Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 59 Fig. 1. Structural layers of ﬂexible and rigid pavements (*indicates optional).1. Introduction Around 95% of roads in the UK are paved with asphalt mixtures (IAT, 2000). Theconstruction and maintenance of these roads require large amounts of aggregates, whichtypically account for more than 90% by weight of the asphalt mixtures. It is estimated thatin 1999 the UK produced some 26 million tonnes (Mt) of hot mix asphalt (HMA) (EAPA,2004), which can lead to the assumption that some 20 Mt of aggregates were consumed.The Highways Agency alone uses about 15 Mt of aggregates annually on its managed trunkroads and motorways in England (Highway Agency, 2003). Meanwhile across Englandand Wales, some 48 Mt of industrial, 30 Mt of commercial, and 28 Mt of municipal wastewere generated, a considerable percentage (industrial: 47%; commercial: 66%; municipal:83%) was sent to landﬁlls (DETR, 2000b). Such resource management does not seem to bein line with the country’s strategy for sustainable construction that requires for protectingthe environment and minimising the consumption of natural resources (DETR, 2000a).There is concern that high speciﬁcation aggregates from UK permitted extractions couldbe exhausted as early as 2020 (Parker, 2004). The situation seems even more urgent forapproved landﬁll sites, as they are expected to run out of space in the next 5–10 years(Environmental Agency, 2006).1 Based on such pressures, the UK government introducedthe Landﬁll Tax in 1996 and the Aggregates Levy in 2002. The use of secondary (recycled), instead of primary (virgin), materials helps easinglandﬁll pressures and reducing demand of extraction. This is one way of getting the roadconstruction industry on track towards sustainable construction practices. Current researchand practice tends to concentrate on the use of waste materials in the lower courses (base,sub-base, etc.) of the road as these absorb materials in larger quantities than the uppercourses. However, highway authorities in the UK are dealing more with the maintenanceand repair works rather than new construction of roads. Such works are affecting mainly theupper pavement layers (see Fig. 1). In addition, it can be argued that the cost of transportingand processing waste materials into desired properties can only be justiﬁed by using the recy-cled materials in value added applications such as asphalt surface layers. Thus, the property 1 Environmental Agency: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/1190084/resources waste/213982/207743/?version=1&lang= e accessed on 16 August 2006.
60 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73requirements for these applications need to be understood to ensure that materials intendedfor recycling are able to meet relevant speciﬁcations, by using available technologies andfacilities, at a reasonable cost.2. Waste arising and management of solid waste materials Secondary aggregates can be deﬁned as by-products from industrial processes or otherhuman activities. In 1999, industrial, commercial and municipal solid waste accountedfor approximately 13%, 6% and 8%, respectively, of total solid waste materials (SWM)produced in the UK (DETR, 2000b). Of those waste materials a large fraction might havethe potential to be used in road or building construction projects. Waste glass, steel slag,tyres and plastics are selected for this study; and surface layers (surface and binder course)of asphalt pavements are considered here as value application which are described in furtherdetail below.2.1. Waste glass It is estimated by Waste Resources Action Program (WRAP, 2004) that in 2003, some3.4 Mt of glass entered the UK’s waste stream of which some 2.4 Mt (71%) was containerglass, 0.76 Mt (23%) was ﬂat (or window) glass and the remaining 0.24 Mt was other glass.The recycling rate for container and ﬂat glass was 36% and 30%, respectively. In total, some1.1 Mt (33%) of waste glass was recycled, among which 0.73 Mt (66%) was fed to glasscontainer manufacturers and 0.14 Mt (13%) used as secondary aggregates. The majorityof 2.3 Mt (67%) of waste glass was disposed to landﬁlls. The EU Directive on packagingwaste (EU, 1994) however, has set a UK recycling target of 60% by 2008 for waste glass(British Glass, 2004). The lack of sufﬁcient infrastructure for waste glass collection is thought to be the mainreason for sending the majority to landﬁlls and recycling only a third in the UK (British Glass,2005).2 The recycling infrastructure serves not only as a passive container of recyclablewastes, but as a visual motivation that inﬂuences people’s recycling habit (Gonzalez-Torreet al., 2003). Currently in the UK, packaging recovery notes (PRNs) are issued as an incentiveto glass recycling, and the value of PRNs is suggested to be raised to cover the recycling cost(WRAP, 2004). Glass can be recycled indeﬁnitely without loss of product quality (BritishGlass, 2004). Returning recycled cullet to a glassmaking plant saves energy and mineralresources in great quantity (Edwards and Schelling, 1999; Krivtsov et al., 2004). Using wasteglass as an aggregate might not save as much energy or mineral resources as it does withglass making (Grantthornton and Oakdenehollins, 2006), but the colour imbalance betweenglass production and waste arising may encourage seeking alternative markets for wasteglass in aggregates applications (WRAP, 2004). Attempts to use recycled glass in concrete,another value application, have to deal with the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) because of theabnormally high content (≥70%) of reactive silica in the glass (FHWA, 1997). In addition 2 British Glass: http://www.britglass.org.uk/Industry/Recycling.html accessed on 21 March 2005.
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 61to the described recycling processes, waste glass can be utilised as an aggregate in asphaltroad construction should the technical speciﬁcation as described later are being met.2.2. Steel slag The amount of steel slag can be estimated based on the output from steel productionprocess, assuming that the process is stable and the rate of slag generation consistent.According to US NSA (National Slag Association), steel slag accounts for 7.5–15% ofsteel produced (NSA, 2001). The marketable slag is estimated by USGS (US GeologicalSurvey) at a rate of 10–15% steel production (USGS, 2001). One advantage of recyclingsteel slag is that it can be collected from a low number of steel plants, making the collectionmore efﬁcient than that of most other solid waste materials. In addition, it is relatively easyto control and achieve a consistent quality of this waste material. UK transport researchlaboratory reported that some 1 Mt of basic oxygen steel (BOS) slag is produced annuallyin the UK, with about 4 Mt in stockpiles (TRL, 2003). Owing to decades of research andpractice, UK has now achieved a 100% recycling rate for steel slag, 98% of which are usedas aggregates, mainly in concrete and asphalt (ODPM, 2002). The UK’s steel productionsaw a decline from some 18 Mt in 1997 to not even reaching 12 Mt in 2002, before risingto 13.3 Mt in 2003, with further increase expected in the coming years (UK Steel, 2005).3Although 100% of steel slag is recycled the application in asphalt pavements is valued dueto its properties as described later.2.3. Tyres It is estimated by TRL that the UK generates over 0.44 Mt of waste tyres per annum.About 21% is shredded and used as raw materials for other processes, 22% sent for energyrecovery, and around 34% is disposed to landﬁlls, stockpiles or illegal dumps where it ismixed with other waste making the recovery difﬁcult (Viridis and TRL, 2002; Viridis andTRL, 2003). Approximately 40,000 t (or 9%) is combusted in cement kilns, as scrap tyreshave a comparable energy value to coal, and have been used as a cement making fuel in thelast decade or so (Bluecircle, 2003; UTWG, 2002). According to TRL, the high processingcost is responsible for the growth of unregulated tyres disposal (Viridis and TRL, 2003).European Tyre Recycling Association (ETRA) estimated the transport cost of waste tyresat about £1/tonne/km in average (Shulman, 2000). Use of scrap tyres in asphalt or otherpavement applications, although technically viable (see Section 4.3), needs to be subsidisedin order to compete with conventional aggregates (Washington DOT, 2003) in meeting thetechnical requirements for asphalt pavements.2.4. Plastics About 2.8 Mt of waste plastics is generated per annum in the UK. Most of those recycledare from industrial and commercial sources; recycling from domestic sources (e.g. bottles) 3 UK Steel: http://www.uksteel.org.uk accessed on 22 March 2005.
62 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73is more difﬁcult, for economic reasons (TRL, 2004). A future increase in recycling relieson the successful recycling of plastics mixed with other waste, and the support from robustenvironmental assessment method (British Plastics Federation, 2005,4 Patel et al., 2000).Similar to tyre rubber, a signiﬁcant means of recovery of plastics waste is to retrieve thethermal content (38 MJ/kg), comparing favourably to that of coal (31 MJ/kg) and reducingenergy use as well as CO2 emissions (British Plastics Federation, 2005,5 Patel et al., 2000). Data from UK WRAP indicate that about 0.4 Mt of waste plastics generated each yearis suitable for aggregates use. Presently only 0.008 Mt is being recycled for that purpose.Recycled plastics are mainly used in the form of street furniture, insulation, ducts and pipes,etc. Very little so far is used in pavement construction (WRAP, 2003a). Similar to glass, thelow PRN is blamed for such low recycling levels (DTI, 2004). Although plastic packagingaccounts for most waste plastics recycled in the UK, PVC (polyvinyl chloride) is amongthe main types that have the lowest recycling rate (WRAP, 2003c). Financial incentives arebelieved to be more effective than speciﬁcations in affecting the recycling activity (WRAP,2003b). Thus plastics used in asphalt pavements may provide an important outlet for suchmaterials.3. Property requirements for materials in asphalt pavements3.1. Property requirements for aggregates A European standard (BSEN13043, 2002) for the speciﬁcation of aggregates for usein asphalt was introduced in 2004 into the UK market. This standard speciﬁes aggregatesin terms of technical requirements alongside relevant test methods. Therefore recycledmaterials that are intended for aggregates use in asphalt mixtures are subject to the samerequirements for property classiﬁcation and testing as are virgin aggregates. Pavementengineers are now responsible for deﬁning categories for aggregates properties relevantto their speciﬁc applications, as well as benchmarking the quarrying industry and othermaterial suppliers. Selected requirements for aggregates in surface layers asphalt are shownin Table 1.3.2. Property requirements for asphalt In order to withstand tyre and weather, pavement surface layers contain the strongestand most expensive materials in road structures. Characteristics they exhibit like friction,strength, noise and ability to drain off surface water are essential to vehicles’ safety andriding quality. Some are already associated with a standard test method (BSEN13036, 2002).Apart from the nature of component binder and aggregates, asphalt performance stronglydepends on the mixture type. Selection of a type for surface layers has to consider a multitude 4 British Plastics Federation: http://www.bpf.co.uk/bpﬁndustry/process plastics recycling.cfm accessed on 09February 2006. 5 British Plastics Federation: http://www.bpf.co.uk/bpﬁssues/Waste Management.cfm accessed on 08 February2006.
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 63Table 1Property requirements and test methods for aggregates in surface layers asphalt (PD6682-2, 2003)Property category Test method Property requirementsGeometric BS EN933 Grading, ﬁnes content, ﬂakiness indexPhysical and mechanical BS EN1097 Resistance to fragmentation, polished stone value (PSV), aggregate abrasion value (AAV)Chemical BS EN1744 LeachingThermal and weathering BS EN1367 Water absorption, magnesium sulphate valueof factors including trafﬁc, climate, condition of existing surface, and economics. No singlemixture type could provide all the desired properties, often some are improved at the expenseof others, making the selection difﬁcult and contentious. Stone mastic asphalt (SMA), porous asphalt or open graded friction course (OGFC) havea reputation for low tyre noise and high resistance to rutting and skidding, and are thereforepreferred to hot rolled asphalt (HRA) for road surface that is subject to heavy trafﬁc interms of volume and loading (NAPA and FHWA, 2000). For both mixture types, a numberof properties are required of the component (particularly the coarse) aggregates such asPSV, resistance to fragmentation, afﬁnity with bitumen, etc. Dense bituminous macadam(DBM) is commonly used in binder course and base.4. Performance of asphalt pavements containing recycled SWM4.1. Waste glass Satisfactory performance has been observed of asphalt pavements containing 10–15%crushed glass in surface course mixtures. 4.75 mm is the maximum size commonly acceptedconsidering a range of engineering properties including safety issues (skin cut, tyre puncture)for that application. Anti-strip agent, typically 2% hydrated lime, is added to retain thestripping resistance. Glass in asphalt of higher content and larger size is reported to have ledto a number of problems such as insufﬁcient friction and bonding strength, and is consideredmore suitable for use in lower courses. In practice, the same manufacturing equipment andpaving method designed for conventional asphalt can be used for asphalt containing recycledglass (Airey et al., 2004; CWC, 1996; FHWA, 1997; Maupin, 1997; Maupin, 1998; Su andChen, 2002). RMC (now CEMEX) UK has been using recycled glass in DBM for bindercourse and base, with a 30% replacement rate. Twenty millimeters seems to be the maximumsize of processed glass particles. In 2002, hot mix asphalt (HMA) containing 10% recycledglass sand was used in a pilot resurfacing project by Tarmac Situsec. Economics in theseUK applications is reported to be ‘cost neutral’ (WRAP, 2005).64.2. Steel slag The angular shape, hardness and roughly textured surface give steel slag the abilityto substitute coarse aggregates in asphalt where mix stability (resistance to rutting) and 6 Case studies from AggRegain, WRAP: http://www.aggregain.org.uk/index.html accessed on 10 March 2005.
64 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73skid-resistance are concerned. Collaborative research was carried out by US StrategicHighway Research Program (SHRP) and University of Petroleum and Minerals in SaudiArabia. It was found that mix durability (resistance to moisture, fatigue) was improvedwhen coarse slag aggregates were supplemented with limestone ﬁller and ﬁne aggre-gates, and the bitumen prepared using polymer modiﬁcation (Bagampadde et al., 1998;Khan and Wahhab, 1998). In 1994, trial section of asphalt containing 30% steel slag waslaid in Oregon, followed by a 5-year ﬁeld inspection of ride and skid performance. Thetrial section did not exhibit as expected higher rutting and skid resistance than controlmixture. The report attributed the lack of measurable increase to the low content andsmall size (6.3–12.7 mm) of slag particles, and it mentioned the economic disadvantageof using slag aggregates due to increased mix density (implying higher transport cost)and mixing temperature (implying higher energy use) (Oregon DOT, 2000). UK TRLreported based on a 3-year investigation, that BOS slag produced from main UK sourcescan be used in pavement surface where a minimum PSV of 60 is required. Althoughthe report suggested that when assessing the anti-skid properties of asphalt made withslag aggregates, traditional PSV test should give way to ‘known in-service performanceunder comparable situations’ (TRL, 2003). Nottingham Centre for Pavement Engineering(NCPE) studied the mechanical (stiffness modulus, resistance to permanent deformation,resistance to fatigue cracking) and durability (aging susceptibility, moisture susceptibility)performance of asphalt containing slag aggregates. Seventy one percent coarse steel slagparticles were mixed with 21% ﬁne BFS aggregates in SMA surfacing. Stiffness modu-lus was enhanced compared with control mixture made of gritstone, while mix densityand aging susceptibility also increased (Airey et al., 2004). Steel slag (≥9.5 mm) after3 years of aging (7 days expansion below 1%) replacing 62% of basalt aggregates wasused in SMA mixtures in China laboratory, resulting in improved surface performance(texture, friction, etc.), resistance to rutting and low temperature cracking (Wu et al.,2007). The Research Association of Iron and Steel Slags (FEhS, Germany) studies conﬁrmedthat BOS slag asphalt exhibit superiority in bearing and anti-polishing performance overasphalt made with established premium aggregates (basalt, ﬂint gravel, etc.). Volumetricstability and leaching behaviour caused the most concerns. Precautionary treatment waspractised at the steel plant to reduce the free CaO/MgO content of steel slag before useas aggregates; and mandatory leaching test twice a year was required for use in roads andhydraulic structures (Motz and Geiseler, 2001). European standard permits the use of steelslag in asphalt provided the 7 days volumetric expansion is no more than 3.5% (BSEN13043,2002).4.3. Scrap tyres Use of tyre rubber in asphalt generally has two distinct approaches. One is to dissolvecrumb rubber in the bitumen as binder modiﬁer, the other to replace a portion of ﬁneaggregates with ground rubber that is not fully reacted with the bitumen. These are referredto as the ‘wet process’ and the ‘dry process’, respectively. Modiﬁed binder from the ‘wetprocess’ is termed ‘asphalt rubber’; asphalt made by the ‘dry process’ is ‘rubberised asphalt’(FHWA, 1997).
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 654.3.1. The wet process In the wet process, crumb rubber (0.15–0.6 mm) is blended with bitumen for a minimumof 45 min at elevated temperature prior to contact with aggregates, usually in the rangeof 18–22% bitumen weight (Hicks, 2002). Light fractions of bitumen transfer into therubber making the rubber particles swell and the bitumen harden. The binder viscosity isincreased allowing for additional bitumen to be used, which in theory can help reduce top-down thermal cracking and bottom-up reﬂective cracking, and improve mix durability (e.g.resistance to moisture, oxidation and fatigue). The modiﬁcation effect can be inﬂuenced by a number of factors including the basebitumen composition, blending time and temperature, percentage and gradation of crumbrubber, and the grinding method (FHWA, 1997; West et al., 1998). These variables werestudied following the SUPERPAVE (SUperior PERforming asphalt PAVEment) methodat NCPE and US Texas DOT (Department of Transportation) (Airey et al., 2003; TexasDOT, 2000). FHWA believe that rubber particles in the ‘wet process’ will reduce resilientmodulus of the asphalt mixture, and therefore its resistance to permanent deformation(FHWA, 1997). The opposite was observed in Brazil and India where the asphalt rubbermixture had lower rutting potential because of higher stiffness and tensile strength at hightemperatures (Bertollo et al., 2004; Palit et al., 2004). As for low temperature performance, astudy at Kansas State University (KSU) suggested an 18–22% of rubber content, and statedthat a change within this range was less signiﬁcant in affecting the tensile and fractureperformance of the asphalt than varying the binder content between 6 and 9% (Hossain etal., 1999). This was conﬁrmed by Arizona State University (ASU) that longer fatigue lifeexhibited by asphalt rubber mixture came from the higher binder content (Zborowski et al.,2004). University of Liverpool had the permissible rubber (0.3–0.6 mm) content set at 10%of binder containing pen-50 or pen-100 bitumen. Resistance to rutting, fracture and fatiguewas increased as a result (Khalid and Artamendi, 2006). Projects also revealed problems from the use of asphalt rubber in road surface. Bleed-ing and loss of coarse aggregates were observed on a Virginia SAM (stress absorbingmembrane) trial section containing 20% crumb rubber in the binder, and the SAM didnot hinder reﬂective cracking as expected (Maupin and Payne, 1997). A chip seal (or sur-face dressing) project in Iowa showed that the asphalt rubber compromised the frictionperformance (Iowa DOT, 2002). A project in Texas indicated that OGFC represented thebest application for asphalt rubber in terms of cost, resistance to cracking and raveling(Tahmoressi, 2001). NCPE suggested that asphalt rubber not be used in polymer modiﬁedbitumen (PMB), because the PMB-rubber interaction compromised the rheological prop-erties of the aged binder and as a result, the durability of asphalt mixtures (Airey et al.,2002). The design method for conventional HMA can be used for asphalt rubber mixtures,with mix stability being the primary design factor. A rule of thumb is that if 20% crumbrubber is used in the binder, the binder content would be 20% higher than conventional.The binder content is recommended even higher in spray applications, for instance 45%higher in stress absorbing membrane interlayer (SAMI) than that required for conventionalasphalt. Placement of asphalt rubber mixtures can be accomplished using standard pavingmachinery except for pneumatic tyre roller as asphalt rubber will stick onto the roller tyres(Epps, 1994). The main concerns include the narrowed paving temperature window (e.g.
66 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73no laying with ambient temperature below 13 ◦ C), and potential toxic emissions (see theparagraph below) (Hicks, 2002). Noise studies at Rubber Pavements Association (RPA) found that the use of tyre rubberin open-graded mixture binder reduced tyre noise by at least 50% (Rubber PavementsAssociation, 2006).7 Rubber particles of multiple sizes were believed to have a better soundabsorbing effect in spray applications (Zhu and Carlson, 1999). By 1995 there was nosuch sign that mixing and paving asphalt rubber materials impose additional environmentalburdens than conventional asphalt (Emery, 1995). More recent leaching test at Oregon StateUniversity (OSU) indicated that about 50% of leachate contaminants from asphalt rubbermixtures were released into surface and ground water system within the ﬁrst few daysafter laying, with benzothiazole, aluminum and mercury being the elements detected atpotentially harmful concentration of 0.54, 1.5 and 0.02 mg/l, respectively (Azizian et al.,2003). Projects in the late 1980s showed that asphalt rubber in dense-graded mixtures helpedreduce the asphalt layer thickness by 20–50% without compromising its performance (Kirk,1991). The thickness reduction was conﬁrmed by accelerated load testing (ALT) at Uni-versity of California Berkeley and South Africa (Hicks, 2002). Another beneﬁt of usingasphalt rubber is to prolong the pavement life. A project in Brazil having 15% rubber in theHMA overlay binder found that cracking was developed 5–6 times slower than in conven-tional asphalt; also the asphalt rubber mixture outperformed in terms of surface deﬂection,interface strain and rut depth (Nunez et al., 2005). Similarly, binder of 15% rubber (size of0.2/0.4/0.6 mm) was used in dense-graded asphalt in Japan. The mixture exhibited improvedperformance in dynamic stability, 48 h residual stability, ﬂexural strength and strain value;and asphalt containing 0.2/0.4 mm-sized rubber showed the best laboratory results (Souzaet al., 2005). On the other hand, FHWA conﬁrmed that the production of crumb rubber mod-iﬁed asphalt is normally 50–100% more expensive than producing conventional (FHWA,1997). Practice by individual State DOT revealed a range of cost increase: 21% in Col-orado (Harmelink, 1999), 50–100% in Virginia (Maupin, 1996), 25–75% for gap-gradedand 80–160% for open-graded in Arizona (Way, 1998), $10–$15/tonne in Oregon (Hicks,2002), $16/tonne in California (Caltrans, 2003), to name but a few. However, life cyclecost analysis (LCCA) was recommended by all practitioners for assessing the cost effec-tiveness of the use of asphalt rubber, taking an analysis period of 30–40 years includingthe maintenance and user cost. LCCA was conducted at ASU and OSU using the WorldBank’s Highway Development and Management model (HDM-4) and the FHWA’s LCCAmethod (FHWA, 1998), respectively. According to their results, the use of asphalt rubberwas ‘cost effective’. Meanwhile, they recognised that this is not always the case, and theresults depend on many input variables which need to be studied on an individual basis(Jung et al., 2002; Hicks and Epps, 2000).4.3.2. The dry process In the dry process, ground rubber (0.85–6.4 mm) substitute for ﬁne aggregates in theasphalt, at typically a 1–3% replacement rate. 7 Rubber Pavements Association: http://www.rubberpavements.org/library/noisereduction.asp accessed on 26January 2006.
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 67 Asphalt properties of particular interest in the dry process include resilient modulusand noise reduction. Where there was a 10–20% increase of binder content as required,the resilient modulus of the rubberised asphalt was reduced implying an increase of layerthickness, compared with conventional mixtures (FHWA, 1997). Some other laboratoryresults showed a reduced permanent deformation (Reyes et al., 2005; Selim et al., 2005).Acoustic analysis and ﬁeld measurement conﬁrmed that rubberised asphalt paving is effec-tive in reducing trafﬁc noise from light-duty vehicles (Sacramento County, 1999). Leachingtest indicated that rubber in sand-based root zones (typically seen in sports and recreationﬁelds) reduced by more than half the nitrate concentration of leachate into ground water,by replacing traditional gravel of comparable size in the drainage layer (Lisi et al., 2004). The design method for conventional mixtures can be used to design rubberised asphaltcontaining 1–3% of ground rubber particles. A target air void of 2–4% is the primary designfactor (FHWA, 1997). The time and temperature at which the bitumen reacts with rubberparticles need to be controlled with care, to retain the physical shape and rigidity requiredfor the dry process. A project in Turkey found that when Marshall Stability, ﬂow, VMA(voids in the mineral aggregate), unit weight and VFA (voids ﬁlled with asphalt) all weretaken into consideration, the optimum technical parameters were: 0.95 mm for tyre rubbergradation, 10% for tyre rubber ratio, 5.5% for binder ratio, 155 ◦ C for mixing temperature,15 min for mixing time and 135 ◦ C for compaction temperature (Tortum et al., 2005).4.3.3. Other applications in pavement structure Tyre shreds have applications in road foundation. Compared with compacted soil, tyrerubber is of: (1) light weight, (2) low thermal conductivity, (3) high hydraulic conductivityand, (4) high shear strength at large strains. Leaching potential seems to be the main concern.ASTM-D6270 and EN12457 procedures are followed in the States and Europe, respectively,to measure and characterise the leachate. Constituent analysis of tyre sample indicated thatalthough it contained leachable hydrocarbons (e.g. PAH), metals (e.g. zinc) and respira-tory dust, the released concentration was not of a concern to human health or surroundingenvironment under normal operating conditions (e.g. open air, neutral pH value) (Edeskar,2004). Tyre rubber used in lower pavement layers can help reduce the depth of frost pene-tration in winter time. Processing of scrap tyres has a by-product: waste ﬁbre, which wasadded into SMA mixtures to prevent the ‘drain down’ of bitumen from aggregates, withoutcompromising deformation resistance or moisture susceptibility of the mixture in whichtraditional stabilising additives like cellulose or mineral ﬁbre are commonly used (Putmanand Amirkhanian, 2004).4.4. Plastics Similar to tyre rubber, recycled plastics can either replace a portion of aggregates, orserve as a binder modiﬁer. DBM with recycled plastics, mainly low density polyethylene(LDPE) replacing 30% of 2.36–5 mm aggregates, reduced the mix density by 16% andshowed a 250% increase in Marshall Stability; the indirect tensile strength (ITS) was alsoimproved in the ‘Plastiphalt’ mixtures (Zoorob and Suparma, 2000). Recycled LDPE ofa size between 0.30 and 0.92 mm replacing 15% aggregates in asphalt surfacing nearlydoubled the Marshall quotient, and increased the stability retained (SR) by 15%, implying
68 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73improved rutting and water resistance. A 20% increase of binder content was required inthis case (Qadir and Imam, 2005). The blending of recycled LDPE to asphalt mixturesrequired no modiﬁcation to existing plant facilities or technology (FHWA, 1997). Flexuralbehaviour of asphalt containing recycled plastics (PVC bottle) was studied. Bending strengthwas increased by adding 2–6% mixture weight of plastic particles, with further investi-gation suggested to depict the ‘bending strength against plastics content’ curve (Ergunet al., 2005). Recycled plastics (PE ﬁlm) used at 0.4% of mixture weight (or about 8%of binder weight) as bitumen modiﬁer, increased the Marshall Stability before and afterwater logging (60 ◦ C, 24 h) by 3.3 and 2.6 times, respectively (Justo and Veeraragavan,2002).5. Discussion The use of recycled materials in roads varies across the UK (TRL, 2001). This is prob-ably due to the difference in access to suitable natural aggregates and in the capacity oflocal landﬁlls. Other than technical barriers may exist, as for example, lack of collectinginfrastructure, alternative use of recycled SWM, limited market information and additionalcost all may inhibit the waste from being recycled into pavement asphalt. The governmentencourages recycling by legislation, purchasing power and grants that are offered to com-panies to help initiate recycling locally (QPA, 2004). The use of recycled SWM in asphaltpavements must have a value-added prospect and is likely to be practical where there is aconsistent supply. From a technical perspective, asphalt with well crushed glass (e.g. ≤4.75 mm) replacinga few percent (e.g. 10–15%) of ﬁne aggregates should not be excluded from use in asphaltsurface layers, as glass particles are ground too ﬁnely to present any safety risks, and PSVand AAV requirements apply only to coarse aggregates in the mixtures. However, this maypose a non-technical barrier as ﬁne aggregates are only used in moderate amount in SMAand OGFC, where recycled SWM that can be used in larger size (e.g. steel slag) makes abetter choice because of less processing requirements and a higher replacement rate. It isrecognised that the replacement rate should be allowed to vary to the size of glass particles,and vice versa (Maupin, 1998). Steel slag should be used in place of coarse aggregates in surface asphalt, to make bestuse of its mechanical strength and skid resistance. Large particle size and high content arerecommended by laboratory and trial results. The main drawback is the high speciﬁc gravityof steel slag (3.2–3.6), if used in stone-dominated mixtures like SMA or OGFC, will driveup the overall mix density, implying an increase of transport cost. The presence of freeCaO/MgO in slag makes it liable to expand in humid condition and therefore unsuitable foruse in structures vulnerable to volumetric expansion. The common approach is to exposethe slag to spray water or natural weathering for a period of between 12 and 18 months(Airey et al., 2004; FHWA, 1997). The time span could be reduced if chemical treatmentis performed before the slag leaves the steel plant as is the practice in Germany, althoughthe associated cost and environmental implication need to be further investigated. Leachingpotential is one of the main environmental concerns over the use of secondary materialsin road structures (Mroueh et al., 2001). Research in Germany has identiﬁed pH-value,
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 69Table 2Waste arising in the UK and application in asphalt pavements Waste arising Recycling rate Aggregates Use in asphalt pavements (Mt/year) (%) use (%) Aggregates Replace Binder Replace rate (%) rate (%) √Glass 3.4 33 4.1 10–30 X √Steel slag 1.0 100 98 30–62 X √ √Scrap tyre 0.44 21 N/A 1–3 18–22 √ √Plastics 2.8 5 0.29 15–30 8√ indicates an option; X indicates not an option.electrical conductivity and Chromium concentration in the leachate as the main concernsfor using slag aggregates (Motz and Geiseler, 2001). In general, tyre rubber is used in asphalt mixtures to reduce cracking, improve durabilityand mitigate noise. Depending on the application, different variables need to be consideredwhen assessing the technical performance of asphalt containing tyre rubber: binder prop-erties in the wet process, and mixture properties in the dry process. So far, most laboratoryand ﬁeld work has been focused on the ‘wet’ trial. It is generally agreed that asphalt rubbermixtures improves durability and low-temperature performance. On high-temperature per-formance however, there are mixed views in the United States ranging from better, similaror comparable, to worse. Results from the ‘dry’ trial so far are of limited number, andare as well far from conclusive. Generally, rubberised asphalt does not show signiﬁcantlyimproved performance to offset the additional cost (FHWA, 1997; Oregon DOT, 2002). Thewet process is more tolerant, whilst the dry process requires extra care in materials selection,mix design and asphalt manufacture. The economic break-even point in both processes iswhether the increased cost (e.g. waste processing, higher binder usage) can be warrantedby a return through longer pavement life. Life cycle cost analysis can be helpful to ﬁnd outwhen and where the use of tyre rubber in asphalt is cost effective. Recycled LDPE can substitute a portion between 15 and 30% of aggregates dependingon its particle size and if properly designed, the rutting, cracking and aging performanceof the mixture may improve as a result. Recycled PE accounting for 8% of the binder as abitumen modiﬁer, can also increase the mixture’s Marshall Stability. Similar to tyre rubberin the ‘dry process’, a number of asphalt properties when using recycled plastics are yetto be reported, nor are certain the cost and environmental implications, due to the limitedpractice so far (Table 2).6. Conclusion and recommendation The use of recycled materials in pavement asphalt represents a valuable outlet for suchmaterials. Yet value applications usually come with additional property requirements andtechnical restriction. These are liable to drive up the processing cost, often higher thanthat of purchasing virgin aggregates. Overcoming the many barriers, technical as well asnon-technical, requires the commitment from all stakeholders to act accordingly (WRAP,2006). Government efforts, in most cases are important, if not essential, to provide research
70 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73and information service free from commercial restriction, and enhance the proﬁtability ofrecycling through legislation or ﬁnancial incentives. When assessing the performance of asphalt pavements containing recycled SWM, someconditions need to be studied and speciﬁed unambiguously such as: (1) Mixture type, asdifferent mixtures (e.g. SMA, HRA) impose different property requirements for componentaggregates. (2) Particle size of recycled SWM and the replacement rate. (3) Nature andprocessing techniques of the SWM (e.g. weathering for steel slag). It is obvious that each recycled SWM will have more than one potential use. Recyclingmaterials back into its initial use (e.g. recycled glass cullet to glass making) often aremore sustainable rather than ﬁnding new applications. The responsibility for the asphaltindustry is to ﬁnd the right source of SWM and use as the right components in pavementasphalt that make sense in both technical and ﬁnancial terms. Aggregates consumed bythe asphalt industry alone outweigh the total arising of the four waste materials discussedabove (around 7.6 Mt/year). Diverting other SWM to pavement use is therefore worth theongoing efforts that have given approval to an expanding list of recycled SWM for use inroad construction (TRL, 2004), to further ease landﬁll pressures and reduce the demand forquarrying minerals. Apart from technical and economic factors, concerns over the use of recycled SWM inpavement asphalt also come from their potential of causing environmental burdens in roadstructures, such as run-off pollutants and leaching (CIRIA, 1997; Mroueh et al., 2001).Transport and processing of SWM into desired properties implies additional energy useand emissions. Conﬂicting statements require objective environmental assessment tools thatcan quantify and compare the various environmental burdens for the different constructiontechniques, materials in use and maintenance options. This is highlighted when SWMreplace primary resources to achieve for example sustainable construction methods. Lifecycle assessment (LCA) emerges as a promising tool for the road sector to investigate theenvironmental impacts throughout pavement life, and present the results for communication.Acknowledgements An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 4th International Conference onMaintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements and Technological Control (MAIREPAV4),18-21 August 2005, Belfast, UK. Financial support from Aggregate Industries UK Ltd isgreatly appreciated.ReferencesAirey GD, Singleton TM, Collop AC. Properties of polymer modiﬁed bitumen after rubber–bitumen interaction. J Mater Civil Eng 2002;14:244–354.Airey G, Rahman M, Collop A. Absorption of bitumen into crumb rubber using the basket drainage method. Int J Pavement Eng 2003;4:105–19.Airey GD, Collop AC, Thom NH. Mechanical performance of asphalt mixtures incorporating slag and glass secondary aggregates. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa. South Africa: Sun City; 2004.
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 71Azizian MF, Nelson PO, Thayumanavan P, Williamson KJ. Environmental impacts of highway construction and repair materials on surface and ground waters: case study: crumb rubber asphalt concrete. Waste Manage 2003;23:719–28.Bagampadde U, Wahhab HIA-A, Aiban SA. Optimization of steel slag aggregates for bituminous mixes in Saudi Arab. J Mater Civil Eng 1998;1999:30–5.Bertollo SM, Bernucci LB, Fernandes JL. Mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures using recycled tyre rubber produced in Brazil—a laboratory evaluation. In: Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting; 2004.Bluecircle. Alternative cement making fuels; 2003.British Glass (2004) Glass recycling report—towards sustainable development.BSEN13036. Road and airﬁeld surface characteristics—test methods. British Standards Online; 2002.BSEN13043. Aggregates for bituminous mixtures and surface treatments for roads. In: Airﬁelds and other trafﬁcked areas. British Standards Online; 2002.Caltrans. Asphalt rubber usage guide. California: DOT; 2003.CIRIA. Use of industrial by-products in road construction—water quality effects (CIRIA R167); 1997.CWC. Best practice in glass recycling—recycled glass in asphalt. Clean Washington Centre; 1996.DETR. Building a better quality of life—a strategy for more sustainable construction. Department of the Environ- ment, Transport and the Regions; 2000a.DETR. Waste strategy 2000: England and Wales (part 1); 2000b.DTI. Development of asphalt and concrete products incorporating alternative aggregates. Department of Trade and Industry; 2004.EAPA. Industry statement on the recycling of asphalt mixes and use of waste of asphalt pavement. European Asphalt Pavement Association; 2004.Edeskar T. Technical and environmental properties of tyre shreds focusing on ground engineering applications. Lulea University of Technology; 2004.Edwards DW, Schelling J. Municipal waste life cycle assessment (part 2)—transportation analysis and glass case study. IChemE 1999;77:259–74.Emery J. Evaluation of rubber modiﬁed asphalt demonstration projects. In: Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting; 1995.Epps JA. Uses of recycled rubber tyres in highways. In: Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting; 1994.Ergun M, Iyinam S, Iyinam AF. Flexural behavior of waste plastic added asphalt concrete mixture. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pavement Recycling; 2005.EU. Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; 1994.FHWA. User guidelines for waste and by-product materials in pavement construction; 1997.FHWA. Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design – in search of better investment decisions – pavement division interim technical bulletin; 1998.Gonzalez-Torre PL, Adenso-Diaz B, Ruiz-Torres A. Some comparative factors regarding recycling collection systems in regions of the USA and Europe. J Environ Manage 2003;69:129–38.Grantthornton, Oakdenehollins. The impact of the carbon agenda on the waste management business; 2006.Harmelink, D. (1999) Using ground tyre rubber in hot mix asphalt pavements—ﬁnal report, Colorado DOT.Hicks RG. Asphalt rubber design and construction guidelines – volume1 – design guidelines; 2002.Hicks G, Epps J. Life cycle cost analysis of asphalt rubber paving materials; 2000.Highway Agency. Building better roads: towards sustainable construction; 2003.Hossain M, Swartz S, Hoque E. Fracture and tensile characteristics of asphalt-rubber concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 1999;11:287–94.IAT. Asphalt professionals in the 21st century. The Institute of Asphalt Technology; 2000.Iowa DOT. Evaluation of recycled rubber in asphalt cement concrete—ﬁeld testing; 2002.Jung J-S, Kaloush K, Way G. Life cycle cost analysis: conventional versus asphalt rubber pavements; 2002.Justo CEG, Veeraragavan A. Utilisation of waste plastic bags in bituminous mix for improved performance of roads. India: Centre for Transportation Engineering, Bangalore University; 2002.Khalid HA, Artamendi I. Post-consumer tyre rubber as a performance-enhancing additive in asphalt. Asphalt Professional; 2006.Khan MI, Wahhab HIA-A. Improving slurry seal performance in eastern Saudi Arabia using steel slag. Construct Build Mater 1998;12:195–201.
72 Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73Kirk V. CalTrans experience with rubberized asphalt concrete. In: Technology transfer session of an introduction to rubberized asphalt concrete. US: Topeka; 1991.Krivtsov V, Wager PA, Dacombe P, Gilgen PW, Heaven S, Hilty LM, Banks CJ. Analysis of energy footprints associated with recycling of glass and plastics—case study for industrial ecology. Ecol Model 2004;174:175– 89.Lisi RD, Park JK, Stier JC. Mitigating nutrient leaching with a sub-surface drainage layer of granulated tires. Waste Manage 2004;24:831–9.Maupin GW. Hot mix asphalt rubber applications in Virginia. Virginia Transportation Research Council; 1996.Maupin, G. W. (1997) Final report—glasphalt test sections in Virginia, Virginia Transportation Research Council.Maupin GW. Effect of glass concentration on stripping of glasphalt. Virginia Transportation Research Council; 1998.Maupin GW, Payne CW. Evaluation of asphalt rubber stress-absorbing membrane. Virginia Transportation Research Council; 1997.Motz H, Geiseler J. Products of steel slags an opportunity to save natural resources. Waste Manage 2001;21:285– 93.Mroueh U-M, Eskola P, Laine-Ylijoki J. Life-cycle impacts of the use of industrial by-products in road and earth construction. Waste Manage 2001;21:271–7.NAPA, FHWA. HMA pavement mix type selection guide; 2000.NSA. Steel slag—a premier construction aggregate; 2001.Nunez WP, Ceratti JAP, Wickbouldt V, Brito LAT, Oliveira JA. Delaying crack reﬂection in overlays: an apt study comparing the efﬁciency of conventional asphalt concrete and asphalt rubber. Belfast, UK: MAIREPAV4; 2005.ODPM. Summary sheet covering individual materials. Ofﬁce of the Deputy Prime Minister; 2002.Oregon DOT (2000) Steel slag in hot mix asphalt concrete—ﬁnal report.OREGONDOT (2002) Crumb Rubber modiﬁed asphalt concrete in Oregon—ﬁnal report.Palit SK, Reddy KS, Pandey BB. Laboratory evaluation of crumb rubber modiﬁed asphalt mixes. J Mater Civil Eng 2004;16:45–53.Parker D. Councils urged to cut use of high spec aggregates. New Civil Engineers; 2004.Patel M, Thienen NV, Jochem E, Worrell E. Recycling of plastics in Germany. Resourc Conserv Recycl 2000;29:65–90.PD6682-2. Aggregates for bituminous mixtures and surface treatments for roads, airﬁelds and other trafﬁcked areas—guidance on the use of BS EN13043. British Standards Online; 2003.Putman BJ, Amirkhanian SN. Utilization of waste ﬁbers in stone matrix asphalt mixtures. Resourc Conserv Recycl 2004;42:265–74.Qadir A, Imam M. Use of recycled plastic waste aggregate as a partial substitution material in pavement structure. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pavement Recycling; 2005.QPA. Quarrying today – joined up thinking – linking quarries to life. Quarr Today; 2004.Reyes F, Reyes O, Figueroa AS. Study of the rutting in asphalt mixtures by addition of plastic waste. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pavement Recycling; 2005.Sacramento County. Report on the status of rubberized asphalt trafﬁc noise reduction in sacramento county. Sacramento County and Bollard & Brennan Inc; 1999.Selim AA, Muniandy R, Abdelrahman M. Potential use of ground tyre rubber in stone matrix asphalt (SMA)—a laboratory evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Pavement Recycling; 2005.Shulman VL. Tyre recycling after 2000—status and options. European Tyre Recycling Association; 2000.Souza R, Himeno K, Kobayashi A. Performance evaluation of asphalt-rubber concrete mixtures. Belfast, UK: MAIREPAV4; 2005.Su N, Chen JS. Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with recycled glass. Resourc Conserv Recycl 2002;35:259–74.Tahmoressi M. Evaluation of asphalt rubber pavements in texas. PaveTex Engineering and Testing, Inc; 2001.Texas DOT. A comprehensive laboratory and ﬁeld study of high-cure crumb rubber modiﬁed asphalt materials; 2000.Tortum A, Celik C, Aydin AC. Determination of the optimum conditions for tyre rubber in asphalt concrete. Build Environ 2005;40:1492–504.TRL. Recycling in transport infrastructure; 2001.
Y. Huang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 58–73 73TRL (2003) Basic oxygen steel slag as surface course aggregate: an investigation of skid resistance, TRL Report 566.TRL. Development of new materials for secondary and recycled aggregates in highway infrastructure; 2004.USGS. US geological survey minerals yearbook 2001: slag—iron and steel; 2001.UTWG. Used tyre working group—2001 statistics detail; 2002.Viridis, TRL. Tyre waste and resource management: a mass balance approach; 2002.Viridis, TRL. Civil engineering applications of tyres; 2003.Washington DOT. Evaluation of the use of scrap tires in transportation related applications in the state of wash- ington; 2003.Way GB. OGFC meets CRM—where the rubber meets the rubber. Arizona DOT; 1998.West RC, Page GC, Veilleux J. Effect of tyre rubber grinding method on asphalt-rubber binder characteristics. In: Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting; 1998.WRAP. Aggregain materials information—recycled plastics; 2003a.WRAP. Standards and speciﬁcations affecting plastics recycling in the UK; 2003b.WRAP. Survey of applications, markets & growth opportunities for recycled plastics in the UK; 2003c.WRAP. Recycled glass market study and standard review 2004 update; 2004.WRAP. Recycled roads 2: promotional campaign to local authorities to increase the speciﬁcation, procurement and use of recycled and secondary aggregates in highway and street maintenance; 2006.Wu S, Xue Y, Ye Q, Chen Y. Utilization of steel slag as aggregates for stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixtures. Building and Environment 2007;42:2580–5.Zborowski A, Sotil A, Kaloush K, Way G. Materials characteristics of asphalt rubber mixtures. In: Proceedings of the TRB Annual Meeting; 2004.Zhu H, Carlson DD. A spray based crumb rubber technology in highway noise reduction application. Rubber Pavements Association; 1999.Zoorob SE, Suparma LB. Laboratory design and investigation of the properties of continuously graded asphaltic concrete containing recycled plastics aggregates replacement (plastiphalt). Cement Concrete Composites 2000;22:233–42.