International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-022-00213-7

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt

Mixture Modified with Plastic Waste: A Machine Learning Modeling
Approach
Camilo Vargas1   · Ali El Hanandeh1

Received: 30 January 2022 / Revised: 21 June 2022 / Accepted: 3 July 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Plastic asphalt mixtures (PAM) have attracted extensive attention lately; however, their application in the field has not been
so common because of the lack of clear understanding of the behavior of the asphalt mix after modification. In the interest of
closing this gap, a modeling tool able to estimate the plastic effect on asphalt mixtures properties is needed. Nevertheless, the
suggestion of a generalized model is complex due to the numerous variables involved. To facilitate this process, the present
article aims to expand the current knowledge about PAM modeling by providing a clearer understanding of what variables
have the highest impact on PAM properties. To do so, data from previous articles have been gathered and machine learn-
ing and shapley additive explanation values have been applied. PAM properties assessed were air voids, Marshall stability,
Marshall flow, indirect tensile strength, and tensile strength ratio. Overall, the features with the highest impact are plastic
type and content (35%), aggregates gradation (35%), aggregates absorption (9%), bitumen content (8%), mixing technique
(4%), and bitumen penetration (3%). The final proposed models extend the application of previous machine learning models
and feature importance understanding, and, in the field, they can serve as an initial estimate of the plastic effect on different
asphalt mixture types. It is suggested that future articles intending to model PAM should consider these critical features
during model formulation, and articles evaluating new types of PAM should clearly report these properties, for they might
be the basis of these generalized future models.

Keywords  Plastic waste · Modified bitumen · Hot mix asphalt · Machine learning · Meta-data analysis

Abbreviations ML Machine learning

AIC Akaike error estimator MQ Marshall quotient
AICc Corrected Akaike error estimator MS Marshall stability
ANN Artificial neural network MSE Mean squared error
CV Coefficient of variation PAM Plastic asphalt mix
HDPE High-density polyethylene PE Polyethylene
ITS Indirect tensile strength PET Polyethylene terephthalate
LDPE Low-density polyethylene PP Polypropylene
LIME Local interpretable model-agnostic PR Polynomial regression
explanations PS Polystyrene
LR Linear regression PU Polyurethane
MF Marshall flow R2 Coefficient of determination
RMSE Root mean squared error
SHAP Shapley additive explanations
* Camilo Vargas SVR Support vector regression
camilo.vargassarmiento@griffithuni.edu.au TSR Tensile strength ratio
Ali El Hanandeh VF Voids filled with the binder
a.elhanandeh@griffith.edu.au VMA Voids in mineral aggregates
1
Griffith University, Nathan Campus, 170 Kessels Rd., XGBoost Extreme gradient boosting tree
Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh

1 Introduction the final pavement performance. The advantages of the

Currently, the world is living in an undeniable plastic
crisis. In 2015, mismanaged plastic waste was estimated
at between 66 and 90 million Mt [1], corresponding to
17–23% of the plastic waste generated worldwide [2]. The
demand for plastics is expected to continue to rise due to
their low cost and functional properties, for example, water
resistance, flexibility, and durability. Nevertheless, these
very properties are the cause for their high persistence in
the environment.
To cope with plastic waste, many management alter-
natives have been developed, such as physical recycling,
energy recovery, and resource recovery, to name a few.
Prior to 2018, most recovered plastics were shipped to
China for processing. In 2017, however, China imposed
an unprecedented ban on importing most plastic waste.
Thus, finding new alternatives to deal with the mounting
plastic waste at the source has become imperative. This
urgency has prompted the scientific community to look for
innovative methods, such as incorporating plastic waste
into construction and civil works.
One treatment alternative that has gained interest in
the last few years is adding plastic waste in flexible pave-
ments, as evidenced by the rise in the number of pub-
lications that studied plastic waste in pavements. These
studies have increased sharply from 81 articles in 2011 to
621 in 2021 in the Science Direct database. Researchers
have reported two prevalent techniques for adding plastic
to flexible pavements: wet and dry techniques. The wet
technique combines the plastic waste with the hot bitu-
men, while the dry technique adds plastic waste to the hot
aggregates. The principal characteristic of the wet tech-
nique is that it modifies the bitumen, which in turn affects
dry technique are that it permits larger quantities of plastic
additives and, as some studies have concluded, present
better results than the wet mixing technique [3, 4]. Table 1
presents the summary of the advantages and disadvantages
of both processes.
Regardless of the addition technique, plastic waste in
pavement offers some potential benefits. First, it reduces the
plastic amount in landfills and the environmental impact of
road development [5]. Second, it could reduce the cost of
pavement construction because the requirement for bitu-
men or aggregates is reduced [6]. And last, the engineer-
ing properties of the pavement can be enhanced, especially
those related to rutting and cracking resistance [7, 8]. Nev-
ertheless, the extent of these benefits varies depending on
the plastic type employed, the mixing parameters, and the
asphalt mix. Thus, developing a model that predicts the
potential effects on plastic asphalt mixes (PAM), modified
through the wet or dry technique, would be valuable because
it can provide confidence in the plastic addition benefits.
Several articles have proposed models for predicting
asphalt mixtures properties [9–15], but only a few have
been proposed for mixtures modified with plastic, for it
is a relatively new research topic. A reliable PAM model
could not only close the gap between research and applica-
tion, but could also increase the technical reliability of this
technology.
To the authors’ knowledge, only four articles have pro-
posed PAM predictive models. Azarhoosh et al. [16] devel-
oped an artificial neural network (ANN) model on asphalt
mixtures modified through the wet technique with HDPE
and plastic bottles in a range of addition between 2 and 10%.
The variable predicted was the accumulated strain. Tapkin
et al. [17] also attempted to predict the accumulated strain
using ANN for samples modified with PP through the wet

Table 1  Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages

disadvantages of wet and dry
processes
Wet Appropriate for LDPE, HDPE, and PP, where melting points are below Unsuitable for PET,
160 °C [18, 19] where the melting
It permits the modification of the binder properties [20] point is above 250 °C
The electromagnetic properties of the bitumen can be changed without [18, 19]
affecting the properties of the asphalt mix. Electromagnetic properties Specific equipment is
can induce self-healing in pavement [21] required
During the mixing, it
requires higher energy
than the dry process
[22, 23]
Incompatibilities
between the binder
and the polymers may
appear [24]
Dry It does not require specific equipment Adhesion between
Easier and cheaper to implement [22] binder and aggregates
It improves the surface of the aggregates [25] can be imperiled [26]

13
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
mixing technique at 3–6% of addition. The other two articles
came from the same authors, Tapkin and Çevik, and pre-
dicted the Marshall flow (MF), Marshall stability (MS), and
Marshall quotient (MQ) [27, 28]. Table 2 summarizes the
mentioned models. The range of the training data for all four
models was limited to PP/PE/PET, wet mixing technique,
and bitumen type 50/70.
Although the studies reviewed in Table 2 extend the mod-
eling and knowledge of plastic asphalt mixtures, they present
some issues that limit their application in real scenarios. The
models can only predict when the features to evaluate are
within the range of the training set, which makes the mod-
els too specific for their usage. Also, the data were limited
to each study; therefore, it does not account for laboratory
inter-variability bias and restricts the sample size. Small
datasets increase the risk of overfitting, and their validation
tends to be unreliable when the hold-out method is used. The
hold-out validation method uses a small percentage of the
data to test the models, while the remaining percentage is
employed to train the ML models. This is especially useful
when the dataset is large, and the validation process must
be computationally cheap. However, in small datasets, other
alternatives, such as bootstrap and cross-validation, are more
appropriate [29].
With these limitations in mind, the present article would
attempt to propose a more generalized model that can be
applied to different plastic types, mixing techniques, and
aggregates gradation. Yet this process is not straightfor-
ward because of the extreme complexity and interactions
among variables. For instance, a first attempt to revise the
relationship of the plastic-type/mixing process with the air
voids property was depicted in Fig. 1. Air voids refer to
the air pockets between coated aggregates. As Fig. 1 shows,
a clear relation is difficult to deduce due to the high vari-
ability among observations. Therefore, other variables must
be considered to suggest an appropriate model. These vari-
ables could be mixing techniques, plastic type, plastic size,
and plastic pretreatment, which is only at the plastic level.
Other pavement properties might also influence the final
PAM properties. Factors such as aggregates type, mixture
gradation, bitumen content, and bitumen type might be con-
sidered too.
Nevertheless, collecting these data in laboratory or field
experiments is a daunting task due to the numerous meas-
urements and tests. Moreover, its complexity is further
compounded due to the possible combinations that must be
tested. As an alternative, data mining techniques can be used
to scrape data from trusted published studies. The significant
advantages of this approach are the ample data range, the
reliable nature of the data, and the account of inter-varia-
bility errors; however, data size might not be enough for a
generalized ML model. Thus, instead of proposing a general-
ized final model, the present article will aim to measure the
impact of each feature on the most accurate model trained
with the data available and identify the optimal set of fea-
tures to predict the target properties of the PAM. This under-
standing could help future studies to improve their data col-
lection and results reporting, support the formulation of a
generalized model, and in the end, facilitate the adoption of
this technology in real scenarios.
The article will focus on the most basic properties of
asphalt mixtures; air voids, Marshall stability (MS), Mar-
shall flow (MF), indirect tensile strength (ITS), and tensile
strength ratio (TSR). These properties were selected because
they are the most measured by researchers, so the sample
size is large enough for reliable inferences. Although these
properties are considered basic, they are still relevant in the
field, as shown by the number of articles that have repeatedly
measured them and their validity in the Marshall mix design
[30]. A low air void value improves the rutting, cracking,
and water damage resistance of pavements, while a high air
void value increases the permeability of the mixture [31].
Regarding the mix design, air voids should be within a limit,
usually between 2 and 4%, depending on the type of asphalt
mix and intended application [32]. The MS and MF are sim-
ple properties that involve inexpensive tests and the Marshall
apparatus [33]. This equipment applies a diametrical load
to a specimen at a constant rate (50 mm/min) [34], and it
measures the load at which the sample breaks. This load is
the MS, while the deformation at the breaking point is the
MF. The stability indicates the pavement resistance to stress,
so it displays the stiffness of the sample. MF, alternatively,
reveals how plastic or brittle the mixture is. The ITS and
TSR, as stated by the ASTMD6931, determine the asphalt-
mix resistance to cracking and moisture, respectively. In the
ITS, a vertical load is applied to a core sample at a 50 mm/
min deformation rate. When the sample breaks, the load is
recorded and used for calculating the ITS. Higher ITS cor-
relates with higher cracking resistance [35]. The TSR is the
ratio between the ITS of a dry sample and a wet sample,
also known as the saturated sample. This measure reflects
how well the mixture maintain its cohesion in the presence
of water. The higher the TSR the better the mix will resist
water damage.
2 Methods
2.1 Data Collection
To collect data, the method described by Pickering and
Byrne [36] for the Systematic Quantitative Literature
Review (SQLR) was followed. SQLR surveys all the rel-
evant literature, facilitates selecting articles with repro-
ducible and valid results, and supports quantitative and
qualitative data. Besides, it generates a database that can
13

13
Table 2  ML models proposed for PAM
Article
Prediction of Marshall test results ANN
for polypropylene modified
dense bituminous mixtures using
neural networks [27]
Utilising neural networks and
closed form solutions to deter-
mine static creep behaviour and
optimal polypropylene amount
in bituminous mixtures [28]
Prediction of rutting potential
of dense bituminous mixtures
with polypropylene fibers via
repeated creep testing by using
neuro-fuzzy approach [17]
Providing laboratory rutting mod-
els for modified Asphalt mixes
with different waste materials
[16]
a
 It is not clearly stated how many samples were used for the ML training. This value is the number of results summarized previous to the model training
ML model Predicted variable Data size Input features [range] Validation
a
MS, MF and MQ 24 PP type Hold out validation (80% training
PP content [0–6%] set, 20% test set)
Bitumen content [3.5–7%]
Sample height [58–62 mm]
Unit weight [2311–2470 kg/m3]
VMA [14.47–19.78%]
VF [40.7–89.4%]
AV [1.4–10.7]
Wet mixing
Backpropagation ANN Strain accumulation, creep stiff- 93a PP type Hold out validation (80% training
ness, MS, MF, MQ PP content [2.5–7%] set, 20% test set)
Sample height [58.7–62.4 mm]
Unit weight [2308–2462 kg.m−3]
VMA [15.2–18.6%]
VF [29–87%]
Air voids(AV) [2.18%,12.89%]
Wet mixing
ANN with neuro-fuzzy modeling Rutting potential Not stated PP type Hold out validation (80% training
Sample height [58–60 mm] set, 20% test set)
Sample unit weight [2419–
2479 kg/m3]
Voids in mineral
aggregates(VMA)[14.6–16.4%]
Voids filled with the binder (VF)
[68.2–77.7%]
Two creep test properties (rest
period and pulse)
Wet mixing
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Final strain in the dynamic creep 165 Additive type [PE, PET] Hold out validation (70% training,
test Additive content [2%, 4%, 6%, 15% test and 15% validation) –
8%, 10%] (70% training and 30% test)
Parameters related to the dynamic
creep test (temperature and
stress)
Wet mixing
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
Fig. 1  Air voids effect after one
percentage addition of plastic
waste
be updated with new studies so that the initial models gen-
erated from the database can be updated or retrained.
An SQLR consists of two phases: article selection and
data curation. In the first phase of the SQLR, the key-
words pertaining to the search were defined. The keywords
searched were 'plastic waste', 'bitumen', 'asphalt', and
'pavement'. The databases searched were Web of Science
and Scopus. Other conditions were set to limit the scope
to articles published between 2009 and 2020, written in
English, and not conference proceedings. In total, 90 arti-
cles complied with these requirements. The filter process
was summarized in the Preferred Reporting Items for Sys-
tematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement
[37], included in Fig. 10.
In the second phase of the SQLR, the data were tab-
ulated for the model’s training. A distinction between
dependent variables (predicted or target variables) and
independent variables (features) was made within these
data. The predicted variables are the effect of plastic addi-
tion on specific asphalt properties (air voids, MS, MF,
ITS, and TSR). The features are the independent vari-
ables employed to train the ML estimators. The features
were either numerical or categorical. Numerical features
were aggregates gradation, aggregates absorption, bitumen
content, bitumen penetration, plastic content, and plastic
size. Categorical data included plastic resin, mixing type
(binary: wet or dry), and material replacement. Material
replacement refers to the samples where the plastic addi-
tion replaced a percentage of aggregates or bitumen. In the
case of the mentioned variables, the aggregates gradation
is included for accounting for the asphalt mix type, while
the penetration of the bitumen is employed for consider-
ing the bitumen type. Data collected and tabulated can
be observed at the Online Resource 1. An additional data
exploration analysis was included for summarizing this
tabulated data.
2.2 Data Cleaning
After tabulation, the data underwent a pre-processing or
cleaning phase. This stage aimed to prepare the data for
model training. The cleaning phase is essential because some
models, for example, those that employ gradient descent or
distance algorithms, require data scaling and categorical
variables to be transformed into dummy variables.
Feature engineering was performed on the plastic addi-
tion variable. This process was needed because some articles
reported it as a percentage of the bitumen content, while
others as aggregate content. This feature was transformed
as a ratio over bitumen weight. To transform the observa-
tions reported as aggregates weight, they were divided by
the bitumen content. Although this transformation is not
entirely accurate, it provides a close approximation, for the
aggregates correspond to at least 94% of the asphalt mix.
Additional feature engineering was applied to plastic content
and plastic-type features. These variables were multiplicated
and combined under one feature, reducing the number of
categorical features to three.
Some particular features, which were not included in the
data collection, could cause outliers in the predicted vari-
able. Some examples are the type of aggregate or filler, sam-
ple dimensions, source of bitumen, and aggregates nature.
Although including these features may produce more accu-
rate models, it was not possible because they were not com-
monly reported in the articles. So, it was necessary to iden-
tify outlier data points and discard them from the training
data. The technique employed was the interquartile range.
In this method, the interquartile range is defined as the dif-
ference between the first and third quartile. Any observation
that is more than one and a half interquartile ranges higher or
lower than the upper/lower quartile is considered an outlier
and removed from the dataset. Other unusual values caused
by data entry errors were also identified and corrected.
13

Missing data were replaced by applying an iterative
imputer. The iterative imputer predicts the missing data as a
function of the other variables in a round-robin fashion. The
advantage of this imputer is that it restores the variability of
the missing data and presents robust results regardless of the
number of missing values [38]. Due to the nature of the data,
the estimator selected was ExtraTreeRegressor. This estimator
was the most appropriate because it did not impute negative
values, and its estimations were within a reasonable range.
Last, the categorical variables were transformed to numeric
through one-hot encoding, and all the features were scaled.
The min–max scaling function from the module sklearn pre-
processing was applied. This scaling method was the most
suitable, for most of the features did not follow a Gaussian
distribution. The transformation made by this method follows
Eq. (1).
x − xmin
xnew = , (1)
xmax − xmin
where xnew is the scaled value, x is the value to scale, xmin is
the minimum value among the feature, xmax is the maximum
value among the feature
2.3 Feature Selection and Model Training
The minimum number of parameters needed to reduce the
complexity and improve the model’s applicability must be
included. Models with many features underperform due to
irrelevant or redundant data [39]. Reducing the number of
features included in the model also reduces the training time,
which is crucial during the training of complex models. Thus,
the importance of each feature and its ability to increase the
accuracy of the models should be assessed. The model used
for this evaluation was the extreme gradient boosting tree
(XGBoost), a fast ensemble ML model that reduces the risk
of overfitting. A stepwise forward selection was employed
to select the optimal set of features that minimizes the mean
squared error (MSE—Eq. (2)). The gradual addition of com-
ponents is based on the correlation coefficient between each
feature and the target variable; thus, features with higher cor-
relation are added first to the XGBoost model. The MSE is
an evaluation metric that heavily penalizes predictive outliers
in the dataset. Lower MSE is preferred, for it means that the
predicted values are close to the actual values. The optimal
set of features was identified as minimizing the MSE with the
least number of variables. Then, this set was used to train and
evaluate other ML models.
∑n � �2
yi − ỹi
MSE = i=1
, (2)
n paradigm trains different models simultaneously, and the final
where yĩ is the predicted value; yi is the observed value; n is
the number of observations.
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
2.4 Model Training and Screening
Given the nature of the present research, the ML system
to apply is a supervised model with a regression task. This
study used prevailing ML algorithms, including linear
regression, polynomial regression, support vector machine
(SVR), decision trees, and ensemble methods based on deci-
sion trees. The ensemble models employed were Random
Forest, Extra trees, and XGBoost. Ensemble models tend to
perform better than single weak learners because they aver-
age the bias error of different estimators and reduce the vari-
ability of the predicted values [40]. For this reason, ensem-
ble methods have been applied successfully in diverse fields,
such as face recognition, computer security, object tracking,
intrusion detection, and early disease diagnosis [40].
The tree decision estimator is an algorithm that formu-
lates rules to classify or predict a variable [41]. In a decision
tree, the main elements are the root node, the leaf nodes, and
the branches. The root node is the starting point of the algo-
rithm, and based on a threshold, it is split into two branches
and two leaves nodes that will be subsequently split. This
criterion considers all the features in the model and aims
to minimize the cost function shown in Eq. (3) [42]. The
algorithm divides its nodes until it reaches a predefined max
depth, commonly adjusted to reduce overfitting risks. Other
common hyperparameters are the minimum number of sam-
ples in a node before splitting and the minimum samples
required to create a leaf. Although the decision tree is a good
estimator, it is usually combined in ensemble methods to
produce more accurate results.
mlef t mright
Jk,tk = ∗ MSElef t + ∗ MSEright , (3)
m m
where k is the feature and tk is the threshold proposed. mleft
is the number of instances in the left branch. mright is the
number of instances in the right branch.
∑ 2
MSEnode = ynode − y(i) )
(̂
i∈node
∑
̂
ynode = 1∕mnode y(i)
i∈node
Ensemble methods are estimators that combine different
predictors to improve the model’s final effectiveness. Ensem-
ble methods are divided into two paradigms: sequential ensem-
ble methods and parallel ensemble methods. The sequential
paradigm trains each model in a sequential form, aiming to
improve the predecessor model. The final predictor will be the
prediction of the last trained model. Alternatively, the parallel
prediction is usually the arithmetic mean of the predictions of
every single model [40]. Random Forest is one of the most
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
used ensemble methods built on the decision tree under the
parallel paradigm.
In a Random Forest, each tree adds randomness to the
model by selecting the feature to split among a random features
subset. In other words, it also attempts to minimize Eq. (3),
but instead of evaluating all the features, as it happens in a
single decision tree, it looks over a random subset of features.
Besides, each tree is trained on a subsample of the train set.
The subsampling could be with samples replacement, bagging,
or without replacement, pasting. After the model has been
trained, the final prediction will be the trees’ average predic-
tion. In addition to the hyperparameters previously mentioned
for the decision tree, the Random Forest also considers the
number of trees, the maximum number of features to consider
in each split, and the subsampling method (bagging or past-
ing). Alternatively, the extra tree regressor adds further ran-
domness to the Random Forest. Instead of looking for the best
feature threshold to split a node, it selects a random threshold.
For this reason, extra tree regressors are computationally faster
than the Random Forest, and it tends to decrease the variance
while increasing bias error [43]. The hyperparameters of the
extra tree regressor are the same as for the Random Forest.
The XGB regressor (XGBoost model) is a gradient boost-
ing method built under the sequential paradigm. In a gradi-
ent boosting algorithm, the training aims to minimize each
model’s loss function gradually. The process starts by training
a weak learner and calculating its error, which is commonly
MSE in the case of regression. Then, the error gradient is cal-
culated as the first derivate of the partial derivate of the loss
function. This gradient will provide the direction in which the
following model parameters must be adjusted to reduce the
error [44]. Although the XGB regressor uses the same princi-
ples as a standard gradient boosting method, it also presents
three significant differences: it adds two regularization param-
eters to the loss function, it uses the second partial derivate of
the loss function as the gradient, and the tree construction is
parallelized. Thus, this algorithm is usually faster than tradi-
tional gradient boosting methods, and it reduces the risk of
overfitting [45].
Other models that add regularization, such as lasso, ridge,
and elastic net, were also included and applied to linear and
polynomial regression models. For the initial evaluation, all
the models were trained, and the Akaike information crite-
rion (AIC), Eq. (4), and AIC corrected (AICc), Eq. (5), were
calculated for evaluating their performance. The AICc is used
when the sample size is not large enough, and its value tends
to be similar to the AIC when the sample size increases. The
optimal models for each predictive variable were those with
the lowest AICc.
AIC = Nln(MSE) + 2K,
2K(K + 1)
AICC = AIC + , (5)
N−K−1
where K is the number of features and N is the sample size.
Although the AIC is adequate when deciding the best
estimators, it is not valid to evaluate how well the models
fit the overall data. Therefore, the coefficient of determi-
nation (R2—Eq. [6]) was also reported to complement the
AICc. The coefficient of determination reflects the degree
at which the models were able to replicate the variability of
the observed data. The advantage of the R­ 2 is that regardless
of the measurement unit, it returns a value between zero and
one. Values close to one means that the model is a good fit.
∑n � �2
yi − ỹi )
2
R =1− ∑ � i=1
�2 , (6)
n
i=1 yi − y )
where y̅ is the mean of the observed variable; ỹi is the pre-
dicted value; yi is the observed value
The AICc was determined under the cross-validation
with ten folds and ten repetitions. This method was used to
overcome sample bias issues which may evolve due to the
dataset size not being large enough. During this process, the
data are randomly divided into ten groups of equal size. One
of these subgroups is used as a test set, while the remaining
nine are the training set. After training the model, the AICc
is measured, and another subgroup is used as a train set.
This loop will continue until all the ten groups have been
employed as the train set, and the final performance metric
is the average AICc of all the iterations. This technique was
repeated ten times with different random subgroups so that
the final performance metric was more reliable than single
cross-validation.
The grid search was implemented in conjunction with the
cross-validation to select the optimal set of hyperparameters.
The grid search identifies the best hyperparameters given a
predefined values range. For simple models, the function
applied from sklearn was GridSearchCV(), while for ensem-
ble models, RandomizedSearchCV() was used instead. The
RandomizedSearchCV() creates a randomized search across
a set of predefined hyperparameters, and in the case of
ensemble models, it was required because the regular Grid-
SearchCV would increment the training time exponentially.
The hyperparameters employed for GridSearchCV and Ran-
domizedSearchCV are described in Table 5. After evaluating
all the proposed models with the best hyperparameters, the
model with the lowest AICc was selected for the final study
stage, model interpretability.
2.5 Model Interpretability
(4)
The interpretability of the models will be evaluated with
the SHAP method. The Shapley values are based on game
13

theory, and in the ML context, it considers each feature as a
player and the prediction as the payout. This value is the fair
reward provided to each feature, given their contribution to
the final prediction [46]. This contribution is the difference
between the models’ predictions that included the feature
and those that did not. The SHAP method is based on these
Shapley values, but it also proposes an alternative calcula-
tion of the Shapley values using a particular Kernel (Kernel
SHAP). This method permits global and single interpret-
ability and is efficient in tree-based models due to the Tree-
SHAP Method [47]. The library employed was shap [47,
48]. The preference for SHAP values is due to their ability
to provide a clear understanding of the features’ interaction
and importance. LIME (Local interpretable model-agnostic
explanations) and XGBOOST feature importance are other
popular alternatives for SHAP values; however, they do not
guarantee consistency as SHAP values do, and in the case
of the XGBOOST, it does not clarify whether the effect is
positive or negative.
To validate the SHAP values, some resemblance with the
theory and previous researchers’ deductions will be men-
tioned. This type of validation is not entirely correct, for the
SHAP values assess correlation and not causation; never-
theless, it is still a valid option, given the limited literature
about the topic. Thus, some intuitive explanations will be
proposed after the interpretability analysis to corroborate
and comprehend the resultant SHAP values.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Data Exploration
The sample size of the air voids data set was 177 obser-
vations. As Fig. 2a shows, air voids distribution reason-
ably followed a normal distribution with a mean of 3.71%
and a standard deviation of 0.96 (coefficient of variation
[CV] = 0.25). The Marshall and Superpave mix design
methodologies prescribe an optimal air void value of 4.0%
for asphalt mixes [49], so an average around this value is
expected. The lowest value measured was 1.95 percent,
indicating a higher demand for bitumen and thus a higher
price for the pavement. The article with this observation
was Khimta and Arora [50], and after inspection, it was con-
firmed that the cause for this low value was the significant
bitumen amount (6.8% over asphalt mix weight). The highest
observed value was 8.04% [24], which is undesirable, for
it facilitates rutting and water damage [31]. Nevertheless,
40% of the observations were between 3.5 and 4.5, which is
reasonable for the air voids.
Figure 2b shows the MS distribution plot for the dataset,
which consisted of 242 observations. The data do not appear
to follow a normal distribution and has higher variability
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
than the air voids (CV = 0.31). The standard deviation of the
sample was 4.71 kN with a mean of 15.13 kN. All observa-
tions fulfill the recommendations of the Asphalt institute of
surface mixes for light, medium, and heavy traffic (Asphalt
Mix Design MS-2) [49]. Even for the Australian standards
(AS 2150:2020 Asphalt—A guide to excellent practice),
where the minimum limit is 8 kN, most articles complied
[51]. The minimum MS value was 6.05 kN, whereas the
largest was 27.1 kN. The study with the highest MS value
was Murugan [52], and although it is difficult to propose a
definitive explanation due to a large number of variables and
their interactions, the substitution of aggregates for plastic
waste could have been the cause. When the e-plastic waste
substituted the coarse aggregates (particle size of 6.7 mm)
by 12%, a potent glue effect was created that bound the
aggregates further, increasing the cohesion and MS value.
The total number of observations for the MF was 198.
Figure 2c shows that the data did not follow a Gaussian
curve, and positive skewness can be perceived. Neverthe-
less, it presented more kurtosis than MS. The mean of the
MF was 3.9 mm. Knowing that the permissible range of the
MF for the Marshall mix design in medium traffic is between
2 and 4 mm, it is possible to see that more than 60% of the
observations complied with these two conditions. Moreover,
31% of the samples were above the limit stipulated by the
Marshall mix design, including Angelone et al. [53], who
reported the highest MF value (11.1 mm). Meanwhile, only
one observation was below 2 mm, with a value of 1.76 mm
[54].
The total ITS sample size was 100 observations. There
is no stipulated upper or lower value for the ITS; however,
higher values are usually preferred because it typically
displays higher fatigue life and lower rutting risks [55]. In
Fig. 2d, although the mean of the ITS was 0.78 MPa, many
data points were within the lowest bin range (0.15–0.3 MPa).
This unusual density of observations has increased the sam-
ple variability (σ = 0.48), and compared with other variables,
it has positioned the ITS as the one with the highest variabil-
ity (CV = 0.61). After further inspection of the data, it was
found that most of these observations came from the same
source Mohamed, et al. [56]. In their article, the authors
found that 50% of the samples with plastic addition pre-
sented ITS values lower than the unmodified asphalt mix,
meaning that the plastic deteriorated the engineering prop-
erties of the mixture. The possible reasons were the high
quantity of air voids in the mixtures, provoked by the PET
addition, and the bitumen substitution. Because PET has a
high melting point, when added through the dry technique
under a temperature not hot enough, it does not melt com-
pletely to fill the voids. Similarly, replacing some bitumen
with plastic reduced the binder availability to fill the voids.
The lowest ITS value obtained in this article, and lowest in
the total sample, was 0.15 MPa.
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…

Fig. 2  Predictive variables distribution in the train set for a air voids, b MS, c MF, d ITS, and e TSR. Limits criteria were based on the Marshall
mix design for medium traffic [57]

For the TSR, 106 observations were obtained. The
average was 85%, presenting the lowest CV among all the
predictive variables ( CVTSR = 0.10 , σ = 8.99). Figure 2e
shows that 5% of the samples were below the 70% limit
recommended by the standard [49]. Like the ITS, the TSR
is highly affected by air voids [31]. If the mixture has high
air voids, the water has higher chances of displacing the
bitumen situated on the surface of the aggregates, leading
to a reduction in cohesion. Two data points were less than
70%, reported by Tiwari and Rao [57] and Ranieri et al.
[22]. Both articles presented lower TSR than the samples
without plastic addition. The possible reasons were the use
of hard bitumen and the dry mixing technique. Neverthe-
less, both authors increased the TSR after adding plastic
through the wet technique. Other articles also observe
the deterioration of the TSR due to the dry mixing. For
instance, Almeida et al. [58], who obtained the highest
TSR in the sample (109%), observed a TSR reduction of
17% after adding plastic through the dry technique. The
melted plastic’s inability to fill the air voids might explain
this TSR decrease in the sample.

13

3.2 Feature Selection and Model Evaluation
After data preparation, a correlation matrix (Fig. 11) was
constructed to evaluate the correlation and potential collin-
earities among features. Then, each feature was considered
to see its effect on the MSE of an XGBoost model. Figure 3
depicts this MSE evolution. Each model starts with the fea-
ture with the highest correlation with the predicted variable;
aggregates gradation or plastic addition. Then, other features
are gradually added to the model according to their cor-
relation value. This order of addition is represented in the
X-axis, whereas the Y-axis represents the resultant MSE for
the corresponding set of features up to and including that
feature. The optimal set of features is depicted in Fig. 3 by
the vertical dashed line.
The aggregates gradation and plastic-type are the two
most essential features in the air voids (Fig. 3a). We stipu-
late that plastic has a high impact on air voids. Researchers’
findings suggest that this influence is exhibited in dry and
wet mixing techniques. In the wet, Bagampadde et al. [59]
explained that the air voids decrease because the bitumen
expands after plastic addition. Similarly, plastic addition
could increase the air voids due to the bitumen’s viscosity
increase after an exaggerated addition of plastic, as Rani-
eri, et al. [22] demonstrated. Thus, although the plastic can
increase the bitumen’s volume, it can also increase the vis-
cosity up to the point that it reduces the bitumen’s capabil-
ity to flow and fill air voids. In the dry mixing technique,
the effect on the air voids is also noticeable. A reasonable
explanation is that melted plastic covers the aggregates and
fills the air voids between them. The air voids MSE slightly
increased after adding bitumen penetration, bitumen replace-
ment, and mixing process. Then, it rapidly decreases after
including the bitumen content feature and plastic size. The
plastic size, in the wet technique, alters the viscosity of the
bitumen [60], and it would end up changing the air voids. In
the dry technique, fine plastics can fill more air voids than
coarse plastics because they can infiltrate the smaller void
space and melt completely, resulting in better filling of air
voids. After this sharp reduction, the MSE does not change
too much, and the final set of features excluded aggregates
absorption and replacement.
As in air voids, MS is highly affected by the plastic type
feature (Fig. 3b). This strong effect is confirmed in articles
that have studied the wet and dry mixing techniques. In the
wet technique, because the modified binder becomes harder,
it increases the binder’s bond strength with aggregates,
resulting in a stiffer PAM [61, 62]. In the dry technique, the
effect is attributed to an enhancement in the mix’s adhesion;
melted plastic will bond further the aggregates due to its
glue effect [63, 64]. After adding the gradation feature, the
MSE is relatively constant up to bitumen content, selected
as the last property in the optimal set of features. Notably,
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
the final set of features did not contain the mixing process
as it might be expected, meaning that whether the dry or wet
techniques are employed, they do not exert a profound effect
on the MS prediction.
The primary reduction of the Marshall flow MSE
occurred after including the gradation feature (Fig. 3c).
Again, the plastic type is one of the most relevant proper-
ties influencing the final MF modeling. The effect of plastic
addition on MF, as explained by Akinpelu et al. [65], is that
it enforces the internal friction of aggregates. Thus, it alters
the cohesion of the asphalt mixture and thereby the MF.
After aggregates gradation, the MSE stays constant, and its
last slight decrease occurs with the addition of the property
with the lowest correlation; bitumen content. In contrast to
the other properties, MF is the only target variable including
all the properties in the final set of features.
The plots shape of the ITS and TSR are very similar
(Fig. 3d, e). In both properties, plastic-type, gradation, and
aggregate absorption are relevant features in the final mod-
eling. When plastic is added through the wet technique, the
ITS is altered due to increased binder viscosity and adhe-
sion ability [66]. And in the dry mixing process, the ITS
varies due to an increment of aggregates adhesion. As in
the MS, melted plastic on the aggregates’ surface acts as a
glue that increases the ITS. In other words, the plastics act
as a reinforcement binder for the plastic asphalt mix [67].
Because the TSR is based on the ITS, it is not surprising to
see similar results in the MSE curve.
Interestingly, bitumen content, in the ITS, and bitumen
penetration, in the ITS and TSR were not considered in the
final selected model. This result was unexpected, for, in
theory, bitumen content and grading substantially affect the
ITS and TSR [31]. It might occur that although it presents a
strong effect on the net value of the ITS and TSR, its impact
is limited when the effect after plastic addition is attempted
to be modeled. ITS, in fact, was the only predicted variable
where the bitumen content and bitumen penetration were
excluded from the optimal set of features.
It was unexpected to see that the type of mixing, wet or
dry, does not significantly affect the predicted variables, and
even in the MS and TSR, it was not included in the optimal
set of features. This observation is counterintuitive, as one
would anticipate that the final PAM characteristics would be
decided by the plastic's interaction with hot bitumen or hot
aggregates. Few articles have compared dry and wet tech-
niques, so it is not possible to conclude which technique
is superior given the small number of studies. Mishra and
Gupta [3] determined that the addition of PE by the dry
technique yields superior results to the wet technique. To
the contrary, Prahara et al. [4] concluded that samples pre-
pared using the wet technique yielded better results than the
dry technique based on MS, MF, and MQ values. On the
other hand, Mishra and Gupta [3] made their conclusions
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…

Fig. 3  Optimal feature selection for a air voids, b MS, c MF, d ITS, and e TSR

13

considering ITS and TSR in addition to the Marshall char-
acteristics. Two additional studies have concluded that the
wet and dry techniques produce similar volumetric quali-
ties and, hence, comparable performance [22, 68]. The later
studies found that the choice of asphalt mixture formulation
process should not be based on the projected performance
of the resultant mixture, rather on their practicability. This
result is consistent with what is observed in Fig. 3, where the
mixing procedure does not appear to be of much importance
when predicting PAM properties.
Different ML models were evaluated based on the optimal
features selected in the previous step. Figure 4 summarizes
their AICc for each of the target variables. The results are
ordered from the lowest to the highest AICc value, so the
best estimators are located at the top. In general, ensemble
models (Random Forest Regressor, Extra trees regressor,
and XGBoost) perform better than single estimators. Ran-
dom Forest returned the lowest AICc (− 659.46) in the air
voids, followed by the other ensemble models. The R2 in the
air voids Random Forest was 0.743.
Fig. 4  Model evaluation for a air voids, b MS, c MF, d ITS, and e TSR
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
In the cases of MS, MF, and ITS, the Extra Tree Regres-
sor was the best estimator. This estimator presented a rela-
tively good R ­ 2 in the mentioned variables (R2MS = 0.7,
R MF = 0.76, and R2ITS = 0.77). Alternatively, the most
2
accurate model for the TSR was the XGBoost, with an R ­2
of 0.8. More detail on how these best models predicted the
target variables are shown in Fig. 12.
Two previous articles have also attempted to predict
MF and MS after plastic addition [27, 28]. Although the
authors have also reported the RMSE, it was unfeasi-
ble to compare their results with the ensemble models’
results because their models predicted the net value of
the MS and MF instead of the effect. Nevertheless, they
also reported the ­R 2, which could work as an approxi-
mation to validate and compare the results. Tapkin et al.
[28] reported an ­R 2 for MS and MF of 0.87 and 0.86,
respectively. The better performance observed in these
results might be due to the low inter-lab variability and
the implementation of artificial neural networks, a suit-
able Machine Learning algorithm with good results when
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
the data is large enough. Also, because of the limited
data size, ANN might have caused overfitting, which
is reflected in the high R 2 value. Although none of the
proposed models performed as well as those reported by
these authors, their ­R 2s were close enough to infer that
the models are still appropriate. After seeing that the
obtained R 2s are adequate, the optimal models selected
for the next phase involving SHAP values were Random
Forest for the air voids, Extra Tree regressor, in the case
of MS, MF, and ITS, and XGBoost, for TSR.
Fig. 5  Random Forest interpre-
tation for air voids. a Global
interpretation and b local
explanation
3.3 Model Interpretability
To better understand the SHAP values, plots were employed
to summarize them. The first plot (labeled as a. in Figs. 5, 6,
7, 8, and 9) depicts the global interpretation of the model,
where the width of each bar represents the importance of
the corresponding feature to the model. The features are
displayed from the most important at the top to the least
important at the bottom.
The second plot (labeled as b in Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8 and
9), commonly called the summary plot, presents the local
explanation of each feature. It is important to note that
13

Fig. 6  Extra tree regressor
interpretation for MS. a Global
interpretation and b local
explanation
features depicted in the Y-axis are also ordered by impor-
tance and that the plastic-type and gradation have been
ungrouped. Thus, instead of representing gradation as
one feature, it will be separated accordingly to the typical
pavement gradation—the same for the plastic-type. The
X-axis represents the SHAP values, and if this value is
negative, this specific feature in this observation nega-
tively impacts the prediction. The contrary is the case
when the SHAP value is positive. And last, the color of
the data point indicates whether the value of the feature
was high (red), medium (purple), or low (blue). In the case
of binary features, the label in the Y-axis will indicate what
the color means.
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
3.3.1 Air Voids
Figure 5a confirms the importance of aggregates gradation
and plastic-type during the modeling. Then, the bitumen
characteristics (bitumen content and bitumen penetration)
seem to present secondary importance in predicting air
voids. According to these SHAP values, the plastic effect
on air voids is driven by the plastic-type and plastic content
and not by how it was added to the mixture (wet or dry tech-
nique), as one might expect. Also, this graph corroborates
what was observed in the MSE plot (Fig. 3a), where the bitu-
men penetration, bitumen replacement, and mixing process
did not reduce the MSE after being added. When the SHAP
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
Fig. 7  XGBOOST interpreta-
tion for MF. a Global interpreta-
tion and b local explanation
values are studied for the local explanation, Fig. 5b, they
display relative consistency with the global plot.
The local explanation reveals that PE and the bitumen
content present higher importance than the specific grada-
tions. At the bitumen level, it is possible to notice that high
bitumen content and penetration decrease the air voids pre-
diction. Although this inference can only be applied within
the modeling context, it is an effect that researchers have
also observed. When the bitumen content is high, it permits
the plastic to fill further the empty spaces within the PAM.
The same occurs with penetration; the higher the penetra-
tion, the more capable of flowing the bitumen through the
plastic and aggregates [31]. At the plastic level, a difference
between the response of the PE and PET can be noticed.
While PE decreases the air voids prediction, PET raises its
value. This remark is consistent with the different melting
points and air voids effect mentioned by previous articles
[69, 70]. Within the mixing, the mixing technique also
13

Fig. 8  Extra tree regressor
interpretation for ITS. a Global
interpretation and b local
explanation
depicts a clear differentiation. Even though this feature does
not rank among the top parameters, the observed effect on
the local explanation is evident; the wet technique increases
the predictions, whereas dry decreases it.
The initial R2 of the model was 0.743, and after elimi-
nating those features considered less critical by the global
interpretation, bitumen replacement, and mixing process, the
model’s performance remains constant. Then, if the model is
trained without the plastic size, it reduces its performance,
R2 = 0.7131, which means that the plastic type is still rel-
evant for predicting accurate results. Thus, the final features,
ordered by importance, are gradation, plastic type, bitumen
content, bitumen penetration, and plastic size.
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
3.3.2 Marshall Stability
In addition to plastic-type and aggregates gradation, the
global interpretation of the MS reveals that the aggregate
absorption and bitumen content are also relevant factors
(Fig. 6a). This remark was also observed in Fig. 3b, where
the MSE was further reduced after adding bitumen content
and aggregate absorption in the features set. Other proper-
ties, such as bitumen penetration and plastic size, also pre-
sent a certain degree of importance in the MS prediction;
nevertheless, their global importance is minor compared
to plastic-type and gradation. When plastic and gradation
are divided in the local explanation plot, Fig. 6b, aggregate
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
Fig. 9  XGBOOST interpreta-
tion for TSR. a Global interpre-
tation and b local explanation
absorption becomes the feature with the highest impact on
the MS prediction.
According to the SHAP values, high absorption in the
aggregates produces a high MS prediction in the PAM. Simi-
larly, the impact of PET is clear; high PET addition contrib-
utes to an increase in the MS estimation. This is contrary to
the PE addition, which displays an apparent negative effect
on MS, for most of their red data points are in the negative
range. Moreover, regardless of the plastic type, plastic size
reveals a positive contribution to the MS prediction. In the
bitumen context, the existent correlation of bitumen penetra-
tion and content with the MS is also noticeable; bitumen
with high penetration and high bitumen content produce
an increased effect on the MS of pavements modified with
plastic waste.
Although all these remarks represent correlation and not
causality, some partly agree with the literature. Zulkati, et al.
[71] explain that the high absorption in the aggregates can
reduce the thickness of the bitumen layer on the aggregates,
increasing the shear friction between aggregates and result-
ing in a higher MS. When plastic is added, the shear fric-
tion might increase further due to the interaction of aggre-
gates–plastic and plastic–plastic, incrementing the final
MS value. The same hypothesis can also be applied to the
13

remark found about plastic size; larger plastic components
permit better shear friction and cohesion within the PAM.
This shear friction might also be affected by the plastic type.
PET, which has a high melting point, tends to preserve its
shape after being mixed, so its final interaction and contact
with aggregates are higher than other plastics that have been
completely melted during the PAM formulation. These con-
siderations reaffirm the importance of plastic-type in MS
modeling.
According to the literature review conducted by Heydari,
et al. [69], the association between the amount of PE plastic
added and MS has a concave shape. This reveals that the
plastic content tends to behave similarly to the bitumen con-
tent, which exhibits a concave shape when plotted versus MS
during the optimal bitumen content analysis. It thus means
that the MS tends to increase with the plastic content until
it reaches a maximum MS value, at which point it gradually
decreases, and in some cases, it may have a value lower than
the conventional asphalt mix. This trend is depicted in PE
addition label in Fig. 6b. As can be seen, MS grows with
a low PE content, but after the excessive addition of plas-
tic, denoted by the red hue, it reduces to a level lower than
the unaltered asphalt mixture. The same holds true for PET
which was also noted by Taherkhani and Arshadi [72] and
Ahmadinia et al. [73]. Aghayan and Khafajeh [70] suggest
that the abrupt fall in PET MS is a result of the PET's lower
stiffness compared to natural aggregates. Inspecting Fig. 6b
suggests that contrary to the PE, there is no evidence of a
decreasing tendency in the MS of the PET modified mix. It
is possible that the MS can still decrease with a higher PET
content, it is unlikely to fall to values lower than the conven-
tional asphalt mix; therefore, neither red nor purple points
are noticed in the negative region of the SHAP value plot.
The model’s performance that includes all the features
depicted in Fig. 6a returned an MSE of 0.0165. Since the
aggregate replacement and plastic size did not substantially
impact the final MS prediction, they were excluded from the
last model, which resulted in a slight reduction of the MSE,
− 2.4%. Thus, the optimal model only included aggregates
gradation, plastic-type, bitumen content, and bitumen pen-
etration and presented an R2 of 0.7047 and an MSE of 0.016.
3.3.3 Marshall Flow
It is remarkable again to observe that the aggregates gra-
dation and plastic-type are the two most essential features
in estimating the MF (Fig. 7). As occurred in the case of
MS, MF is affected by two main forces within the asphalt
mixture; cohesion and internal friction resistance [74]. The
internal friction resistance is expected to be more significant
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
when the aggregate texture is high [75] or when the propor-
tion of large aggregate is prominent. This effect of large
aggregate size can be confirmed in the local explanation plot
(Fig. 7b), where the percentage of large aggregates, passing
the sieve 9.5 mm, and retained in the 4.75 mm, positively
affects the MF prediction. Plastic addition also reinforces
this interlocking effect if the plastic preserves its shape after
being heated and mixed. This result will be mainly expected
among plastics with a high melting point, and in the local
explanation plot, this could be corroborated by comparing
the positive PET impact vs. the negative effect of PE.
The third and fourth most important features were the
mixing technique and plastic size. The effect of the mixing
process was evident in Fig. 7b: wet mixing presents a nega-
tive impact on the prediction, whereas, for dry, the effect is
positive. This could be because dry technique increases the
interlocking strength among aggregates and plastic mate-
rial, which is not observed during the wet technique, for it
has a direct effect on the binder and not on the aggregate.
In the case of the plastic size, it aligns with what has been
discussed in the previous paragraph; larger particles in the
mixture will allow higher interlocking.
The second most decisive factor in the Marshall flow
is the ability of the bitumen to maintain the aggregates
together. The impact of the bitumen penetration on the Mar-
shall flow does not agree with the theoretical effect previ-
ously mentioned. Bitumen with high penetration can flow
further through the aggregates, which will result in a better
cohesion than in the case of less liquid binders; however, the
local explanation plot shows something different. Nonethe-
less, it is essential to recognize that these plots show the
influence of initial bitumen penetration and plastic addition,
and that the effect of bitumen penetration and mixing tech-
nique can be better understood when examined simultane-
ously. When bitumen is modified using the wet method, its
viscosity increases, making it less accessible for enhancing
aggregate cohesiveness. As Fig. 7 demonstrates, the unfa-
vorable effect of the wet mixing approach can be recog-
nized. This drop in the Marshall flow among wet-processed
samples is typical, as established in the literature Heydari,
et al. [69]. Only one of the publications reviewed by Heydari
et al. [69] that utilized the wet mixing technique observed
an increase in flow value compared to the standard asphalt
mix [76]. In contrast, in the instance of dry mixing, only one
item displayed a lower marshal flow value [73]. Similarly,
the impact of the aggregate absorption is unforeseen, for
one might expect that less binder available will deteriorate
the flow value due to the loss of cohesion. Still, a plausible
explanation of this effect could be the generation of a thin
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
bitumen layer on the aggregate and its repercussion on the
internal friction strength.
The initial performance of this model displays an R2 of
0.766 and an MSE of 0.0213. With the observed results in
Fig. 7a, it could be perceived that the inclusion of bitumen
replacement is redundant, and it might deteriorate the final
accuracy. After testing the model again without the bitu-
men replacement, an R2 of 0.763 and an MSE of 0.0216
were obtained. Thus, although the model did not improve
after excluding the mentioned feature, it did not present an
aggressive reduction on the R2, so it can be confirmed that
the bitumen replacement feature is unnecessary. With this in
mind, the optimal set of features for the MF are aggregates
gradation, plastic-type, mixing process, plastic size, aggre-
gate replacement, aggregate absorption, bitumen penetra-
tion, and bitumen content.
3.3.4 ITS
Although aggregates gradation and plastic-type display the
highest impact on the global interpretation plot (Fig. 8),
none of their sub-divisions are part of the top three features
in the local explanation plot. Nevertheless, their impact is
still noticeable as critical features for predicting the ITS.
As mentioned before, the ITS measures how resistant the
asphalt mix is to cracking, which is influenced by how well
the asphalt mix can avoid the cracking appearance and its
spread. In theory, mixtures with smaller nominal aggregate
sizes resist better cracking [31]. When the plastic is added
to the mix, these fine aggregates could be strengthened by
the plastic glue effect, reducing crack spread. This interpre-
tation can be corroborated by the effect observed among
fine aggregates (aggregates passing 0.075 mm and 0.3 mm)
in Fig. 8b. It was also expected to detect positive impacts
among the low melting point plastic types. PE generally
presents a positive variation in ITS prediction, and this
trend could also be observed among not-so-representative
plastic types, such as PS. In contrast, the positive effect of
the PET was unexpected, as it does not validate the remark
that the PET increases the air voids, and as high air voids
increase the risk of cracking [31], one might anticipate that
this plastic would reduce the ITS, which was not the case.
Modarres and Hamedi [77] remarked that the addition of
PET up to 4% increases the resistance to cracking, but after
this point, the material deteriorates. Contrary to Modarres
and Hamedi [77], the local interpretation plot Fig. 8b, shows
values with higher PET than 4% which continue to exhibit
positive impact on the ITS. This could be due to particle size
effect, as small PET particles have demonstrated superior
ITS performance compared to coarse PET particles [72].
Another unforeseen finding that cannot be validated was
the importance of bitumen replacement in the local explana-
tion plot (Fig. 8b). Theoretically, if a portion of the bitumen
is replaced by plastic, less binder content will be available
within the mixture, making it more prone to cracking. It is
the same for the result observed in the aggregate absorp-
tion feature; higher absorption increases the ITS prediction.
Maybe, in the end, the glue and the interlocking effects of
the plastic on the mixture are more potent than the bitumen
binding strength.
Studies comparing the dry mixing technique with the wet
technique have yielded similar findings about the superi-
ority of the wet technique in the ITS [57, 68, 78]. At the
same plastic content, these investigations were conducted
on HDPE, LDPE, and PET, and the dry and wet techniques
were compared. As was the case with the high PET con-
tent, however, excessive addition of plastic waste by the wet
technique begins to degrade the ITS [57], thus prudence is
advised. This may explain why some wet mix data points
are negatively impacting the ITS in the local explanation
plot. Notably, although White and Hall [68] noticed that the
wet technique performed better in the ITS, after evaluating
and comparing other properties of the asphalt mixture, they
concluded that there were no significant differences between
the two mixing techniques, and that the final selection of the
mixing technique should be based on practical considera-
tions rather than anticipated mixture improvement.
Last, although the mixing technique does not seem impor-
tant in the global interpretation, it is a critical feature that
contributes to the model performance. Initially, the model
presented an R2 of 0.776, and after being trained without the
mixing technique, variable with the least impact according
to the SHAP values, its R2 is reduced by 27%, meaning that
it is still relevant during prediction, which is also confirmed
in the local explanation plot. Therefore, no additional exclu-
sion should be made for the final model so that the optimal
set of parameters remain the same; aggregates gradation,
plastic type, bitumen replacement, aggregate absorption, and
mixing process.
3.3.5 TSR
One factor that strongly influences the TSR is the grada-
tion of the aggregates. Dense grading asphalt, for instance,
presents better moisture resistance than a mixture with high
content of coarse aggregates [31]. Thus, this explanation can
confirm the observed results of the SHAP values in the TSR
prediction. Figure 9b reveals that when many aggregates
pass the smallest sieve, 0.075 mm, the prediction on the
effect of plastic tends to be positive. On the contrary, when
the aggregates are in the medium range, passing the 0.6 mm
13
 C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh

sieve, an apparent inclination towards negative TSR predic-
tions exists. This finding is consistent with the findings of
Habeeb et al. [79], who reported that gradations with a high
proportion of fine particles are more resistant to water dam-
age. They explained that the high permeability of coarse
mixes is the source of this trend. When plastic is added to
asphalt mix, it has the ability to further improve water dam-
age and stripping resistance because fine particles can be
coated by modified bitumen or melted plastic. In the wet
technique, when plastic is added to the bitumen, it increases
the bitumen volume and facilitates the fine aggregates cover-
ing. However, in some cases. This addition also provokes an
increase in the bitumen viscosity, making it difficult for the
binder the complete spread among medium and large miner-
als. In the dry technique, the explanation is similar; melted
plastic can more easily disperse and cover fine aggregates
than coarse minerals. It is also worth noting that the wet
mixing process often results in less loss of binder coating on
aggregates when exposed to water than the dry technique, as
demonstrated by Haider et al. [66].
The second critical factor that alters the TSR is the
air voids [31]. If the mixture has a high air void content,
it facilitates the water access and the displacement of the
bitumen layer on the aggregates’ surfaces. After revising
the PET and PE effect on air voids (Fig. 5b), one might
expect that the impact of these plastics on the TSR is nega-
tive and positive, respectively. Nevertheless, another effect
is perceived in Fig. 9b; when the PET and PE content are
low or medium, it increases the TSR, but after adding and
exaggerating content, a reduction in the TSR is observed.
This observation was confirmed Ameri and Nasr [80], and
Tiwari and Rao [57], and the inference that the exaggerated
addition of plastic tend to hamper the moisture resistance of
the PAM was also mentioned by Aghayan and Khafajeh [70],
in their review of PET addition in asphalt mixtures.
The thickness and continuity of the bitumen layer on the
aggregates will also affect the PAM’s resistance to water
[81]. Although the global interpretation reaffirms that the
bitumen content is an influential factor, the local interpreta-
tion plot does not provide a clear idea about its effect. When
the bitumen addition is medium (purple color in the plot),
its impact could be positive or negative, whereas high values
(red color) reduce the TSR prediction. These results were
unexpected, as medium and high bitumen content would
increase the bitumen thickness on the aggregates, and it
would guarantee the continuity of the binder on the aggre-
gates’ surface.
The aggregate replacement feature is not essential for
the model and can be removed. The proposed model, which
includes all the features displayed in Fig. 9, returned an
R2 of 0.80 and an MSE of 0.0046. Based on Fig. 3e and
Fig. 9a, it is noticed that the bitumen replacement property
might be redundant, and it could not be contributing to the
final model performance. After testing the model without
this property, this remark was confirmed as the new ­R2 was
0.808 and MSE was 0.0044. It could also be assumed that
aggregate absorption and bitumen content might be irrel-
evant too; however, after testing the model without these fea-
tures, a relatively aggressive deterioration of the models was
observed, so they are still pertinent for the TSR prediction.
With that being said, the optimal and final set of features for
the TSR are gradation, plastic type, bitumen content, and
aggregate absorption.

Table 3  Summary feature importance for each predictive model

Air voids MS MF ITS TSR
Feature Impact Feature Impact Feature Impact Feature Impact Feature Impact

Gradation 57% Plastic type 44% Gradation 34% Gradation 37% Gradation 19%
Plastic type 20% Gradation 30% Plastic type 29% Plastic type 26% Plastic type 55%
Bitumen content 14% Aggregate absorp- 17% Mixing technique 10% Bitumen replace- 13% Bitumen content 15%
tion ment
Bitumen penetra- 5% Bitumen content 5% Plastic size 9% Aggregate absorp- 12% Aggregate absorp- 11%
tion tion tion
Plastic size 4% Bitumen penetra- 4% Aggregate 6% Mixing technique 12%
tion replacement
Aggregate absorp- 5%
tion
Bitumen penetra- 4%
tion
Bitumen content 4%

13
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
Table 4  General recommendations for improving PAM properties
Property Recommendations
Increase
Air voids Decrease bitumen content
Use larger amounts of 12.5- and 19-mm aggregates range
Use stiffer neat bitumen
Use PET
Use the wet technique
MS Use aggregates with high absorption
Increase the PE or PET addition
Increase the bitumen content
Select bitumen with higher penetration
Increase plastic particle size
MF Use PET, or increase its content, preferably, using the dry technique
Increase aggregate size in the range 9.5 to 6.7 mm
Replace part of the aggregates with plastic waste
ITS Increase fine particles content in the mixture gradation
Wet technique tends to perform better than dry technique
Use a balance plastic addition content. High plastic content could deterio-
rate the ITS
If using high melting point plastics, such PET, decrease the plastic particle
size
TSR Reduce air voids by increasing bitumen content
Avoid exaggerate addition of plastic waste
Increase the amount of filler
*As top limits are not often defined for MS, ITS, and TSR, no recommendations were made to decrease these attributes
4 Implications and Limitations
4.1 Implication
This work highlighted the most important features that
affect the performance of PAM as shown in Table 3. The
final optimal models and corresponding interpretations
have provided a better understanding of the effect of plas-
tic addition to asphalt mixtures, and they can be used as
a baseline for future machine learning models. The most
critical features for predicting basic PAM properties are
aggregates gradation, plastic type, and plastic content.
Although the influence of other features is less signifi-
cant, they can still be relevant in some cases as shown in
Table 3.
Based on the results obtained, a PAM that does not
comply with standards could be modified, so that it com-
plies with pavements standard requirements. For example,
if an original PAM requires an increase in the air voids, for
instance, increasing the proportion of larger aggregates,
or using stiffer binders would be appropriate. On the con-
trary, when air voids are intended to be reduced, the best
Decrease
Use PE, or increase the PE percentage of addi-
tion
Increase bitumen content
Reduce coarse aggregates in the mixture or
increase the usage of finer aggregates
Use softer virgin binders
Reduce plastic particle size
Use dry technique
*
Increase fine aggregates, or the content of filler
Employ the wet method and use PE
*
*
set of actions would be reducing coarse aggregates, adding
PE instead of high melting point plastics and using softer
binders. Table 4 provides an overview of these recommen-
dations for each of the investigated attributes. As previ-
ously stated, SHAP values do not always imply causation,
therefore, any decision on which factors to alter must be
accompanied by adequate expertise. The effect of combin-
ing multiple recommendations may not be easily predicted
by an expert; nevertheless, using the proposed models can
provide a quantifiable estimate on the mix properties.
4.2 Limitations
One of the challenges of employing ML modeling is the
availability of data. If the amount of data is insufficient,
machine learning models may not achieve high accuracy or
may end up overfitting, which is undesirable for the devel-
opment of generalized predictive models [82]. This work
improved the training range of prior ML models that have
attempted to predict the performance of PAM; however, the
models developed in this study can benefit from a larger and
more diverse training set. It should be emphasized that the
13
 C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh

current models can only be applied to data within the range
of the training set and not to outlier values. ML models are
black-box approach. As explained by Roscher et al. [83],
this disadvantage is especially pertinent when stakeholders
seek to interpret the model's predictions within the scientific
field. To counter this criticism, SHAP value analysis has
been employed in this work to gain better understanding of
the effect of each feature on the final prediction.
However, SHAP values also have their limitations. First,
it is essential to recognize that SHAP values indicate the
significance of model features but may not necessarily reflect
reality [46] because SHAP values represent correlation and
not causation [48]. When searching for causality, more
sophisticated causality tests should be conducted. There-
fore, any plausible inference must be supported by common
sense and expertise [83]. With this in mind, the majority of
the SHAP values reported are in agreement with existing
literature, and as long as they are analyzed within the range
of the training data, they could serve as a reliable indicator
of feature-parameter correlation.
type does not have substantial impact on the final PAM prop-
erties. Therefore, the dry mixing strategy would be favored
because it yields similar quality PAM as the wet mixing but
has the advantage of ease formulation in the field.
Further research could attempt to retrain the models with
updated data, so the new models are more accurate and rel-
evant to stakeholders. The model can be further extended to
include more advanced rheological properties of the bitu-
men, such as, viscosity, complex modulus, and phase angle.
In addition, future studies could focus on the formulation of
models that can predict the optimal bitumen content after
plastic addition. This type of model is relevant in the field
because it supports the potential of savings on bitumen after
the inclusion of plastic waste and improves the asphalt mix
quality.
Appendix
See Figs. 10, 11, 12 and Table 5

5 Conclusion

The present article has identified what variables have the

highest impact on predicting PAM basic properties (air
voids, MS, MF, ITS, and TSR). Data were gathered from
previous articles using the systematic quantitative literature
review. These data were cleaned and prepared for training
machine learning models. The Pearson correlation of each
feature with the target properties was employed as a selec-
tion tool to evaluate how they contribute to the MSE of a
general XGBoost model. This stage has returned an initial
set of features. These features, then, were used as a train-
ing set in single and ensemble machine learning models.
The model with the lowest AICc was selected for the next
stage of model interpretability. The interpretability of the
ML model was done through SHAP values, which provide
a general understanding of features’ importance, and it indi-
cates whether the feature has a positive or negative impact
on the final prediction of the target variable.
The obtained results serve as a reference for developing
or improving a PAM to maximize the beneficial plastic prop-
erties on the mix. The asphalt mix type and the gradation
curve of aggregates are the most influential design param-
eters; followed by plastic type and proportion of addition
to the mix. PET should be used rather than PE, if stiffer
mixtures are desired. Other factors such as type of aggregate,
and bitumen penetration, exert lesser effect on the final PAM
properties. In general, an appropriate combination of these
conditions would be essential for building an effective PAM
and persuading stakeholders to utilize plastic waste in real-
world circumstances. Based on our models’ analysis, mixing Fig. 10  PRISMA methodology

13
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…

Fig. 11  Correlation matrix

13
 C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh

Fig. 12  Optimal models predic-

tions for each target variable

13
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…

Table 5  Set of parameters employed during the grid search

Estimator Type of search Set of hyperparameters

Linear regression (LR) Grid search fit_intercept: [True, False],

positive: [True, False]
Lasso LR Grid search alpha: [0.001,1, 10, 15, 30, 50, 100],
fit_intercept: [True, False],
positive: [True, False]
Ridge LR Grid search alpha: [7, 8, 10,100],
fit_intercept: [True, False],
solver: [ 'svd', 'cholesky', 'lsqr', 'sparse_cg', sag, 'saga']
Elastic Net LR Grid search alpha: [0.01,1,2,3,4],
fit_intercept: [True, False]
Polynomial regression (PR) Grid search polynomial_degree: [2,3],
linearregression__fit_intercept: [True, False],
linearregression__positive: [True, False]
Lasso PR Grid Search polynomial_degree: [2,3],
lasso__alpha: [1–3, 10, 15, 30],
lasso__fit_intercept: [True, False],
lasso__positive: [True, False],
lasso__max_iter: [2000,3000, 3500]}
Ridge PR Grid search polynomial__degree: [2, 3],
ridge__alpha: [20, 30, 50, 60],
ridge__fit_intercept: [True, False],
ridge__solver: [ 'lsqr', 'cholesky', 'sparse_cg', 'auto']}
Support vector regression (SVR) Grid Search kernel: ['linear', 'rbf', 'sigmoid', 'poly'],
degree: [2–4],
C: [0.01,1,5,10],
epsilon: [0.1,0.2, 1, 1.5]
Decision Tree Grid Search max_depth: [1–3, 5, 10, 30],
min_samples_split: [2–4],
min_samples_leaf:[0.4,1,2]
Random Forest Random grid search n_estimators: from 200 to 2000
max_features: ['auto', 'sqrt']
max_depth: from 10 to 110
min_samples_split =  [2, 5, 10]
min_samples_leaf = [1, 2, 4]
bootstrap = [True, False]
Extra tree regressor Random grid search bootstrap: [True, False],
max_depth: [10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100],
max_features: ['auto', 'sqrt'],
min_samples_leaf: [1, 2, 4],
min_samples_split:[2, 5, 10],
n_estimators: [200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400,
1600, 1800, 2000]
XGBoost Random grid search eta: [0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2],
max_depth: [3–10],
max_delta_step: from 1 to 10,
lambda': from 1 to 10,
n_estimators: [100,300,500,1000]

Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplemen- Funding  Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 42947-0​ 22-0​ 0213-7. its Member Institutions. Not applicable.

Author Contributions  CV: conceptualisation; methodology; investiga- Declarations 

tion; writing—original draft; writing—review & editing; data curation;
formal analysis; visualization; software. AEH: methodology; conceptu-
Conflict of Interest  Not applicable.
alization; writing—review and editing; supervision; resources.

13

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
References
1. Lebreton, L., & Andrady, A. (2019). Future scenarios of global
plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications,
5(1), 6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1057/​s41599-​018-​0212-7
2. Ritchie H., & Roser, M. (2018). Plastic pollution. Our World in
Data.
3. Mishra, B., & Gupta, M. K. (2020). Use of plastic waste in bitu-
minous mixes by wet and dry. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer, 173(2), 87–97. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1680/​jmuen.​18.​00014
4. Prahara, E., Aswita, F., & Shinta, E. N. P. (2020). The effect of
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Low-Density Polyethyl-
ene (LDPE) on characteristics of asphalt concrete with dry and
wet mixing process. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering, vol. 852, no. 1. IOP Publishing, p. 012056.
5. 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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​141842
6. Vasudevan, R., Sekar, A. R. C., Sundarakannan, B., & Velken-
nedy, R. (2012). A technique to dispose waste plastics in an ecof-
riendly way—Application in construction of flexible pavements.
Construction and Building Materials, 28(1), 311–320. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2011.​08.​031 (in English).
7. Mohd Hasan, M. R., Chew, J. W., Jamshidi, A., Yang, X., &
Hamzah, M. O. (2019). Review of sustainability, pretreatment,
and engineering considerations of asphalt modifiers from the
industrial solid wastes. Journal of Traffic and Transportation
Engineering (English Edition). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.j​ tte.2​ 018.​
08.​001
8. Brasileiro, L., Moreno-Navarro, F., Tauste-Martínez, R., Matos,
J., & Rubio-Gámez, M. D. C. (2019). Reclaimed polymers as
asphalt binder modifiers for more sustainable roads: A review.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(3), 646. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
su110​30646
9. Van de Loo, P. (1976). Practical approach to the prediction of
rutting in asphalt pavements: The shell method. Transportation
Research Record, 616
10. Bianchini, A., & Bandini, P. (2010). Prediction of pavement per-
formance through neuro-fuzzy reasoning. Computer-Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, 25(1), 39–54.
11. Chen, J.-S., Huang, C.-C., & Chang, Y.-J. (2010). Mechanical
responses and modeling of rutting in flexible pavements. Jour-
nal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 8,
1475–1490.
12. Gong, H., Sun, Y., Mei, Z., & Huang, B. (2018). Improving accu-
racy of rutting prediction for mechanistic-empirical pavement
design guide with deep neural networks. Construction & Building
Materials, 190, 710–718. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​
2018.​09.​087
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
13. Ozgan, E. (2011). Artificial neural network based modelling of
the. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 6025–6030.
14. Rahman, S., Bhasin, A., & Smit, A. (2021). Exploring the use
of machine learning to predict metrics related to asphalt mixture
performance. Construction & Building Materials, 295, 123585.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2021.​123585
15. Guo, R., Fu, D., & Sollazzo, G. (2021). An ensemble learning
model for asphalt pavement performance prediction based on
gradient boosting decision tree. International Journal of Pave-
ment Engineering. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 080/​1 0298​4 36.​2 021.​
19108​25
16. Azarhoosh, A. R., Hamedi, G. H., & Abandansari, H. F. (2018).
Providing laboratory rutting models for modified asphalt mixes
with different waste materials. Periodica Polytechnica Civil
Engineering, 62(2), 308–317. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​3 311/​P Pci.​
10684
17. Tapkin, S., Çevik, A., & Uşar, U. (2012). Prediction of rutting
potential of dense bituminous mixtures with polypropylene fib-
ers via repeated creep testing by using neuro-fuzzy approach.
Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 56(2), 253–266.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3311/​pp.​ci.​2012-2.​12
18. Modarres, A., & Hamedi, H. (2014). Effect of waste plastic bottles
on the stiffness and fatigue properties of modified asphalt mixes.
Materials & Design, 61, 8–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matdes.​
2014.​04.​046 (in English).
19. Casey, D., McNally, C., Gibney, A., & Gilchrist, M. D. (2008).
Development of a recycled polymer modified binder for use in
stone mastic asphalt. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
52(10), 1167–1174. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2008.​06.​
002 (in English).
20. B. Celauro, C. Celauro, A. D. Francisca, & O. Giuffré. (2004).
Effect of the construction process on the performances of
asphalt paving mixes with crumb rubber from scrap tyres. In
presented at the 3rd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress,
Breukelen, 2004.
21. Jahanbakhsh, H., Karimi, M. M., Jahangiri, B., & Nejad, F. M.
(2018). Induction heating and healing of carbon black modified
asphalt concrete under microwave radiation. Construction and
Building Materials, 174, 656–666. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
conbu​ildmat.​2018.​04.​002
22. Ranieri, M., Costa, L., Oliveira, J. R. M., Silva, H. M. R. D.,
& Celauro, C. (2017). Asphalt surface mixtures with improved
performance using waste polymers via dry and wet processes.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1061/​(ASCE)​MT.​1943-​5533.​00020​22 (in English).
23. Behnood, A., & Gharehveran, M. M. (2019). Morphology, rheol-
ogy, and physical properties of polymer-modified asphalt bind-
ers. European Polymer Journal, 112, 766–791. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​eurpo​lymj.​2018.​10.​049 (in English).
24. Movilla-Quesada, D., Raposeiras, A. C., Silva-Klein, L. T., Lastra-
González, P., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2019). Use of plastic scrap
in asphalt mixtures added by dry method as a partial substitute
for bitumen. Waste Management, 87, 751–760. https://d​ oi.​org/1​ 0.​
1016/j.​wasman.​2019.​03.​018
25. Gawande, A., Zamare, G., Renge, V., Tayde, S., & Bharsakale, G.
(2012). An overview on waste plastic utilization in asphalting of
roads. Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, 3(2), 1–5.
26. T. B. Moghaddam, M. Soltani, & M. R. Karim. (2014). Experi-
mental characterization of rutting performance of Polyethylene
Terephthalate modified asphalt mixtures under static and dynamic
loads. Construction and Building Materials [Report]. 487+.
Available: https://​link.​gale.​com/​apps/​doc/​A3760​71158/​ITOF?u=​
griff​i th&​sid=​ITOF&​xid=​2698d​69f
27. Tapkin, S., Çevik, A., & Uşar, U. (2010). Prediction of Marshall
test results for polypropylene modified dense bituminous mixtures
Features Importance and Their Impacts on the Properties of Asphalt Mixture Modified with Plastic…
using neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(6),
4660–4670. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​2009.​12.​042
28. Tapkin, S., Çevik, A., & Özcan, S. (2012). Utilising neural net-
works and closed form solutions to determine static creep behav-
iour and optimal polypropylene amount in bituminous mixtures.
Materials Research, 15(6), 865–883. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​
S1516-​14392​01200​50001​17
29. Zheng, A. (2015). Evaluating machine learning models. O'Reilly
Media, Inc.
30. Pereira, P., & Pais, J. (2017). Main flexible pavement and mix
design. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (Eng-
lish Edition), 4(4), 316–346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jtte.​2017.​
06.​001
31. Nicholls, C., & Hannah, A. (2019). Asphalt mixture selection.
CRC Press LLC.
32. Speight, J. G. (2016). Chapter 5—Test. In J. G. Speight (Ed.),
Asphalt materials science and technology (pp. 205–251).
Butterworth-Heinemann.
33. Nikolaides, A. (2014). Highway engineering: Pavements, materi-
als and control of quality. Baton Rouge: Taylor & Francis Group.
34. ASTM. (2015). D6927-15 Standard Test Method for Marshall
Stability and Flow of Asphalt Mixtures.
35. Islam, M. R., Hossain, M. I., & Tarefder, R. A. (2015). A study
of asphalt aging using Indirect Tensile Strength test. Construction
and Building Materials, 95, 218–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
conbu​ildmat.​2015.​07.​159
36. Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2013). The benef. Higher Education
Research & Development, 33, 534–548. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
07294​360.​2013.​841651
37. Liberati, A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for report-
ing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evalu-
ate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS
Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pmed.​
10001​00
38. Kang, H. (2013). The prevention and handling of the missing data.
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 64(5), 402–406. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​4097/​kjae.​2013.​64.5.​402 (in eng).
39. Cai, J., Luo, J., Wang, S., & Yang, S. (2018). Feature selection in
machine learning: A new perspective. Neurocomputing (Amster-
dam), 300, 70–79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neucom.​2017.​11.​077
4 0. Zhou, Z.-H. (2012). Ensemble. CRC Press LLC.
41. Ayyadevara, V. K. (2018). Pro machine learning algorithms: A
hands-on approach to implementing algorithms in python and R
(no. Book, Whole). Berkeley: Apress
42. Géron, A. (2019). Hands-on machine learning with Scikit-Learn,
Keras, and TensorFlow: Concepts, tools, and techniques to build
intelligent systems. O'Reilly Media.
43. Geurts, P., Ernst, D., & Wehenkel, L. (2006). Extremely rand-
omized trees. Machine Learning, 63, 3–42.
44. Belyadi, H., & Haghighat, A. (2021). Chapter 5—Supervised
learning. Elsevier Inc, pp. 169–295.
45. Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boost-
ing system. In Presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd ACM
SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining. San Francisco, California, USA, 2016. [Online].
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​29396​72.​29397​85.
46. Molnar, C. (2020). Interpretable machine learning. Lulu.com.
4 7. Lundberg, S. M., et al. (2020). From local explanations to global
understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nature Machine Intel-
ligence, 2(1), 56–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s42256-​019-​0138-9
48. Lundberg, S.M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to inter-
preting model predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st interna-
tional conference on neural information processing systems, pp.
4768–4777
49. Asphalt Institute. (2014) MS-2 asphalt mix design methods, ed:
Lexington Kentucky, USA
50. Khimta A., & Arora, S. (2017). Use of waste plastic in bituminous
concrete. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technol-
ogy, 8(8), 30–37. [Online]. Available: https://​www.​scopus.​com/​
inward/​record.​uri?​eid=2-​s2.0-​85028​34108​2&​partn​erID=​40&​
md5=​e6737​8c557​1595d​93966​f2238​f7552​4b.
51. AS 2150–2020: Asphalt - A guide to good practice Australian
Standard. (2020).
52. Murugan, L. (2018). Use of e-plastic waste in bituminous pave-
ments. Gradevinar, 70(7), 607–615. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14256/​Jce.​
1375.​2015 (in English).
53. Angelone, S., Cauhapé Casaux, M., Borghi, M., & Martinez, F.
O. (2016). Green pavements: reuse of plastic waste in asphalt
mixtures. Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions,
49(5), 1655–1665. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1617/​s11527-​015-​0602-x
54. Shahane, H. A., & Bhosale, S. S. (2019). E-Waste plastic powder
modified bitumen: rheological properties and performance study
of bituminous concrete. Road Mater Pavement. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1080/​14680​629.​2019.​16429​44
55. Krishnankuttynair, H. (2008). Evaluation of indirect tensile
strength as design criteria for Superpave mixtures. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing, Dissertation/Thesis, 2008. [Online].
Available: http://​g riff ​ith.​summon.​seria​lssol​utions.​com/2.​0.0/​
link/0/ ​ e LvHC ​ X MwpV ​ 3 JTsM ​ w EB2x ​ X BBIg ​ A ABBe ​ Q fCDi​
JU9sn ​ D kDhi ​ s q9cs ​ Y 2RYK ​ 0 dEF8 ​ P h43K ​ S lIXD ​ h aPsX ​ j vBnP​
8h5An​l3y5A​cm5Mo​I9FI7​ozQad​JkMnt​p7Uhs​JcVPk-​GlnMp​ZD_​
bW5G5​SM0G1​HSFnz​K6rx5​UXaVd​fj94R​kpKjc​Wmtqr​MNmiJ​
wLuub​37Xho​8Xxv1​nkM77​mKCkJ​cR-​6TtOa​Batbi​F0hHz​9PbhW​
o13dIa​ UGqlW ​ la5Hf_z​ SXuwf​ dsq0e_D ​ mqsO4​ PFuSQ ​ rORp5​ RnZu​
QksX2​91fHa​OKkep​4NmZk​yG3tC​WEAjo​oE2LE​TFrD8​fu8nY​
fDj29v​ JJNYv​ pIfR7​ d083D ​ 0ktxp​ AMhVY ​ JdiUX​ pbXKC ​ yGcRJ​ tpIZ​
3zEiPD ​ fCa6H ​ F2Kxl​ sjDcp​ gZBkM ​ oEtMi​ 1Jykx_B ​ jqGW_W ​ oWR_​
vsMbD​gJq3M​cq88e​iGLUi​uOxOY​XXoQB​oYU6g​U5zSI​P6x5o​
Olid0-​uduB7​YWjR2​UKzmD​jdlk7​s6_​R6gu4​rX4Av​fQyYs
56. Mohamed, A. K., Mahdy, H. A., & Kandil, K. A. (2018). The use
of waste plastics in hot asphalt mixes in Egypt. International Jour-
nal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 7(3), 65–69, 2018.
[Online]. Available: https://​www.​scopus.​com/​inward/​record.​uri?​
eid=2-​s2.0-​85062​35636​7&​partn​erID=​40&​md5=​1fd11​621b5​
dd28c​818db​55679​3adb8​1f.
57. Tiwari, A. V., & Rao, Y. R. M. (2018). Study on indirect Tensile
Strength of Plastic waste bituminous concrete for road construc-
tion. Romanian Journal of Transport Infrastructure, 7(1), 93–106.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2478/​rjti-​2018-​0006
58. Almeida, A., Capitão, S., Bandeira, R., Fonseca, M., & Picado-
Santos, L. (2020). Performance of AC mixtures containing flakes
of LDPE plastic film collected from urban waste considering age-
ing. Construction and Building Materials, 232, 117253.
59. Bagampadde, U., Kaddu, D., & Kiggundu, B. M. (2013). Evalu-
ation of rheology and moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures
modified with low density polyethylene. International Journal of
Pavement Research and Technology, 6(3), 217–224. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​6135/​ijprt.​org.​tw/​2013.​6(3).​217
60. Vargas, C., & El Hanandeh, A. (2020). Systematic literature
review, meta-analysis and artificial neural network modelling of
plastic waste addition to bitumen. Journal of Cleaner Production,
280, 124369. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​124369
61. AAPA. (2012) “Asphalt MIx Design,” Australian Asphalt Pave-
ment Association.
62. Kok, B. V., & Kuloglu, N. (2007). The effects of different bind-
ers on mechanical properties of hot mix asphalt. International
Journal of Science & Technology, 2(1), 41–48.
63. Chen, H., Xu, Q., Chen, S., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Evaluation and
design of fiber-reinforced asphalt mixtures. Materials & Design,
30(7), 2595–2603.
13

64. Awwad, M. T., & Shbeeb, L. (2007). The use of polyethylene in
hot asphalt mixtures. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 4,
390–396.
65. M. Akinpelu, B. I. O. Dahunsi, O. Olafusi, O. Awogboro, & A.
Quadri. (2013). Effect of polythene modified bitumen on proper-
ties of hot mix asphalt. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences 8(4): 290–295. [Online]. Available: https://w ​ ww.s​ copus.​
com/​inward/​record.​uri?​eid=2-​s2.0-​84878​00237​0&​partn​erID=​
40&​md5=​fdfb3​e3eda​a2cda​0be8e​c3745​1bfc0​c2.
66. Haider, S., Hafeez, I., & Ullah, J. R. (2020). Sustainable use of
waste plastic modifiers to strengthen the adhesion properties of
asphalt mixtures. Construction and Building Materials, 235,
117496. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2019.​117496
67. Chowdhury, P. S., Kumar, S., & Sarkar, D. (2020). Performance
characteristic evaluation of asphalt mixes with plastic coated
aggregates. In T. V. Mathew, G. J. Joshi, N. R. Velaga, & S. Arkat-
kar (Eds.), Transportation research (pp. 793–803). Springer.
68. White, G., & Hall, F. (2021). Laboratory comparison of wet-
mixing and dry-mixing of recycled waste plastic for binder and
asphalt modification. In Proceedings of the 100th TRB Annual
Meeting: A virtual event.
69. Heydari, S., Hajimohammadi, A., & N. Haji Seyed Javadi, & N.
Khalili. (2021). The use of plastic waste in asphalt: A critical
review on asphalt mix design and Marshall properties. Construc-
tion and Building Materials, 309, 125185. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2021.​125185
70. Aghayan, I., & Khafajeh, R. (2019). 12—Recycling of PET in
asphalt concrete. In F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Khatib, F. Colangelo,
& R. Tuladhar (Eds.), Use of recycled plastics in eco-efficient
concrete (pp. 269–285). Woodhead Publishing.
71. Zulkati, A., Wong, Y. D., & Sun, D. D. (2013). Mechanistic
performance of asphalt-concrete mixture incorporating coarse
recycled concrete aggregate. Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
neering, 25(9), 1299–1305. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​MT.​
1943-​5533.​00006​68
72. Taherkhani, H., & Arshadi, M. R. (2019). Investigating the
mechanical properties of asphalt concrete containing waste poly-
ethylene terephthalate. Road Materials and Pavement Design,
20(2), 381–398. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14680​629.​2017.​13953​
54 (in English).
73. Ahmadinia, E., Zargar, M., Karim, M. R., Abdelaziz, M., &
Shafigh, P. (2011). Using waste plastic bottles as additive for stone
mastic asphalt. Materials & Design, 32(10), 4844–4849. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matdes.​2011.​06.​016 (in English).
74. R. N. Hunter, A. Self, & J. Read. (2015). The Shell Bitumen hand-
book, Sixth ed. (no. Book, Whole). Westminster, London: Pub-
lished for Shell Bitumen by ICE Publishing.
75. Cui, P. D., Xiao, Y., Yan, B. X., Li, M. L., & Wu, S. P. (2018).
Morphological characteristics of aggregates and their influence on
13
C. Vargas, A. E. Hanandeh
the performance of asphalt mixture. Construction and Building
Materials, 186, 303–312. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​
2018.​07.​124 (in English).
76. Al-Hadidy, A. I., & Yi-qiu, T. (2009). Effect of polyethylene on
life of flexible pavements. Construction and Building Materials,
23(3), 1456–1464. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ onbui​ ldmat.2​ 008.0​ 7.​
004
77. Modarres, A., & Hamedi, H. (2014). Developing laboratory
fatigue and resilient modulus models for modified asphalt mixes
with waste plastic bottles (PET). Construction and Building Mate-
rials, 68, 259–267. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ onbui​ ldmat.2​ 014.0​ 6.​
054 (in English).
78. M. D. Earnest. (2015). Performance characteristics of polyethyl-
ene terephthalate (PET) modified asphalt.
79. Habeeb, H., Chandra, S., & Nashaat, Y. (2014). Estimation of
moisture damage and permanent deformation in asphalt mixture
from aggregate gradation. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
18(6), 1655–1663. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12205-​014-​1356-7
80. Ameri, M., & Nasr, D. (2017). Performance properties of devul-
canized waste PET modified asphalt mixtures. Petroleum Science
and Technology, 35(1), 99–104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10916​
466.​2016.​12514​57
81. Behiry, A.E.A.E.-M. (2013). Laboratory evaluation of resistance
to moisture damage in asphalt mixtures. Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, 4(3), 351–363. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asej.​2012.​10.​
009
82. Zhang, Y., & Ling, C. (2018). A strategy to apply machine learn-
ing to small datasets in materials science. NPJ Computational
Materials, 4(1), 25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41524-​018-​0081-z
83. Roscher, R., Bohn, B., Duarte, M. F., & Garcke, J. (2020).
Explainable machine learning for scientific insights and discov-
eries. IEEE Access, 8, 42200–42216.
Camilo Vargas  is a Ph.D. candidate in environmental engineering at
Griffith University. His research focuses on the utilization of plastic
waste in flexible pavements. He has gained interest in applying artificial
intelligence to sustainability issues and other emerging technologies
that can be utilized to reduce the human impact on the environment.
Ali El Hanandeh  is a senior lecturer in Environmental Engineer-
ing at Griffith University. Ali’s research focuses on waste manage-
ment through value adding with particular interest in plastic waste.
Dr. El Hanandeh is passionate about finding innovative utilizations
of low-value resources and waste products through applying greener
and cleaner production methods. He has published extensively and
presented in leading international journals. Ali enjoys gardening and
home food production.