2017. National roads development guide, p189. Society of Chief Officers for Transport
in Scotland, Dumfries.
Anon. 2018. TS2010 surface course specification and guidance. Transport Scotland Interim
Amendment No 35/18 (TSIA 35/18) Version 4.0, November, 36p. Transport Scotland,
Glasgow. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/43503/tsia-35-18-combined.pdf
Anon. 2019a. Plastics – the Facts 2019: an analysis of European plastics production, demand
and waste data. Plastics Europe, 42p.
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/1115/7236/4388/FINAL_web_version_Pla
stics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf
Anon. 2019b. Plastic in roads. ADEPT SMDS Group Briefing Note. The Association of Directors
of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport, Manchester. https://www.adeptnet.org.uk/
Anon. 2019c. Working for better roads Warm Mix Asphalt: reducing carbon emissions and
improving efficiencies. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Highways, Westminster.
Anon. 2019d. Summary of research projects to improve air quality on or close to the strategic
road network. Highways England, December 2019.
http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/Corporate+documents/FINAL+-
+HE+Research+Projects+to+Improve+Air+Quality.pdf
Anon. 2020. Scottish Transport Statistics, No 38, 2019 Edition, 328p. Transport Scotland,
Edinburgh.

65
Azizian, M F, Nelson, P O, Thayumanavan, P & Williamson, K J. 2003. Environmental impact of
highway construction and repair materials on surface and ground waters: case study: crumb
rubber asphalt concrete. Waste Management, 23(8), 719–728
Bank, M S & Hansson, S V. 2019. The plastic cycle: a novel and holistic paradigm for the
Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(13), 7177-7179.
BSI. 2002. Aggregates for bituminous mixtures and surface treatments for roads, airfields and
other trafficked areas, BS EN 13043:2013. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI. 2007. Specification for the production of tyre bales for use in construction, PAS 108.
British Standards Institution, London.
BSI. 2017. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,
BS EN ISO/IEC 17025:2017. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI 2019. Passive safety of support structures for road equipment. Requirements and test
methods, BS EN 12767:2019. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI. 2021. Plastic pellets, flakes and powders – Handling and management throughout the
supply chain to prevent their leakage to the environment – Specification. Publicly Available
Specification 510 (PAS 510). British Standards Institution, London.
Chin, C & Damen, P. 2019. Viability of using recycled plastics in asphalt and sprayed sealing
applications. Austroads Technical Report AP-T351-19, Austroads, Sydney, Australia.
Cingotti, N & Howard, G. 2020. Health and Environmental Alliance, 26p. September. Health
and Environmental Alliance, Brussels. http://www.env-health.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/HEAL_Plastics_report_v5.pdf
Collins, K C, Jensen, A C, & Albert S. 1995. A review f waste tyre utilisation in the marine
environment. Chemistry and Ecology, 10, 205-216.
Collins, K C, Jensen, A C, Mallinson, J J, Roenelle, V & Smith, I P. 2002. Environmental impact
assessment of a scrap tyre artificial reef. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59, S243-249.
Corcoran, P L, Moore, C J & Jazvac, K. 2014. An Anthropogenic marker horizon in the future
rock record. GSA Today, 24(6), 4–8.
Corcoran, P L, Norris, T, Ceccanese, T, Walzak, M J, Helm, P A & Marvin, C H. 2015. Hidden
plastics of Lake Ontario, Canada and their potential preservation in the sediment record.
Environmental Pollution, 204, 17-25.
Corcoran, P L, Jazvac, K, Ballent, A. 2017. Plastic and the Anthropocene. Encyclopedia of the
Anthropocene (Eds: DellaSala, D & Goldstein, M), 8p. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Dahlat, M A & Wahhab, H I A. 2017. Performance of recycled plastic waste modified asphalt
binder in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 8(4), 349-357.
Gomes Correia, A, Winter, M G & Puppala, A J. 2016. A review of sustainable approaches in
transport infrastructure geotechnics. Transportation Geotechnics, 7, 21-28. DOI:
10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.03.003.

66
Gursel, A., Akoa, E. & Sen, N. 2018. A review on devulcanization of waste tire rubber.
Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 6(1), 154-160.
Gürü, M, Çubuk, M, Arslan, D, Farzanian, S & Bilici, I. 2014. An approach to the usage of
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) waste as roadway pavement material. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 279, 302-310.
Hansford, M. 2016. Hype! The emerging technologies set to impact on Civil Engineering. New
Civil Engineer, February, 24-27.
Heitzman, M. 1992. Design and Construction of Asphalt Paving Materials with Crumb Rubber
Modifier. Recycled Tire Rubber in Asphalt Pavements, Transportation Research Record 1339
(Materials and Construction), 1-9.
HSE. 2012. Working with substances hazardous to health: A brief guide to COSHH. INDG136
(rev5) 10/12, 10p. Health and Safety Executive, London.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg136.htm
HSE. 2013. Control of substances hazardous to health: The Control of Substances Hazardous
to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L5 Sixth
Edition), 100p. Health and Safety Executive, London.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l5.pdf
HSE. 2020. EH40/2005 Workplace exposure limits, Containing the list of workplace exposure
limits for use with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as
amended) (Fourth Edition), 61p. Health and Safety Executive, London.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/eh40.htm
Honarmand, M, Tanzadeh, J & Beiranvand, M. 2019. Bitumen and its modifier for use in
pavement engineering. In: Sustainable Construction and Building Materials (Ed: Hemeda, S.),
22p. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82489
Huang, S-C, Grimes, W, Pauli, A T, Boysen, R, Salmans, S & Turner, F. 2015. Aging
characteristics of RAP binders― what types of RAP binders suitable for multiple recycling?
Contract No. DTFH61-07-D-00005, 56p. Western Research Institute, Laramie, WY.
Huang, Y, Bird, R N & Heidrich, O. 2007. A review of the use of recycled solid waste materials
in asphalt pavements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(1), 58–73.
Hylands, K N & Shulman, V. 2003. Civil engineering applications of tyres. Viridis Report VR5.
Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Jafar, J. 2016. Utilisation of waste plastic in bituminous mix for improved performance of
roads. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20, 243-249.
Jones, C, Lamont-Black, J, Huntley, D, Alder, A & Glendinning, S. 2017. Electrokinetic
geosynthetics: from research to hype to practice. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers (Civil Engineering), 170(CE3), 127-134.
Joynt, J L R. 2005. A sustainable approach to environmental noise barrier design. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. University of Sheffield, Sheffield.

67
Kennedy, A. 1999. Foundations for sustainable resource use: a strategy for Scotland. Friends
of the Earth Scotland, Edinburgh.
Leal, D, Winter, M G, Seddon, R & Nettleton, I M. 2020. A comparative life cycle assessment
of innovative highway slope repair techniques. Transportation Geotechnics, 22, 100322, 8p.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100322.
Li, L, Luo, L, Li, R, Zhou, Q, Peijnenburgh, W J G M, Yin, N, Yang, J, Tu, C & Zhang, Y. 2020.
Effective uptake of submicrometre plastics by crop plants via a crack-entry mode. Nature
Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0567-9.
Lin, T A, Lin, J-H, Bao, L. 2020. Polypropylene/thermoplastic polyurethane blends: mechanical
characterizations, recyclability and sustainable development of thermoplastic materials.
Journal of Materials Research & Technology, 9(3), 5304-5312.
Lo Presti, D. 2013. Recycled tyre rubber modified bitumens for road asphalt mixtures: a
literature review. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 863-881.
López-Moro, F J, Moro, M C, Hernández-Olivares, F, Witoszek-Schultz, B & Alonso-Fernández,
M. 2013. Microscopic analysis of the interaction between crumb rubber and bitumen in
asphalt mixtures using the dry process. Construction and Building Materials, 48, 691-699
Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW):
Volume 1, Specification for Highway Works.
Volume 2, Notes for Guidance on the Specification for Highway Works
McHale, M & Gordon, M. 2020. An approach to cold recycling of bitumen and tar bound roads.
Project No. TS/TRBO/SER/2017/04/07 for Transport Scotland. WSP, Edinburgh. (September
2020 draft examined for this project, final report expected to be published late-2020.)
McHale, M & Martin, L A. 2017. The performance of surfacing in Scotland: Scottish Inspection
Panel Report 2016. Published Project Report PPR 821. Transport Research Laboratory,
Wokingham.
McHale, M J & Martin, L A. 2019. The performance of road surfacing in Scotland: Scottish
Inspection Panel Report 2018. Published Project Report PPR 898. Transport Research
Laboratory, Wokingham.
McHale, M J, Carswell, I & Roe, P. 2011. New surface course specification for Scotland. Report
TRL 670. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Mirjalili, A, Dong, B, Pena, P, Ozkan, C S & Ozkan,M. 2020. Upcycling of polyethylene
terephthalate plastic waste to microporous carbon structure for energy storage. Energy
Storage, 23p. https://doi.org/10.1002/est2.201
Mohajerani, A, Burnetta, L, Smith, J V, Markovski, S, Rodwell, G, Rahman, Md T, Kurmus, H,
Mirzababaei, M, Arulrajah, A, Horpibulsuk, S & Maghoolc F. 2020. Recycling waste rubber
tyres in construction materials and associated environmental considerations: a review.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104679, 17p.

68
Mollenhauer, K, Mouillet, V, Piérard, N, Gabet, T, Tušar, M & Vanelstraete, A. 2012. Chemical
and physical compatibility of new and aged binders from RA. Re-Road deliverable 2.3, 67p.
http://re-road.fehrl.org/index.php?m=64
Moo, A, Bywood, P, Silva, D & McMillan, J. 2019. Health effects associated with exposure to
bitumen. ISCRR Environmental Scan 232, 33p.
https://research.iscrr.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1856564/bitumen-contents-
and-fumes-health-effects-associated-with-exposure-to-bitumen.pdf
Morgan, P A, Brady, K C, Winter, M G & Thomson, S. 2015. Application of tyre derived rubber
material in the design and construction of environmental noise barriers: phases 2-4: technical
issues and preliminary performance testing. Published Project Report PPR 765. Transport
Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Nurfazilah, B M S. 2012. Effects of overheating of bitumen on hot mix asphalt properties.
Journal Online Jaringan Pengajian Seni Bina (JOJAPS), 5, 48-58.
Parsons, A W. 1992. Compaction of soils and granular materials: a review of research
performed at the Transport Research Laboratory. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.
Porto, M, Caputo, P, Loise, V, Eskandarsefat, S, Teltayev, B & Oliviero Rossi, C. 2019. Bitumen
and bitumen modification: a review on latest advances. Applied Sciences, 9(4), 742.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040742
Pratico, F G, Giunta, M, Mistretta, M & Gulotta, T M. 2020. Energy and environmental life
cycle assessment of sustainable pavement materials and technologies for urban roads.
Sustainability, 12, 704, 15p. doi:10.3390/su12020704
Prikryl, W, Williammee, R & Winter, M G. 2005. Slope Failure Repair using Tyre Bales at
Interstate Highway 30, Tarrant County, Texas, USA. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology
& Hydrogeology, 38(4), 377-386.
Rahman, M M, Airey, G D & Collop, A C. 2004. Laboratory investigation to assess moisture
sensitivity of dry process CRM asphalt mixtures. Proceedings, International Conference on
Sustainable Waste Management and Recycling: Used/Post-Consumer Tyres, pp 151-162. ICE
Publishing, London.
Rahman, M M, Airey, G D, Collop, A C. 2010. Moisture susceptibility of high and low
compaction dry process crumb rubber modified asphalt mixtures. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2180(1).
https://doi.org/10.3141/2180-14
Reeves, S, Hewitt, A & Pepler, A. 2020. Review And update of the asPECT carbon footprinting
tool for asphalt road pavements. Published Project Report PPR 960. Transport Research
Laboratory, Wokingham.
Rolsky, C, Kelkar, V, Mastroeni, D, Beach, T G, Halden, R U. 2020. Methods to detect
microplastics and nanoplastics in human tissue. ENVR57: American Chemical Society, Fall
2020 Virtual Meeting and Expo. https://plan.core-apps.com/acs_sf20/abstract/01de9789-
c29c-4854-ad51-07e4862d2837

69
Roychand, R & Pramanik, B K. 2019. Identification of micro-plastics in Australian road dust.
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8, 103647.
Sanders, P. 2016. Assessment procedure for ‘innovative’ techniques and materials. Highways
England. October 2016, Updated March 2017.
Sanders, P D, McHale, M, Martin, L A & Leal, D. 2017. High speed friction assessment of
TS2010. Published Project Report PPR 825. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Santos, J, Pham, A, Stasinopoulos, P & Giustozzi, F. 2021. Recycling waste plastics in roads: a
life-cycle assessment study using primary data. Science of the Total Environment, 751,
141842.
Seddon, R, Winter, M G & Nettleton, I M. 2018. Innovative geotechnical repair techniques:
effectiveness of fibre reinforced soil. Published Project Report PPR 873. Transport Research
Laboratory, Wokingham.
SEPA. Undated. Guidance on the production of fully recovered asphalt road planings. Scottish
Environment Protection Agency, Stirling.
https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/154246/road_planings_guidance.pdf
Sharp, K, Ralston, K, Bogumil, K, Asadi, H & Latter, L. 2017. Review of future pavement
technologies. WARRIP Project No. 2016-006, June. Main Roads Western Australia, Perth.
Shen, J, Amirkhanian, S, Lee S & Putman, B. 2006. Recycling of laboratory-prepared RAP
mixtures containing crumb rubber modified binders in hot-mix asphalt. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1962(1), 71-78.
Shen, J, Xie, Z & Li, B. 2015. Comprehensive evaluation of the long-term performance of
rubberized pavement. Phase II: the influence of rubber and asphalt interaction on mixture
durability. Georgia DOT Research Project No. 12-29, Report No: FHWA-GA-12-1229 Final
Report, 171p. Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park, GA.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/29368
Simm, J D, Wallis, M J & Collins, K. 2004. Sustainable re-use of tyres in port, coastal and river
engineering: guidance for planning, implementation and maintenance. HRW Report SR 669.
HR Wallingford, Wallingford.
Simm, J D, Winter, M G & Waite, S. 2008. Design and specification of tyre bales in
construction. Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers (Waste and Resource Management),
161(WR2), 67-76.
Tahmoorian, F, Samali, B, Yeaman, J & Crabb, R. 2018. The use of glass to optimize bitumen
absorption of hot mix asphalt containing recycled construction aggregates. Materials, 11(7),
1053. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma11071053
Tuladhar, R & Yin, S. 2019. Sustainability of using recycled plastic fibre in concrete. In: Use of
Recycled Plastics in Eco-efficient Concrete (Eds: Pacheco-Torgal, P, Khatib, J, Colangelo, F &
Tuladhar, R) 441-460. Woodhead Publishing (Elsevier), Duxford.

70
Watts, G R & Morgan, P A. 2005. Noise barrier review. Published Project Report PPR 046.
Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Way, G & Evans, R. 2006. Rubberised bitumen in road construction. Project code TYR0009-07.
Waste & Resources Action Programme. Banbury.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/16%20-
%20Rubberised%20Bitumen%20in%20Road%20Construction%20May%202006.pdf
Wayman, M, Schiavi-Mellor, I & Cordell, B. 2011a. Further guidance on the calculation of
whole life cycle greenhouse emissions generated by asphalt. Published Project Report PPR
574. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Wayman, M, Schiavi-Mellor, I & Cordell, B. 2011b. Protocol for the calculation of whole life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions generated by asphalt. Published Project Report PPR 575.
Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Wayman, M, Parry, A, Andersson-Sköld, Y, Raaberg, J, Bergman, R & Enell, A, Huang, Y. 2012.
Life cycle assessment of reclaimed asphalt. Deliverable 3.4 for Re-Road: End of Life Strategies
of Asphalt Pavements. EU FP7-Funded Project 218747 Re-Road, Brussels. http://re-
road.fehrl.org/index.php?m=64.
Wayman, M, Schiavi-Mellor, I & Cordell, B. 2020a. Further guidance on the calculation of
whole life cycle greenhouse emissions generated by asphalt: part of the asphalt Pavement
Embodied Carbon Tool (asPECT). Published Project Report PPR 574 (version 4.2). Transport
Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Wayman, M, Schiavi-Mellor, I & Cordell, B. 2020b. Protocol for the calculation of whole life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions generated by asphalt: part of the asphalt Pavement
Embodied Carbon Tool (asPECT). Published Project Report PPR 575 (version 4.2). Transport
Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
White, G. 2019. Evaluating recycled waste plastic modification and extension of bituminous
binder for asphalt. Proceedings, 18th Annual Conference on pavement Engineering, Asphalt
Technology and Infrastructure, 15p. Cooper/Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool.
White, G & Reid G. 2018. Recycled waste plastic for extending and modifying asphalt binders.
Proceedings, 8th Symposium on Pavement Surface Characteristics SURF 2018 – Vehicle to
Road Connectivity, 13p. Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), Brisbane, Australia.
White, G & Reid G. 2019. Recycled waste plastic modification of bituminous binder.
Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Bituminous Mixtures and Pavements, pp. 3-12.
Thessaloniki, Greece, 12-14 June. CRC Press, Abington.
Winter, M G. 2002. A conceptual framework for the recycling of aggregates and other wastes.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (Municipal Engineer), 151(3), 177-187.
Winter, M G. 2011. Road foundation construction using tyre bales – a low-energy alternative.
Roads for a better life - mobility, sustainability and development: Proceedings, XXIV World
Road Congress, Mexico City. Paper 0062, CD-Rom. World Road Association, Paris.

71
Winter, M G & Henderson, C. 2001. Recycled aggregates in Scotland. Central Research Unit,
Published Research Report Series. The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Winter, M G & Gomes Correia, C. 2019. The use and application of two contrasting non-
traditional embankment and pavement foundation materials. Geotechnical Engineering,
Foundation of the Future, 11p. Icelandic Geotechnical Society, Reykjavik.
Winter, M G, Reid, J M & Griffiths, P I J. 2005. Tyre bales in Construction: Case Studies.
Published Project Report PPR045. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Winter, M G, Watts, G R A & Johnson, P E. 2006. Tyre bales in Construction. Published Project
Report PPR080. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham.
Winter, M G, Nettleton, I M & Seddon, R. 2018. Innovative geotechnical repair techniques:
recommendations and guidance for management of future Highways England trials with
innovative techniques. Published Project Report PPR 891. Transport Research Laboratory,
Wokingham.
WRA. 2019. Green paving solutions and sustainable pavement materials: state of the art best
practices, challenges, new & emerging technologies. Technical Committee D.2 Road
Pavements, 2019R32EN. World Road Association/Mondiale De La Route, Paris.
WRAP. 2008a. A review of the use of crumb rubber modified asphalt worldwide. Project Code
TYR032-001, March. Waste & Resources Action Programmes, Banbury.
WRAP. 2008b. Rubberised asphalt testing to UK standards. Project Code TYR032-001,
November. Waste & Resources Action Programmes, Banbury.
Xu, Y, Lindh, C H, Jonsson, B A G, Broberg, K & Albin, M. 2018 Occupational exposure to asphalt
mixture during road paving is related to increased mitochondria DNA copy number: a cross-
sectional study. Environmental Health, 17(29), 10p. doi: 10.1186/s12940-018-0375-0
Yildirim, Y, Korkmaz, A, & Prozzi, J. 2003. The toner modified asphalt demonstration projects.
Research Report 5-3933-01-2, The University of Texas at Austin, TX.
Zhu, J, Birgisson, B & Kringos, N. 2014. Polymer modification of bitumen: advances and
challenges. European Polymer Journal, 54, 18-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.02.005

72
APPENDIX A: CONSULTATION
A.1 Survey of Local Authorities
All Scottish local authorities were contacted by the Roads Collaboration Programme to
ascertain whether or not they had any experience of using recycled (or waste-derived)
materials in road surfacing materials. This was followed up with a request for further details
using the questionnaire in Appendix B.
Seventeen (53%) questionnaire surveys were returned from the 32 authorities. Question 1
related to the anonymity of the respondent and is not reported here.
Question 2: Has your LA held discussions on using recycled materials in road surfacing?
Of the 17 respondents, 10 (59%) gave either a null or ‘no’ response to Question 2. Of the
remaining seven (100%) that responded ‘yes’ all (100%) had held discussions on plastic and
one (14%) had also held discussions on the use of rubber. For five (71%) the outcome was to
go ahead with a trial of which three (60%) are currently planned and two are complete (40%)
(two. Or 29%, of the seven respondents did not specify the outcome of their discussions).
The respondent who reported that discussions had been held for both rubber and plastic did
not respond to Questions 3 to 9 so the information below is relevant only to the use of plastic.
Question 3: What were the drivers behind the trial objectives?
Of the seven who responded positively to Question 1, five (71%) responded to this question
three (60%) stated that the trial objects were to obtain the same performance and one (20%)
to obtain enhanced performance compared to conventional asphalt. One (20%) specified
‘other’ and noted a open-ended curiosity as to the relative performance. One further
respondent who did not specify the outcome of their discussions noted that it was felt that
there were too many unknowns associated with the use of waste-derived plastic in roads
were to great to proceed with a trial.
Question 4: Did the LA workforce lay the waste modified asphalt?
Three (43%) responded to this question with two (67%) reporting that the local authority
workforce laid the modified asphalt and that that there were no handling issues. The third
respondent (33%) reported that the local authority did not lay the modified asphalt and did
not respond on the question of handling issues.
Question 5: Was travel time from the asphalt plant to site a consideration or limitation?
Four (57%) responded to this question and three (75%) reported no consideration or
limitation on travel time while the fourth (25%) reported that there were considerations or
limitations.
Question 6: Were there any modifications to working practices required when laying the
material?
One (14%) responded to this question and the respondent, at pains to point out that the
experience was purely anecdotal, noted that Operatives found it stiffer once laid and that it
could be trafficked sooner. [It is important to note that increased stiffness can be to the

73
detriment of long-term performance as well as a benefit in terms of allowing earlier
trafficking.]
Question 7: Health and safety
Two (29%) responded to this question noted no additional requirements or observations on
health and safety issues.
Question 8: Costs
Three (43%) responded to this question were split with one (33%) reporting that the costs
were the same but that there was a subsidy and two (67%) reporting higher costs without
subsidy. This sems to imply that, independent of any subsidy, costs will be higher for plastic
roads.
Question 9: Who takes responsibility for the asphalt should it not perform as expected?
Three (43%) responded to this question with one (33%) stating that responsibility for any lack
of performance was taken by the asphalt producer and two (67%) that responsibility was
taken by the local authority.
Question 10: Developer use of asphalt containing waste-derived additives
Fourteen (82%) responded to the question about whether they were aware of developer
plans to use so called ‘green’ asphalt containing waste-derived additives in new roads that
the local authority will ultimately have to adopt. Of those 11 (79%) responded ‘no’ and three
(21%) ‘yes’. Of the latter one noted that discussions with a local house builder led to a trial
despite the local authority expressing reservations about the future adoption of the road that
had been selected.
Twelve (71%) response to the question ‘Do you have any influence over what material
developers use?’, with 4 (33%) responding ‘no’ and 8 (67%) responding ‘yes’. Six of those who
responded ‘yes’ also made text comments that centred around the requirement that of
developers comply with National Road Development Guide (Anon. 2017), the importance of
ensuring that the mix was appropriate for the batching plant, the influence of internal local
authority structures and active engagement with developers.
Further comments were also made in the freeform text box at the end. These included the
need and desire to await the guidance that is promulgated through this current project and
for Scottish local authorities to act in a consistent manner on this issue, including in the
context of pressure from developers and others through Elected Members despite concerns
of the engineering team. Other comments pointed to the approach that might be taken if
approaches were received from developers and set out details of some demonstration
projects that had been constructed.

74
A.2 Wider Consultation
Wider consultation has been undertaken with manufacturers of asphalt and key industry
bodies. This has been largely through the vehicle of the Steering Group both through formal
meetings and more informal contacts and discussions.
Formal meetings and discussions have also been conducted with the Society of Chief Officers
of Transportation in Scotland (SCOTS) Roads Group and informal contacts have been with
individual members have also been pursued.
Additional contact and liaison has also been effected with Highways England, Cumbria County
Council and Lincolnshire County Council, and ADEPT were represented on the Steering Group.
SEPA were consulted, in particular, on issues related to waste management and associated
legislation and regulation.
While the project team reached out to manufacturers of waste-derived rubber and plastic for
use in asphalt no responses were received (see Appendix C).

75
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

76
APPENDIX B: LOCAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire for Scottish Local Authorities – July 2020 ‘Green’ LA roads in Scotland
The Scottish Roads Research Board (SRRB) has commissioned a project through the Roads Collaboration
Programme to examine and provide guidance on the current and future use of recycled waste materials in
road surfacing construction.
For the purpose of this questionnaire, only asphalt containing recycled waste other than reclaimed asphalt
planings (RAP) should be considered (e.g. plastic, rubber, glass, etc.).
The objective of this questionnaire is to enable the project team to judge the recent, current and future
extent of the use of such materials in road construction, the drivers for such use and trials, and some issues
around logistics, working practices, health and safety, costs and liability.
This should also give the team a good steer on the current status of local policy regarding the use of asphalt
containing waste-derived additives.
Please answer the questions using the 'Grey' drop down boxes, tick boxes and free text cells.
Question 1 Anonymity
a) Do you want your response to be anonymous, or are you happy to
provide contact details should the project team have any queries?
Contact details:

b) Can the final report make reference to your Local Authority or is it

preferred that the information is anonymised?
Question 2 Has your LA held discussions on using recycled materials in road
surfacing?
a) If the answer is ‘yes’, what materials have been discussed?
Plastic
Please tick all that apply and provide details of 'Other' materials used
Rubber
below:
If 'Other' please specify: Glass

Other

b) Was the outcome of these discussions to go ahead with a trial or

accept the performance information and utilise the modified asphalt?
c) If ‘yes’, is the trial(s)/utilisation planned, current or complete?
Question 3 What were the drivers behind the trial objectives? To ascertain
whether the performance of the asphalt containing waste-derived
materials compared to traditional asphalt was (Please Select):
If 'Other' please specify:

Question 4 Did the LA workforce lay the waste modified asphalt?

a) Were there any handling issues associated with its use?
Question 5 Was travel time from the asphalt plant to site a consideration or
limitation?
Question 6 Were there any modifications to working practices required when
laying the material?
a) Shorter timeframe for using the asphalt?
b) Observations on workability/ease of use?
If 'yes' please provide details:

77
 Question 6 Were there any modifications to working practices required when
laying the material?
a) Shorter timeframe for using the asphalt?
b) Observations on workability/ease of use?
If 'yes' please provide details:

Question 7 Health and Safety:

a) Were there any additional H&S requirements for the workforce using
the material?
b) Were there any observations on whether the material was better,
worse or the same to use e.g. in terms of fumes?
If 'yes' please provide details:

Question 8 Costs:
a) Was the cost of the material higher, lower or the same as the asphalt
you would normally procure?
b) Was the cost reduced or subsidised to encourage the use/trialling of
the asphalt (the project team is aware that some asphalt producers
have been requested to absorb additional costs associated with the
use of waste-derived additives to encourage trials)?
Question 9 Who takes responsibility for the asphalt should it not perform as Local Authority
expected? Asphalt producer
If 'Shared' please specify:
Recycled material provider

Shared (please specify)

Question 10 Developer use of asphalt containing waste-derived additives:

a) Are you aware of developer plans to use so called ‘green’ asphalt
containing waste derived additives in new roads that the Local
Authority will ultimately have to adopt?
If 'yes' please provide further details if you are willing and able to do
so:

b) Do you have any influence over what material developers use?

If 'yes' please provide further details if you are willing and able to do
so:

If you have any further coments please use this box to provide them (please alsp feel free to contine your
comments on a separate sheet of paper):

Thank you for your assistance on behalf of the Project Team (Mike Winter and Paula Coopland)
Please return this completed questionaire to:
Shaun Millar at Improvement Service: [email protected]

78
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION REQUESTS FOR MANUFACTURERS
Dear Sirs
We have been commissioned by the Scottish Road Research Board to undertake a study on
Recycled Materials in Road Construction & Maintenance. The project summary and web
address are given below.
One of the materials and processes that we are keen to evaluate in terms of its potential
future use in road surfacings and the lower bound layers is waste-derived
glass/rubber/plastic*. While there is a great deal of literature available most is insufficiently
specific as to material type, mix, processing, etc to be able make valid comparisons and to
draw conclusions. [Where appropriate a note on information already examined and with
which the manufacturer is closely linked: e.g. website material.]
We are now seeking further more detailed information on test properties of the bitumen and
asphalt mixes with waste-derived glass/rubber/plastic* added as both extender and modifier.
The information that we seek relates to laboratory test results, the design of asphalt mixes,
and UK-based trials including tests undertaken during and after construction.
We are also seeking information on the quality control processes implemented and full
product data safety information.
We hope that you will be able to assist us with this request and allow us to better advise
Scottish road authorities how the use of waste-derived glass/rubber/plastic* in asphalt might
best be progressed.
Thank you in anticipation

Recycled Materials in Road Construction & Maintenance

(https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/industry-guidance/scottish-road-research-
board/#45123)
Collaborative study between all Scottish road authorities and the main material suppliers to
undertake a literature review of published research into the use of recycled materials in road
construction/ maintenance, collate all current UK trialling and testing of recycled materials in
road (and associated) infrastructure, and identify any materials/processes worthy of further
consideration and/or research.
Completion expected: Summer 2021

* Deleted as applicable to each manufacturer contacted.

79
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

80
APPENDIX D: INFORMATION ON UK TRIALS
D.1 Glass
Trials by Lincolnshire County Council (see also Section 3.1) in 2001 and 2002 used varying
amounts of glass and RAP to replace virgin aggregate in 20mm base course recipe mixes. The
non-absorbent nature of glass particles means that the binder (bitumen) content could
potentially be reduced without impacting on fatigue performance and accordingly filler
contents were maintained in order to reduce the potential for deformation. This was further
addressed by using crushed rock or crushed slag fine aggregate rather than using natural sand
for locations of high traffic and/or stress. Visual inspections and routine deflectograph, SCRIM
and SCANNER surveys continued until 2010.
Even when used as an aggregate replacement the non-absorbent nature of the particles
meant that the binder content had to be reduced to facilitate handling of the asphalt and the
post-compaction air voids value was slightly increased.
However, longer term monitoring found a tendency for the bond between layers to be
compromised in contrast to the typical experience that marginal bonds improve over time.
Some of the trial sites remain in service and it is reportedly common to encounter a lack of
bond when coring ‘Glassphalt’ material for deflectograph or future works purposes. The trial
concluded that that 30% glass (without RAP) was the optimum performance mix.

D.1 Rubber
All of the known trials were undertaken using asphalt manufactured using the dry process.

2012
Trial sections of a 14mm and 10mm SMA ground tyre rubber, modified thin surface course,
were laid on the A90 in Scotland in April 2012. The 14mm section was replaced in 2019, but
it is known to have been affected by bad load ends at the time of laying, so the early demise
of the surface was not unexpected. The 10mm trial surface however, is reported to still be
performing satisfactorily. The granulated tyre rubber used was not sourced from within the
UK.
A 10mm SMA containing 1% ground tyre rubber by weight of asphalt was laid at a compound
at Cairneyhill in West Fife after transporting it for 30 miles to determine susceptibility to
binder migration during transport. It was noted that the load discharged cleanly to the paver
and comments from Contracting operatives were favourable. Again, the granulated tyre
rubber used was not sourced from within the UK.

2013
Two trial strips of 10mm SMA containing 0.67% ground tyre rubber by weight of asphalt
(sourced from outside the UK) were laid in the presence of Transport Scotland at a compound

81
in Cairneyhill and both were cored for testing. The trial results indicate that the asphalt was
within TS2010 trial limits and the strips are reported to be performing well.
Trial strips were also laid on a site in Whitley Bay, North Tyneside. These trial mixes replicated
the target compositions used in the Cairneyhill trials, but used the local Northumberland
basalt. Granulated tyre rubber sourced from outside the UK and from Suffolk, with a similar
particle size distribution, were used to modify the asphalt. Annual site visits have been carried
out to monitor performance and it is reported that both of the asphalt surfaces are
performing well.

2018
Four site trials within the Coventry City Council area were undertaken using 1% ground tyre
rubber by weight of asphalt from Suffolk. 10mm rubber modified SMA has been installed on
three sites and a 6mm rubber modified SMA was also produced and laid on a housing estate
road and all are reported to be performing well.

2019
In May, 120 tonnes of a 14mm rubber modified SMA containing 1% ground tyre rubber from
Suffolk was installed in lane 1 of the M1 near Junction 22 in Leicestershire. Highways England
commissioned AECOM to carry out laboratory testing on the asphalt supplied to site. The
durability of the surface is being monitored.
In October, 37 tonnes of rubber modified SMA was laid in lane 1 of the M9 between Junctions
8 and 9. Coring and site testing was carried out by independent assessors and wheel tracking
testing was carried out by Tarmac. The results showed that the material was within permitted
compliance limits and the texture depth of 1.2mm complies with the requirement for high
speed roads.

2020
A trial stretch of the A6075 Forest Road, Ollerton, Nottinghamshire was laid in March.

General Observations
The product appears to be highly tolerant to extended travel and storage time. It is reported
that during an enforced prolonged delay between manufacture and laying of around four
hours, that the mix was still fully homogenous.
It is reported that for every tonne of asphalt produced, potentially one and a half tyres worth
of rubber is used and for every mile of road, this could provide an opportunity to use rubber
from up to 750 waste tyres.

82
Tarmac, which undertook the majority of the trials to date, anticipates that rubberised asphalt
will be shown to provide at least the same level of safety, grip and rideability performance as
conventional asphalt43.

D.3 Plastic
Whilst waste-derived plastic modified asphalt has been laid at several sites throughout the
UK, to date, little independent coring and testing has been undertaken and/or the results are
not in the public domain due to commercial constraints. Public information is also lacking on
the actual quantities of waste-derived plastic added to the asphalt mixes laid at the different
sites and the proportions of different plastics used. It is also apparent there have been
product changes since the first demonstrations were undertaken. Due to these potential
variables, it is not possible to make comparisons between demonstration sites and the waste-
derived plastic suppliers claims can therefore not be substantiated at this time.
Some examples of where waste-derived plastic modified asphalt has been laid can be found
in the central belt of Scotland, Dumfriesshire and Ayrshire as well as in Cumbria, Northumbria,
the London Borough of Enfield and Coventry. ADEPT ‘Live Lab’ trails are however, currently
being progressed in Cumbria and these will provide independent analysis and performance
information.

Demonstrations

200 tonnes of waste-derived plastic modified asphalt were laid near a quarry in Hexham in
Cumbria. Core samples were taken and there were no visible signs of plastic. It has not been
possible to source information on the plastic product, asphalt design mix or core testing
results.
In October 2018 on the A883 (Stirling Street in Denny) a strip of modified hot rolled asphalt
was laid adjacent to conventional hot rolled asphalt and in November 2018, panel patching
was undertaken at Bankside, Falkirk. No visual differences between the conventional and
modified mixes is currently evident. The local authority also advised that the cost of the
modified hot rolled asphalt was higher than the conventional asphalt at the time, but the
additional cost was borne by the asphalt producer. Due to the relatively short length of time
that the pavements have been in place, it is not possible to ascertain whether the potential
additional cost of the modified asphalt can be justified by any performance benefits.

43
http://sustainability-report.tarmac.com/case-studies/rubber-roads-pave-the-way-for-tyre-recycling-as-
tarmac-expands-asphalt-range/ (interrogated September 2020)

83
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

84
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

85
 Winter Associates Limited
A Company Registered in Scotland, No. 294115
Registered Address: Sawmill House, 5 Whitemoss Road, Kirknewton, Midlothian EH27 8AF
Mobile: +44(0)7485 185795; Tel: +44(0)1506 882090; Email: [email protected]
Directors:
Professor M G Winter BSc PhD CGeol FGS EurGeol CEng FICE EurIng
UK Registered Ground Engineering Adviser
J A H Winter BSc PGDip