Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

The use of plastic waste in asphalt: A critical review on asphalt mix design
and Marshall properties
Soheil Heydari, Ailar Hajimohammadi *, Nioushasadat Haji Seyed Javadi, Nasser Khalili
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Waste plastics are a growing concern for society and need sustainable strategies to deal with. One of the
Plastic waste promising strategies is to use them as a replacement for virgin polymers for asphalt mixture modifications. The
Polymer modification use of waste plastics is more cost-effective, and it is more sustainable than using virgin polymers. Also, waste
Asphalt
plastics have shown positive impacts on some asphalt properties. However, there are many challenges and
Marshall
complications for their application in asphalt due to some complexities with the nature of waste plastics. Plastics
Sustainable pavement
Mix design are mainly divided into three groups, i.e., plastomers, thermoplastic elastomers, and reactive polymers. Each of
Dry process these divisions has a specific influence on the asphalt mixture. Also, due to the differences in physical properties
Wet process of each polymer, the ways by which they are introduced into the asphalt mixture differ. There are mainly two
ways of asphalt modification with waste plastics, the dry and wet methods. This article compares the dry and wet
methods of asphalt modification with waste plastics to understand the critical factors affecting the modification
and shed light on the gaps of knowledge. Marshall test results reveal that both the nature of the waste plastics and
the way they are introduced into the asphalt mix have significant impacts on the performance of the resultant
asphalt mixture. However, in general, plastic wastes can increase the Stability and decrease the Flow number.

1. Introduction:
Plastics have become an essential commodity in modern society
[1,2]. The increased demand for these non-biodegradable polymers has
led to a 10% annual growth in global plastic production since 1950 [3,4]
which was approximately 368 million tonnes in 2019 [5]. The enormous
amount of plastic waste raises concern about the safe recycling and reuse
of plastics, [6,7] especially since many plastic particles are potentially
toxic and easily infiltrate the food chain [8-10]. Currently, plastics
recycling is low; for instance, in the United States and Australia, only
eight percent of plastic wastes were recycled in 2017 [11,12]. One way
of reducing plastic waste is its uptake in construction, especially for road
applications [13-18]. Plastic waste can be used to modify the asphalt
mixture, which consists mainly of aggregates and bitumen [19].
Bitumen is composed of resins, asphaltenes, and oils [20]. Derived
from crude petroleum, bitumen has been used for paving roads for many
years [21]. Due to the continued increase in traffic load and intensity in
the past few decades, the service life of conventional bituminous mix­
tures has been dramatically shortened [22,23]. As a result, various ad­
ditives, including virgin polymers, have been incorporated into the
bitumen to improve the lifetime and properties of the resulting mixtures
[20,24-26]. The first patent for asphalt modification using virgin poly­
mers dates back to 1843 [27]. The first experimental projects
commenced in Europe around 1930, and by 1970 the first modified
asphalt road was constructed [27]; in the mid-1980 s, the US developed
a new polymer-modified asphalt [28]. However, using virgin polymers
for asphalt modification is relatively expensive for road construction
[29-31].
To lower the final cost of the asphalt modification, waste plastics can
be used as a replacement for virgin polymers [29,32]. Moreover, the
benefits of using plastic waste are not limited to economic aspects.
Waste plastics are a growing concern for society, especially since 2018
when China banned the import of recyclable wastes from developed
countries [33,34]. Because of the urgency for dealing with plastic
wastes, sustainable strategies are needed for both the environment and
the economic benefits [35-38].
The first use of waste plastics in asphalt modification dates back to
the 1990 s when plastics in the form of fibre were used [39]. Since then,
the inclusion of all types of plastics has been investigated by researchers
[40]; the most common forms are the high-density polyethylene

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ailar.hm@unsw.edu.au (A. Hajimohammadi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125185
Received 22 June 2021; Received in revised form 23 September 2021; Accepted 4 October 2021
Available online 13 October 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Heydari et al.
(HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), poly­
ethylene terephthalate (PET), ethylene–vinyl acetate (EVA), polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) [35], polyethylene (PE) [41], and polyethylene tere­
phthalate (PTP) [42]. The investigations have shown that asphalt per­
formance parameters such as rutting resistance [42-49], fatigue
resistance [16,44,47,50-52], and stiffness [53-55] can be improved
when plastic waste is added to the asphalt mixture. Nevertheless, some
conflicting results were found in the literature. For example, experi­
ments on the effects of HDPE and PP on rutting resistance are not aligned
[12]. There are a variety of reasons for the inconsistencies, including
sample variabilities, poor mixing conditions, lack of temperature con­
trols, and experimental errors. It is also very important to understand
how waste plastic is introduced into the mixture. Different mixing
methods have different effects on the performance of the resultant
mixture.
The methods of adding plastics into the asphalt mixture are generally
divided into the dry and wet methods [43,56]. In the dry method, the
plastic is first mixed with the hot aggregate, and then hot bitumen is
introduced into the mixture [33,41,57]. This process is deemed more
suitable for rigid plastics with a high melting point, such as PET. Rigid
plastic particles either substitute a proportion of the fine aggregate or act
as a filler [41,57]. Finer plastics with lower melting points, such as PE,
have also been used in the dry process. In this case, plastics are meant to
be melted and either coat the aggregate (aggregate modification) or
modify the bitumen when it is introduced [45,58,59]. In the wet process,
the plastic is first added to the hot bitumen and the modified bitumen is
mixed with the hot aggregate [43,57]. This process is more often used
for plastics with a low melting point, such as LDPE [60]. Plastics must be
well shredded or finely powdered before blending with the bitumen at a
high mixing speed and high temperature to obtain a uniform and well-
dispersed asphalt binder [60]. A significant amount of research has
been conducted to evaluate the performance of modified samples pre­
pared using both dry and wet processes [61].
According to the studies, the wet process enhances some character­
istics of the virgin bitumen, such as rutting resistance, temperature
susceptibility, and rheological properties [55,62-69]. The waste plastic
modified bitumens (WPMBs) are predominantly reported to have a
higher softening point and lower penetration value than the virgin
bitumen [16,20,35,70-75]. A comprehensive literature review by Var­
gas and Hanandeh [76] indicated that more than 94% of the reviewed
articles reported lower high-temperature susceptibility of the WPMB
compared to the virgin bitumen. A study conducted by Joohari et al.
[77] compared the performance of recycled LLDPE (Linear Low-Density
Polyethylene) with virgin plastics such as EVA, LDPE, and LLDPE. The
authors concluded that the recycled LLDPE outperformed the virgin
plastics in increasing the consistency and softening point. Another
research conducted by Nouali et al. [54] reported that a waste plastic-
modified asphalt mixture (WPMAM) showed better workability,
improved the stiffness modulus, and showed better water resistance
compared with the control mixture (CM). Padhan et al. [70] stated that
the adhesion force at the bitumen-aggregate interface was enhanced by
introducing waste plastics into the mixture using the wet process. This
outcome is also supported by Karmakar and Roy who reported that the
adhesive property of the WPMAM is almost doubled compared to the
virgin bitumen[78]. Although there are undoubtedly several positive
aspects of the wet process mentioned in the literature, some difficulties
and conflicts are also identified.
The wet process requires special blending equipment, a high-energy
and time-consuming process. Moreover, the amount of plastic being
recycled in this process is minimal because plastics substitute a small
proportion of the bitumen, and the bitumen itself is only around five
percent of the total weight of the asphalt mixture [79]. The other
challenge of the wet process is the storage stability; modified bitumen
stored at high temperatures needs to be agitated to retain its homoge­
neity [80,81]. The wet process might also worsen some of the charac­
teristics of the virgin bitumen. For instance, it was reported that the cold
2
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
cracking resistance (low-temperature resistance) of the waste-modified
mixtures deteriorated by the wet process[76]. There has been some
inconsistency in the results reported in the literature. For example,
Padhan et al. [70] and Fethiza et al. [82] reported that waste plastic
modification using the wet process delays the ageing of the binder and
improves the early fatigue behaviour of the mixture. This contrasts with
the report of Li et al. [83] who stated that the aged recycled LDPE
modified sample demonstrated lower resistance to severe cracking than
the aged control sample.
Similar to the wet process, the dry process has its pros and cons.
Compared with the wet process, it can consume more plastic of any type
with minor modification [32,84]. It is also an easier process and requires
no special equipment [33,44,85]. Much of the research on the dry pro­
cess states that waste plastic modification improves the stiffness
modulus, fatigue behaviour, rutting resistance, moisture susceptibility,
and temperature susceptibility of the mixture [36,41,44,47,59,86-88].
These improvements are because the plastics can coat the surface of the
aggregate and enhance the aggregate/binder connection [90,91] or they
can modify the bitumen introduced later in the mixing process [92].
However, not all the research conveyed the same message, and the
adverse effects of the dry process on the abovementioned parameters
have also been reported [45,52,93]. It has been stated that plastics
introduced in the dry process are poorly assimilated into the bitumen
due to the short mixing time [33]. This problem results in an insufficient
interaction between the binder and plastics [64]. The dry process has
also shown a loss of cohesion in the asphalt mixture, which results in
higher moisture sensitivity [64]. These conflicts might be due to many
factors, including the differences in the particle size and/or shape of the
plastics used, the mixing temperature and the mixing sequence. For
example, a study by Dalhat et al. [94] substituted fine aggregate with
plastic particles, ranging from either 2.38 to 2 mm or 2.38 mm to
0.42 mm in length. They concluded that the shorter particles out­
performed the longer ones based on the moisture susceptibility test. This
shows that the particle size of the plastics is critical and may affect the
outcome of the modification. Therefore, there are many inconsistencies
in the literature, and there is a need to clarify the reason for the dif­
ferences and highlight the knowledge gaps.
There are few review papers about the application of plastic waste in
asphalt modification[12,62,95], but none of them has evaluated the dry
process and the effects of the modification on asphalt mix design. For
example, Kalantar et al. [62] have focused on the compatibility and
stability of virgin and waste polymer modified binders (PMBs). Zhu et al.
[95] have focused on virgin polymers and finding ways to overcome the
drawbacks of PMBS [95]. Most recently, Wu and Montalvo [12]
reviewed the effects of different waste plastics on asphalt mixtures.
Their study did not discuss the critical factors that influence asphalt mix
design, did not highlight the conflict in the literature, and did not
evaluate the dry process in detail. Therefore, by critically reviewing the
literature, this study aims to, first, evaluate the factors influencing the
modification, and second, compare different modification methods (the
dry and wet process). Crumb rubber (CR) is also considered in this
investigation to easily assess waste plastic modification with an already
well-practised asphalt modification. A novel approach is practised to
understand the reasons behind the observed conflicts in the literature. In
this approach, the raw data of each publication is first extracted and
categorised. Then, based on the standards and used materials, relevant
test results are plotted in graphs to highlight the trends and the conflicts.
This method can clearly highlight the consistencies and inconsistencies
in the literature. While the other reviews mostly report the authors’
interpretation of their test results, this review analyses and interprets the
literature results independently. In the end, based on the provided dis­
cussions, conclusions and recommendations are made, and the scopes
for further research are suggested.
S. Heydari et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185

2. Methodology, Marshall method, and mix design obtained at lower air void (AV) contents. Therefore, decreasing the AV
content increases the mixture’s durability [36,107], and the increased
2.1. Methodology binder content allows the mixture to better resist cracking [108].
However, it should be noted that the lower air void may result in
To critically review the literature, we have practised a novel method bitumen bleeding by producing more plastic Flow [108]. Therefore, an
in this investigation. In this method, all the relevant publications are optimum binder content (OBC) must be considered to achieve the
reviewed first (the total number of 346 publications). Then, the test data desired air void content, which is usually between 3 and 5 percent
of those publications that have conducted the Marshall test are extracted [109].
and categorised to provide a dataset. Data is either provided by the To calculate the optimum binder content (OBC), three Marshall pa­
authors or extracted from the reported graphs using Engauge Digitizer rameters are especially important: Stability, Flow, and AV [110].
software [96]. The Marshall test is chosen here since it is the most Different binder contents were considered for a specific aggregate, and
practised test method worldwide and is the most common test used by the Marshall test was conducted on the prepared samples. The sample
the reviewed studies. with the highest stability (minimum of 8000 N), FN between 2 and
In the next stage, the relevant test results are plotted in graphs (using 4 mm, and an AV between 3 and 5%, was deemed to be the optimum
the provided dataset) to highlight the trends and the conflicts. This is sample; its binder content could then be called the “optimum binder
done for all the Marshall properties including Marshall stability, Flow content (OBC)” [110-112].
number, and air void content. After finding the consistencies and in­ The OBC highly depends on the characterisation of the binder,
consistencies in each property, the conflicting publications are reviewed aggregate, and additives [87,112]. By changing any of these factors, the
to understand the factors influencing the outcomes. In the end, the OBC changes, as mentioned before, in the dry process, plastic is added to
critical factors affecting the modifications, such as the mixing sequence, the hot aggregate, and in the wet process, it is blended with bitumen as a
the mixing temperature, the melting point of the plastics, etc., are modifier. Therefore, in both processes, either the type of the aggregate
evaluated. or the binder changes and a new OBC must be measured.
Using this method of analysing the literature, we can draw conclu­ Fig. 1 shows how the inclusion of LDPE in the mixture influences the
sions that are not drawn by other authors before. This is the main OBC of the mixture. The OBC of the control mixture was 5% (the peak of
advantage of this method. The other reviews are simply focused on what the orange curve); however, the modified mixture reaches the highest
is reported by the studies in the literature rather than critically Stability value at 6% bitumen content, giving an OBC of 6%, if the
comparing the procedures and test results from various studies. The Marshall test was only conducted on the control mixture and the same
other advantage of this method is that the trends and conflicts in the OBC is used for all the other mixtures, the results will be misleading. The
literature are clearly highlighted in graphs. By this way of visualisation, process of measuring OBC is quite demanding and was not appropriately
the presented data convey clearer messages to the reader. Also, by using followed in many of the reviewed articles. Table 1 lists the Followed (F)
the most practised test method, which is the Marshall method, a and Not Followed (NF) practices.
comprehensive dataset is gathered. When plastic is added to the aggregate (dry process) and is not to be
melted due to its high melting point, it is essential to consider the shape
2.2. Marshall method and mix design and size of the added plastic as it serves as a proportion of the aggregate.
However, if the plastic has a lower melting point than the mixing tem­
The Marshall method [97-99] is usually used to optimise asphalt mix perature, it will melt and coat the surface of the aggregate. In both
design [100]. This method is the most widely used asphalt design
method in the world [101]. By conducting the Marshall test, several Table 1
asphalt parameters can be measured, including the Marshall Stability, Optimum Binder Content (OBC).
Marshall Flow, Air Voids (AV), Voids in Mineral Aggregates (VFA), Type of Bitumen OBC OBC for the Process Reference
Voids Filled by Binder (VFB), and the Marshall Quotient (MQ). Marshall modified mixture (dry/wet)
Stability evaluates the ability of the asphalt mixture to withstand 60/70 PG1 5.00% NF Dry [108]
applied loads [102]. The Flow number (FN) indicates the potential of the 50/70 PG 5.00% F Dry [43]
mixture to resist rutting [71,103]. The Marshall Quotient (MQ) indicates 52% aged + 48% 5.00% NF Wet [36]
the mixture’s resistance to deformation [27] and is calculated by 35/50 PG
80/100 PG 5.50% NF Wet [87]
dividing the Marshall Stability by the Marshall Flow number [104].
SBS Modified 45/80 6.00% F Dry [113]
The air void content is a vital parameter for optimising the asphalt PG
mixture and designing the pavement [49]; it helps predict the mixture’s 50/60 PG 5.80% NF Wet [109]
performance throughout its lifespan [87]. AV is also strongly correlated 60/70 PG 5.10% NF Wet [45]
with the FN [105,106]. A minimum void in mineral aggregate (VMA) is 60/70 PG 5.60% NF Wet [114]
52% aged + 48% 5.00% NF Wet [36]
recommended to satisfy the required mixture durability. The binder can 35/50 PG
fill VMA; the thicker the binder’s film, the higher the durability of the NM 5.10% NF Wet [115]
mixture [27]. It is accepted that a higher Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) is NM 5.40% NF Dry and wet [116]
NM 7.50% NF Dry and wet [116]
40/60 PG 5.70% NF Wet [16]
60/70 PG 5.60% NF Dry [117]
NM 6.00% F Dry [84]
50/70 PG 5.00% F Wet [118]
NM 6.45% F Dry [119]
35/50 PG 5.00% F Dry [52]
35/50 PG 5.00% NF Dry [59]
NM 4.10% NF Dry [49]
50/60 Penetration 5.82% NF Wet [20]
grade
40/50 PG 5.34% NF Wet [54]
NM 5.50% F Dry [48]
80/100 PG 5.20% NF Wet [71]
1
Fig. 1. The effects of plastic inclusion on the OBC of the mixture [91]. Performance Grade

3
S. Heydari et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185

scenarios, it must be assumed that the VMA, gradation, absorption, and
bulk specific gravity of the aggregate have changed [112], which will
influence the mixing design of the asphalt and require a recalculated
OBC.
To evaluate the OBC of any mixture, a Marshall Test must be con­
ducted. Also, incorporating any additives, such as waste plastic, will
influence the OBC and Marshall properties. Therefore, the Marshall test
results will be discussed further to better understand the impact of
polymer additives on properties such as Stability, Air voids, Flow
number, and the Marshall Quotient.
3. Optimum polymer content (OPC)
Plastics used for asphalt modification are mainly divided into plas­
tomers, thermoplastic elastomers, and reactive polymers [120,121]. The
addition of plastomers, such as PE and reactive polymers increases the
stiffness and rigidity [20,122]; however, thermoplastic elastomers tend
to increase the elasticity of the binder [20,121-123]. Apart from these
waste plastics, we have also considered crumb rubber (CR) since it is
widely used in asphalt modification, and it can be beneficial to compare
it with waste plastics.
The two main processes used to incorporate plastic into asphalt are
the wet process and the dry process. However, regardless of the plastic
inclusion process, it is crucial to understand the optimum polymer
content (OPC) for achieving the highest performance possible. Table 2
summarises the Optimum Polymer Content (OPC) found in the literature
based on each asphalt concrete property.
Depending on the property, the optimum polymer content might
vary, as seen in the article by Malik Shoeb Ahmad [124]. This experi­
ment showed that the Stability value, Marshall Quotient, and the bulk
specific gravity, are optimised at 12%, 15%, and 12% of LDPE content,
respectively. Thus, it is essential to understand each polymer’s effect on
specific parameters to optimise the total performance of the mixture and
focus on the properties that are of greater importance in specific cir­
cumstances. For example, in high-temperature environments with high
humidity, a polymer that can improve high-temperature susceptibility
and water resistance is desirable. In addition, the polymer must also
improve rutting resistance because rutting is a common failure at higher

Table 2
Optimum Polymer Content (OPC) for different plastics in asphalt.
Plastic Process Property OPC OPC Unit Reference

LDPE Wet Air void 12.0% Weight of bitumen [124]

LDPE Wet Air void 6.0% Weight of bitumen [109]
LDPE Wet Bulk Density 12.0% Weight of bitumen [124]
PE Dry Dry Process 12.0% Weight of bitumen [45]
CR Dry Dynamic Creep 1.5% Weight of total mix [118]
PVC Wet Dynamic Creep 10.0% Weight of binder [115]
HDPE Wet Fatigue Cracking 4.0% Weight of binder [36]
PVC Wet Fatigue Cracking 5.0% Weight of binder [115]
LDPE Wet Flow number 12.0% Weight of bitumen [124]
PET Dry Flow number 4.0% Weight of bitumen [27]
PVC Wet Flow number 4.0% Weight of binder [125]
PE Wet GSF1 5.0% Weight of bitumen [87]
CR Dry ITS2 3.0% Weight of total mix [84]
HDPE Wet ITS 5.0% Weight of binder [125]
LDPE Wet ITS 2.0% Weight of binder [125]
LDPE Wet ITS 4.5% Weight of binder [126]
PET Dry ITS 2.0% Weight of bitumen [41]
PVC Wet ITS 4.0% Weight of binder [125]
Plastic Dry ITS 8.0% Weight of bitumen [48]
LDPE Wet MQ3 15.0% Weight of bitumen [124]
LDPE Wet MQ 6.0% Weight of bitumen [20]
PTP Dry ITS & Stability 12.0% Weight of total mix [42]
HDPE Wet Resilient Modulus 5.0% Weight of bitumen [71]
PET Dry Resilient Modulus 6.0% Weight of bitumen [46]
PET Dry Resilient Modulus 2.0% Weight of bitumen [41]
SBS Dry Resilient Modulus 5.0% Weight of bitumen [41]
ABS Wet Rutting Resistance 5.0% Weight of bitumen [127]
CR Dry Rutting Resistance 1.5% Weight of binder [118]
PET Dry Rutting Resistance 4.0% Weight of bitumen [46]
PET Dry Rutting Resistance 4.0% Weight of bitumen [46]
PVC Wet Rutting Resistance 10.0% Weight of binder [115]
Plastic Dry Rutting Resistance 8.0% Weight of bitumen [48]
PE Wet Sg4 5–2.5% Weight of bitumen [87]
HDPE Wet Stability value 6.0% Weight of binder [125]
LDPE Wet Stability value 4.0% Weight of binder [125]
LDPE Wet Stability value 12.0% Weight of bitumen [124]
LDPE Wet Stability value 6.0% Weight of binder [109]
PET Dry Stability value 6.0% Weight of bitumen [27]
PET Dry Stability value 6.0% Weight of bitumen [27]
PVC Wet Stability value 4.0% Weight of binder [125]
Plastic Dry Stability value 8.0% Weight of bitumen [48]
HDPE Wet Stiffness Modulus 2.0% Weight of bitumen [53]
PET Dry Stiffness Modulus 6.0% Weight of bitumen [46]
PET Dry Temperature susceptibility 6.0% Weight of bitumen [41]
LDPE Wet VMA5 12.0% Weight of bitumen [124]
1
The ratio of the measured gyratory shear strength to the approximate theoretical maximum induced shear stress[88]
2
Indirect Tensile Strength
3
Marshall Quotient
4
Sg indicates the mixture’s sheer resistance. Its reduction indicates loss of Stability [88].
5
Voids in mineral aggregates.

4
S. Heydari et al.
temperatures. However, in cold environments, it is more desirable to use
a polymer that can deal better with fatigue cracking since asphalt is
more prone to fatigue at lower temperatures.
The units of the optimum polymer contents tabulated in Table 2 are
given either by weight of the bitumen/binder (the weight of the binder
equals the weight of the bitumen plus the weight of the additives) or the
total weight of the mixture/aggregate. The total weight of the mixture is
approximately twenty times larger than the bitumen/binder weight
(considering a 5% binder content). The unit of the polymer contents
used in the wet process is usually the weight of the binder/bitumen, and
in the dry process, both units are used. Therefore, it is essential to note
that, for instance, the 12% content by weight of aggregate used in the
dry process is almost 20 times the 12% content by weight of bitumen
used in the wet process. Therefore, the dry process has a great advantage
over the wet process because it can contain significantly more waste
plastics; this is an important factor when considering the amount of
plastic waste uptake in asphalt pavements.
It also should be noted that the type of plastic is not the only variable
that influences the performance of the asphalt mixture. Other variables,
such as the shape of the plastic used [128], the sequence of the incor­
poration, and the mixing condition [62] are also important. Therefore,
other variables should be considered along with the optimum polymer
content mentioned in Table 2. For example, the optimum polymer
content of a shredded LDPE with a particle size ranging from 1 mm to
4 mm would be different from a pellet LDPE with particles ranging from
4 mm to 6 mm in diameter.
4. Dry process
Almost all the recyclable waste plastics can be used in the dry pro­
cess; however, the most used plastics are LDPE, HDPE and PET. CR has
also been extensively studied and used for asphalt modification and is
studied and compared with the recycled polymers in this review.
Several factors must be considered when introducing polymers into a
mixture, such as the mixing condition, inclusion sequence, the shape of
the polymer, source of the polymer, etc. Of these parameters, the
importance of the inclusion sequence is often underestimated in the
literature. If a polymer is to coat the aggregate surface, it should be
introduced into the hot aggregate before mixing with the bitumen. If the
polymer is supposed to act as a proportion of the fine/coarse aggregate,
the grading of the mix must be reconsidered, as well as the OBC. In this
case, the shape of the plastic particles is of greater importance since they
should not be melted and should act as a part of the fine/coarse aggre­
gate. Table 3 shows some of the procedures recorded in the literature in
the dry process.
Regarding the dry process technique, no consistent procedure was
observed in the reviewed literature. Some authors omitted some of the
aggregates and substituted them with plastics or CR to keep the grading
constant throughout the experiments [84]; however, others kept the
aggregate constant and introduced the plastic particles as additives or
filler into the mix [52]. The former method seems to be a more practical
procedure when plastic is not melted, although the latter looks more
promising. If the plastics are melted, substituting the aggregates will
have a negative influence since both the grading of the aggregate and
optimum binder content (OBC) are greatly affected. However, if the
plastic particles are not melted and used as additives, the resultant
aggregate might fail in grading according to specification limits. So, it is
important to be careful not to overuse plastics in asphalt. When the
aggregate is kept constant throughout the experiments, if the melting
point of the plastic is lower than the mixing temperature, the plastic can
be considered as an additive (for either aggregate or bitumen modifi­
cation), otherwise it should be considered as a filler; either way, the
plastic particles shall be as small as possible.
Therefore, because of the complexities that can be encountered in the
dry process, it is essential to precisely measure and choose the melting
point of the plastic and the mixing temperature to ensure that
5
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
incorporation is achieved correctly. Unfortunately, some authors did not
consider all of the mentioned parameters and did not mention whether
the recycled plastic particles in the mixture were melted or not.
[27,45,46,49,51,58,59,113,129].
When plastic is melted in the mixing process, it is to be used either as
a proportion of the bitumen or to coat the surface of the aggregate. The
former is considered a bitumen modifier/additive and is assumed to
substitute a proportion of the bitumen in the binder [44,48,92,132]. In
this case, the modified binder would have different viscosity (usually
higher than the viscosity of the bitumen) and has a direct impact on the
OBC [133]; the higher the viscosity, the higher the OBC [133]. On the
other hand, the latter, i.e., surface coating of the aggregate, is an
aggregate modification process and might influence the aggregate
properties significantly, and consequently, only slightly affects the OBC
of the mix [42,89,89,108,117,131].
If the plastic is not melted, it is considered either a proportion of the
aggregate or a filler. In the former, the researchers usually substitute a
part of the aggregate with plastic as a coarse or fine aggregate depending
on the size of the plastic particles. Fine aggregates are more commonly
substituted by plastics [41,84,91,116]. As a filler, a small portion of the
plastic with a very small particle size (0–0.6 mm) is added directly into
the mix [52,93,118]. In both instances, the grading of the aggregate is
kept constant.
The most common way of introducing the plastic particles into the
mix is by adding them straight to the hot aggregate, mixing them up to a
minute, and introducing the binder/bitumen into the mix. However,
other practices, such as first mixing the binder and the aggregate and
then adding plastics, are also employed (this mixing sequence is called
“dry modified” and is not a popular technique). The sequence should be
chosen based on the properties of the plastic and the role it is supposed
to play in the mixture.
In the reviewed literature given in Table 3 on the incorporation se­
quences, the procedures are not consistent. For instance, both Cao
(2007) and da Silva et al. (2018) mixed CR with hot aggregate first and
then added bitumen. However, Cao (2007) substituted the same grade of
the aggregate with CR, and da Silva et al. (2018) did not.
4.1. The efficiency of the dry process
Plastic inclusion using the dry process, whether melted or not,
granulated or shredded, is assumed to enhance the properties of asphalt.
Here, the possible explanations will be discussed about the potential
impacts of plastic on the mixture. Depending on the melting point of
plastic and the mixing temperature of the modified asphalt, plastics are
to be divided into two groups: low and high melting point plastics. The
former has a melting point lower than the mixing temperature, and the
latter has a melting point higher than the mixing temperature of the
asphalt. In Table 4, the melting point reported for each type of plastic is
tabulated.
Therefore, given that the mixing temperature of Asphalt Concrete
(AC) is usually between 140 and185◦ C, LDPE and PE are considered low-
melting-point plastics. Accordingly, plastics such as PET, PP, PS, and
PVC are considered high-melting-point plastics. HDPE, however, could
be in either of the groups, depending on the specific conditions (tem­
perature) of each experiment.
4.1.1. Plastics with a low-temperature melting point
When plastic is melted and coated on the surface of the aggregate,
the molten plastics show very good adhesion properties. When a thin
layer of plastic coats the surface of the aggregate it prevents moisture
absorption. It first fills the aggregate’s voids and then makes a strong
bond with the bitumen, which is introduced later [135]. Also, some
investigations reported a reduction of 10% in the OBC because some
aggregate voids are already filled by molten plastics [90,92]; however,
Suaryana et al. [89] reported that the increment in the material surface
area might even increase the OBC. Even though this conflict is probably
S. Heydari et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185

Table 3
Plastic wastes (and CR) recycled in asphalt through the dry process
Polymer Source Shape Inclusion sequence Main findings Reference
1
CR R Granulated (1–3 mm) (Aggregate + CR) + Binder Improved rutting at high-temperature and fatigue at low temperature [84]
CR R Not mentioned (NM) (Aggregate + Binder + CR) Interaction of CR with binder increased by longer the storage times. [129]
CR R NM2 (Aggregate + CR) + Binder Longer lifetime in terms of fatigue and rutting resistance. [52]
CR R 0–0.6 mm NM The dry process outperformed the wet process [118]
CR R 0–0.6 mm NM Improved plastic deformation. [93]
CR R Pulverized (Aggregate + CR) + Binder Improved bitumen/aggregate affinity. [113]
LDPE R Shredded 9.5–0.6 mm (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Improved resistance to moisture, stripping, and rutting. [89]
LDPE R Flakes NM Increased stiffness and rutting resistance. Deteriorated workability. [59]
LDPE R Pellets 5–2.36 mm NM Decreased the total density of the mix. [91]
LDPE, EVA Virgin Small pellets (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder LDPE caused significant reduction in rut depth. [49]
LDPE, HDPE R Shredded 0–2.36 mm (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Both plastics improved workability and increased stability. [108]
LDPE, HDPE R Granules NM The more plastic granules the lower the stiffness of the mix. [58]
LDPE, HDPE Virgin NM (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Both plastics improved moisture resistance. [117]
LDPE, HDPE, R Shredded- passing 4.75 mm (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Overall, HDPE is found to be more effective than LDPE and CR. [92]
CR sieve
PE R Shredded NM Enhanced resistance against permanent deformation. [45]
PE, PP, PS, R 1–6.3 mm (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder PS deteriorated elastic behaviour. PE increased resistance against [44]
ELT permanent deformation. PP increased stiffness.
PET R Crushed (0–2.36 mm) (Aggregate + Binder) + Plastic Improved fatigue and elastic property of the mix. [51]
PET R Crushed (Aggregate + Binder) + Plastic Improved stiffness and resistance against permanent deformation. [27]
PET R Crushed (Aggregate + Binder) + Plastic Tensile strength and moisture resistance are deteriorated. [46]
PET R Crushed (Aggregate + Binder) + Plastic Enhanced fatigue properties of the mixture. [41]
PET R Shredded NM Improved low-temperature crack resistance. [130]
PET, HDPE, R Flakes (coarse 10–5 mm and (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Plastics improved resistance against permanent deformation. [131]
PVC fine 2–0.25 mm)
PEX R Grounded flakes 0.5–4 mm NM Improved rutting resistance. No significant effect on fatigue [43]
resistance.
Plastic R Shredded (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Improved drain down. [48]
Plastic R Shredded 2.5–4.36 mm (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Reduced optimum binder content by 10%. [90]
Plastic and R 1–4 mm (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Decreased the overall density of the mix. [116]
CR
PTP R Crushed (Aggregate + Plastic) + Binder Increased service life, stiffness, rutting resistance, and tensile strength. [42]
1
Recycled
2
Not mentioned.

Table 4
Melting points of different plastics reported in the literature.
Plastic Melting point Reference

HDPE 132 [134]

HDPE 132 [55]
HDPE 149 [71]
LDPE 110–120 [54]
LDPE 110 [55] Fig. 2. Bitumen-plastic-aggregate interaction. The colour red represents
PE 132 [44] bitumen (binder), the colour blue represents the plastic coating the aggregate,
PE 130 [44] the colour black represents an aggregate particle. The colour shades ranging
PET 250 [46] from blue to red depict the solutions with different dispersion levels of bitumen
PET 250 [27] into the plastic. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
PET 250 [55]
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
PP 162 [134]
PP 162 [55]
PP 161 [44] plastic compared with the bitumen at temperatures between 40 ◦ C and
PS greater than300 [55]
PVC 298 [55]
70 ◦ C forms a less-viscous mixture at high temperatures, explaining the
lower rut depth and less permanent deformation. However, this might
affect the fatigue behaviour of the mixture at low temperatures [90].
due to the variation of the texture of the aggregates, the effect of plastic-
coated aggregate on the OBC needs to be further studied. 4.1.2. Plastics with a high-temperature melting point
When using long-chain hydrocarbon waste plastics (such as PE, PP, When plastic is not meant to be melted, it substitutes a proportion of
and PS), since bitumen is mainly composed of long-chain-hydrocarbons the aggregate or acts as a filler. The effects of recycled plastic particles as
such as asphaltenes and maltenes, the hot bitumen diffuses through the granules [58], flakes [59], shredded [45], crushed [41], pellets [91],
thin plastic-coat of the aggregate that has strongly bonded to the fibres [136-138], and pulverised [113] have been studied. The size of
aggregate [90]. Fig. 2 explains the bitumen-plastic-aggregate connec­ the particles is usually smaller than 6 mm. If plastic substitutes a pro­
tion bonds. portion of the aggregate, the grading of the resultant aggregate must be
Research conducted by Khurshid et al. on various types of plastics within the aggregate range specified in the standards [139-141].
confirms the hypothesis that the plastic-coated aggregate performs Plastics with a high melting point can also be used in the shape of
better than traditional aggregates and the modified mixtures’ Marshall fibres. Studies showed that plastic fibre reinforcement can improve
behaviour and rutting resistance are significantly improved [92]. asphalt properties [136-138]. Fazaeli et al. [142] reported that plastic
Furthermore, since the plastic is stiffer than the binder, the overall fibres significantly reduced permanent deformation by up to 70%. They
stiffness of the modified mixture is elevated. The higher viscosity of the have also reported that the fatigue behaviour is improved and lower

6
S. Heydari et al.
crack propagation is observed at low temperatures [142]. Yoo et al.
[143] also reported that plastic fibres in asphalt mixtures significantly
increased the fatigue life.
5. Results and discussion
The Stability value, Flow number, Marshall Quotient (MQ), and Air
Void (AV) of each polymer are discussed in this section. Since each of
these Marshall Properties is dependent on the base bitumen, testing
condition, and type of coarse aggregate, a wide range of outcomes is
possible. Therefore, it is impractical to compare the values derived from
the different works reported here. However, the impact of each polymer
on the rate of change that occurred in the test results is comparable. In
other words, the trend of each curve represents a positive or negative
effect of each additive on the Marshall properties (values were either
provided by the authors or extracted by Engauge Digitizer [96]).
The optimum polymer content (OPC), i.e., the amount of polymer
used to achieve the best performance, will also be different from one
experiment to another. The main reason for this is that some authors
added their polymer into the aggregate using the dry process, and others
modified the bitumen before mixing it with the aggregate.
Different mixing sequences can also have significant effects, not only
on the OPC but also on the total performance of the mixture. Therefore,
it is essential to consider how the polymer was incorporated into the
mixture when comparing the OPC from the different experiments.
5.1. HDPE
Fig. 3-(a) shows the Stability values obtained by increasing HDPE in
the mixture. As shown, almost all the results show an increase in the
Stability Value as HDPE was increased, up to a point called “the opti­
mum polymer content (OPC). However, the OPC varies in different
studies; according to Abd Allah et al. [125], the OPC is around 3%,
Tiwari and Rao [108] estimated the OPC to be around 8%, Khurshid
et al. [92] had 8% OPC, and Attaelmanan et al. [71] and Köfteci [144]
reported that the higher HDPE content, the higher the Stability Value.
In Fig. 3-(b), the FNs of the HDPE -modified asphalt mixtures do not
show a consistent trend. Abd Allah’s results show a steady FN between
Fig. 3. Marshall test results of HDPE modified mixtures. (a) Stability Value, (b) Flow number, (c) Air Void content (Dry = dry process, Wet = wet process).
7
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
the control mixture and 6% HDPE; however, the results of Attaelmanan
et al. [71] show the exact opposite, with the FN falling between the
control mixture and 7% HDPE. From Tiwari’s test results, the higher the
HDPE content, the higher the FN, and the upward rate is higher after 6%
compared to before 6% HDPE. This conflict, as mentioned before, is
probably due to the different processes (dry or wet), different sequences
of plastic inclusion, sample variabilities, poor mixing practices, or other
experimental errors.
From Fig. 3-(c), it can be concluded that by increasing the amount of
HDPE in the mixture, the mixture’s air Void content decreases. This
could be due to not optimising the binder content in plastic modified
samples. In this case, if the included plastic melts and works as a binder,
the mixture will end up with extra binder content (higher than the OBC).
This extra binder content will fill the air voids in the mixture and
decrease the AV content of the AC. However, under normal circum­
stances, when the modified samples are manufactured to their own
specific OBC, the inclusion of the plastics should have increased the AV
since the viscosity of the modified binder is higher than the unmodified
sample.
5.2. LDPE
In Fig. 4-(a), the LDPE usage of up to 4% has resulted in a higher
stability value compared to the control mixture
[20,89,92,108,124,125]. However, Abd Allah’s results show that when
LDPE is increased from 4 to 6%, the stability is decreased; the OPC, in
this case, is 4% LDPE [125]. On the other hand, the OPC is 8% and 6%
for Tiwari and Al-Hadidy, respectively.
Malik Shoeb Ahmad’s [124] results showed that the higher the LDPE,
the greater the stability value. This demonstrates the importance of
finding OPC for each mixture. Using an excessive amount of polymer
will have unfavourable effects. It should also be noted from Fig. 4-(a)
that the average inclination of the graphs in the wet process (blue,
yellow, and grey curves) is sharper than the dry process (green, purple,
and orange), indicating that LDPE added by the wet process makes
stiffer mixtures compared to its addition by the dry process.
In Fig. 4-(b), the FNs for all low LDPE-content modified samples are
lower than their control mixtures. This highlights the positive effects of
S. Heydari et al.
Fig. 4. Marshall test results of LDPE modified mixtures. (a) Stability value, (b) Flow number, (c) Air Void content (Dry = dry process, Wet = wet process).
LDPE on asphalt modification, especially when smaller amounts are
used. The changes were seen in the AV content (Fig. 4-(c)) almost follow
the same trends; the exception is the Abd-Allah et al. [125] experiments
that gave a higher AV content than their control mixture. In general,
because LDPE has a low melting point, it melts and acts as a binder
modifier in the mixture, providing extra binder content. This justifies the
downward trends observed in Fig. 4-(c).
The LDPE test results follow almost the same trend as the HDPE re­
sults, especially at a lower content. This might be due to the lower
melting point of the LDPE compared with HDPE. LDPE melts in the
mixture and modifies the binder because the overall mixing temperature
is higher than its melting point. However, this is not the case with HDPE
with a higher melting point. Depending on the mixing temperature and
compaction, it could be either modifying the binder or the aggregate.
Therefore, it makes sense that the LDPE results in the literature are more
consistent than the HDPE results. HDPE is a much more complicated
polymer and must be used with a precise mixing sequence and mixing
conditions.
5.3. Other plastics
Introducing PE to Asphalt mixture results in an improvement in
Marshall Stability and other Marshall properties [108]. PE-modified
mixtures have a higher FN, which improves the workability of the
mixture [108] but increases the potential for permanent deformation.
Tiwari et al. [108] found that 6% PE addition is the OPC.
According to Ahmadinia et al. [27], introducing PET to the asphalt
mixture increased the Stability value up to the maximum stability at
about 6% PET [27]. However, the FN decreased slightly until 4% PET
and then gradually increased [27]. This is because PET mixtures have a
higher MQ up to 6% compared to the control mixture, giving a higher
stiffness and better permanent deformation resistance in heavy traffic
[27]. However, according to Movilla-Quesada et al. [130], PET in the
mixture, from 6 to 22% in the dry process, gives fluctuations in both the
Marshall Flow and Marshall Stability. In total, the authors’ test results
showed a slight decrease in the Stability value and an increase in FN
[130].
Fig. 5-(a) and (b) compare the stability and FNs of PVC, PET, PP,
8
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
Crumb rubber (CR), and PTP [27,42,84,92,125,145,146]. PVC and PTP,
respectively. Except for CR and PTP, the other plastics showed a positive
influence on both parameters up to 4% to 12% polymer content, fol­
lowed by an adverse effect. Each author has recorded a different OPC,
which is due to using different polymers and mixing conditions. In the
case of CR, Cao et al. [84] substituted aggregates smaller than 2.36 mm
with granulated recycled CR. The aggregates were mixed with CR for
10–20 s and then mixed with bitumen, which is sufficient to avoid
segregation. The CR was probably partially melted during the mixing
process, and this is no longer a portion of the aggregate. The loss of
stability and the increase in the FN might be due to the uneven grading
of the aggregates used and has nothing to do with the CR itself. This
shows that, apart from the nature of the polymer, how they are intro­
duced into the AC is also critical.
Fig. 5-(b) shows that PTP slightly increases the FN too. The experi­
ment was conducted by El-Naga and Ragab [42], who used crushed PTP
that was first introduced into the hot aggregate and then mixed with
bitumen. The authors reported that the PTP particles melted and coated
the surface of the aggregate. They heated the aggregate to 250 ◦ C de­
grees for two hours before introducing the PTP particles and then
increased the mixing temperature to above 300 ◦ C. The binder is intro­
duced into the mix at 140 ◦ C. In this case, since the plastic had already
coated the surface of the aggregate and filled the voids in the aggregate,
less binder is needed than in the control mixture. However, the authors
used the same OBC for both the modified and control samples; the higher
binder content in the control sample could be the reason for the slight
increase in the FN. However, the drop in the FN, between 10% and 12%
PTP content, cannot be explained with this logic. Also, the FN trend for
this experiment does not match up with its AV trend, seen in Fig. 6-(b).
Usually, the higher the FN, the lower the AV is, which was not seen in
this experiment. It is worth mentioning that the authors considered that
a 12% PTP content was the optimum polymer content.
From Fig. 6-(a), it can be observed that the Marshall Quotient for all
the polymers followed the same upward trend as they did for the Sta­
bility curves, except for CR. Fig. 6-(b), represents the Air Void % change
by the addition of each polymer. The CR used by Cao et al. [84], first
decreases the AV percentage and then increases this value. This trend
supports the hypothesis that a proportion of the used CR has melted and
S. Heydari et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185

Fig. 5. PVC, PET, CR, PTP, and PP effects on (a) Stability and (b) FNs (Dry = dry process, Wet = wet process).

Fig. 6. PVC, PET, CR, PTP, and PP effects on (a) MQ and (b) AV (Dry = dry process, Wet = wet process).

no longer acts as an aggregate. As explained before, the CR in this
experiment was supposed to substitute the fine aggregates; after the CR
melted, the modified samples ended up with a lower aggregate surface
and a higher binder content. This explains the lower air void of the low-
percentage CR modified samples. However, by adding more CR into the
mixture, extra non-melted CR particles compensate for the melted
portion and increase the active surface of the aggregates.
Two other experiments on EVA and PTP showed an increase in the
AV[42,49]; both experiments used plastic particles in the dry process.
However, they were meant to melt and modify the binder, which would
increase its viscosity. Therefore, the higher viscosity of the modified
binder could be the reason for the increase in the air void content since

9
S. Heydari et al.
the samples were fabricated using the same mixing conditions.
6. Conclusion and the current knowledge gaps
Waste plastics have been used in the asphalt mixture for more than
two decades. This application is believed to be a sustainable solution for
the enormous waste plastics that are generated each year. However, the
performance of waste plastics as asphalt modifiers/additives is yet to be
fully understood. We have critically reviewed many publications in this
regard and discussed their outcomes. Based on the discussions, the
following conclusions are drawn and tabulated in Table 5.
• LDPE, incorporated in both the dry and wet process, increases the
MQ and Stability value and decreases the Flow number and AV
content. With its low melting point, this polymer is very likely to melt
during the mixing process even when it is added with the dry process.
The melted LDPE modifies the bitumen rather than substituting the
aggregate. This must be considered for each mix design; otherwise,
specimens with a high LDPE content will have a higher binder con­
tent than the others.
• LDPE added in the wet process makes stiffer mixtures compared to
the dry process.
• HDPE increases the Stability value up to some inclusion content in
both the dry and wet processes and decreases the AV content.
• PVC and PET are likely to increase the Stability and MQ and slightly
decrease the FN up to some inclusion content. Adverse effects appear
at higher plastic inclusion percentages.
• While there are several types of asphalt mixtures, waste plastic
addition is usually studied on dense graded asphalt or asphalt con­
crete. Therefore, it is highly recommended to investigate the coop­
eration of waste plastic in other asphalt mixtures such as stone
matrix (mastic) asphalt or cold mix.
• When the plastic melts and coats the surface of the aggregate, it
might reduce the OBC of the mixture because the plastic already fills
some aggregate voids. However, a comprehensive investigation is
required to understand to what extend OBC will be changed and
either the texture of the aggregate plays any role in this or not.
• In the case of plastic with a low-temperature melting point, either
added by the wet process or dry process, the overall stiffness of the
modified mixture is elevated. Therefore, further investigations are
required to shed light on the effects of excessive stiffness on the fa­
tigue behaviour of the mixture.
This review has also found many inconsistencies in the literature. By
investigating the inconsistencies, the possible root causes are explained
as follows:
• It is crucial to manufacture each modified asphalt sample using its
precisely calculated OBC since OBC significantly influences the
Marshall properties. In other words, if the OBC of the control mixture
is used for the modified mixtures, the mix design of the control
sample is optimised while the mix design of the modified samples is
not. Especially in the dry process, since it uses much more plastic
than the wet process. The more additive is used in the mix, the
greater effect the plastic addition will have on the OBC.
• One of the reasons for some inconsistencies in the reported literature
results is due to the different states of the plastics in asphalt. For
example, when adding plastic to the aggregates, if plastic melts and
coats the surface of the aggregate and then bitumen is introduced at a
lower temperature, the air void (AV) content will decrease. This is
due to the fact that the molten plastics will fill more voids. However,
if the plastic does not melt in the mixture and works as extra
aggregate, the air voids will increase due to the increased volume of
the aggregate. Furthermore, since the AV is strongly correlated with
the FN, the FN would also be affected, which affects the rutting
resistance of the modified asphalt.
10
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
• Another reason for some inconsistencies in literature can be related
to the sequence of adding plastics into the asphalt. The sequence of
inclusion is especially very important for waste plastics with a low-
temperature melting point. For instance, it would make a difference
if waste plastics are introduced into the hot aggregates (including
fines and filler) or added to the hot coarse aggregates. In both sce­
narios, the plastic particles melt. However, if added to the total mix
of aggregates, plastics will absorb fine aggregates and agglomerate.
However, if they are added to the coarse aggregates first, they would
coat the surface of the coarse aggregates and will be distributed
within the asphalt matrix. It is worth mentioning that the sequence
of inclusion is not always mentioned in literature.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References:
[1] S. Kumar, A.K. Panda, R.K. Singh, A review on tertiary recycling of high-density
polyethylene to fuel, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (11) (2011) 893–910, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.005.
[2] M. Shen, W. Huang, M. Chen, B. Song, G. Zeng, Y. Zhang, (Micro)plastic crisis:
Un-ignorable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change, J. Clean. Prod. 254 (2020) 120138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.120138.
[3] A.K. Panda, R.K. Singh, D.K. Mishra, Thermolysis of waste plastics to liquid fuel.
A suitable method for plastic waste management and manufacture of value added
products-A world prospective, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (1) (2010)
233–248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.005.
[4] M.K. Patel, E. Jochem, P. Radgen, E. Worrell, Plastics streams in Germany - An
analysis of production, consumption and waste generation, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 24 (3-4) (1998) 191–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(98)
00015-9.
[5] M. Garside, Production of plastics worldwide from 1950 to 2019 (in million
metric tons), Statista. (2021) 2018–2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/
282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/ (accessed January 21, 2021).
[6] Nitin H. Mutha, Martin Patel, V. Premnath, Plastics materials flow analysis for
India, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47 (3) (2006) 222–244, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2005.09.003.
[7] Amelia L. Craighill, Jane C. Powell, Lifecycle assessment and economic
evaluation of recycling: A case study, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 17 (2) (1996)
75–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(96)01105-6.
[8] C.M. Rochman, M.A. Browne, Classify plastic waste as hazardous, Nature. 6–8
(2013).
[9] P. He, L. Chen, L. Shao, H. Zhang, F. Lü, Municipal solid waste (MSW)landfill: A
source of microplastics? -Evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate, Water
Res. 159 (2019) 38–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060.
[10] J. Hwang, D. Choi, S. Han, J. Choi, J. Hong, An assessment of the toxicity of
polypropylene microplastics in human derived cells, Sci. Total Environ. 684
(2019) 657–669, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.071.
[11] M. Garside, Production of plastics worldwide from 1950 to 2019 (in million
metric tons), Statista. (2021). https://www.statista.com/statistics/282732/
global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/ (accessed January 22, 2021).
[12] Shenghua Wu, Luke Montalvo, Repurposing waste plastics into cleaner asphalt
pavement materials: A critical literature review, J. Clean. Prod. 280 (2021)
124355, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124355.
[13] M. García-Morales, P. Partal, F.J. Navarro, C. Gallegos, Effect of waste polymer
addition on the rheology of modified bitumen, Fuel. 85 (7-8) (2006) 936–943,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2005.09.015.
[14] M. Naskar, T.K. Chaki, K.S. Reddy, Effect of waste plastic as modifier on thermal
stability and degradation kinetics of bitumen/waste plastics blend, Thermochim.
Acta. 509 (1-2) (2010) 128–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2010.06.013.
[15] Cristina Fuentes-Audén, Juan Andrés Sandoval, Abel Jerez, Francisco J. Navarro,
Francisco J. Martínez-Boza, Pedro Partal, Críspulo Gallegos, Evaluation of
thermal and mechanical properties of recycled polyethylene modified bitumen,
Polym. Test. 27 (8) (2008) 1005–1012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
polymertesting.2008.09.006.
[16] Donnchadh Casey, Ciaran McNally, Amanda Gibney, Michael D. Gilchrist,
Development of a recycled polymer modified binder for use in stone mastic
asphalt, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (10) (2008) 1167–1174, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.06.002.
[17] Changqing Fang, Ying Zhang, Qian Yu, Xing Zhou, Dagang Guo, Ruien Yu,
Min Zhang, Preparation, characterization and hot storage stability of asphalt
modified by waste polyethylene packaging, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 29 (5) (2013)
434–438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2013.02.016.
S. Heydari et al.
[18] S. Hinislioglu, E. Agar, Use of waste high density polyethylene as bitumen
modifier in asphalt concrete mix, Mater. Lett. 58 (2004) 267–271, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-577X(03)00458-0.
[19] S. Köfteci, P. Ahmedzade, B. Kultayev, Performance evaluation of bitumen
modified by various types of waste plastics, Constr. Build. Mater. 73 (2014)
592–602, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.067.
[20] A.I. Al-Hadidy, T. Yi-qiu, Effect of polyethylene on life of flexible pavements,
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1456–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2008.07.004.
[21] Mai Lan Nguyen, Hervé Di Benedetto, Cédric Sauzéat, Crack propagation
characterisation of bituminous mixtures using a four-point bending notched
specimen test, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 17 (1) (2016) 70–86, https://doi.org/
10.1080/14680629.2015.1063535.
[22] G. Airey, Rheological properties of styrene butadiene styrene polymer modified
road bitumens, Fuel. 82 (14) (2003) 1709–1719, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-
2361(03)00146-7.
[23] Luis G. Picado-Santos, Silvino D. Capitão, Jose M.C. Neves, Crumb rubber asphalt
mixtures: A literature review, Constr. Build. Mater. 247 (2020) 118577, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118577.
[24] Miriam Estevez, Use of coupling agents to stabilize asphalt-rubber-gravel
composite to improve its mechanical properties, J. Clean. Prod. 17 (15) (2009)
1359–1362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.002.
[25] Shutang Liu, Cheng Ma, Weidong Cao, Jianguo Fang, Influence of aluminate
coupling agent on low-temperature rheological performance of asphalt mastic,
Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (5) (2010) 650–659, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2009.11.004.
[26] M. Arabani, S.M. Mirabdolazimi, A.R. Sasani, The effect of waste tire thread mesh
on the dynamic behaviour of asphalt mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (6)
(2010) 1060–1068, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.11.011.
[27] Esmaeil Ahmadinia, Majid Zargar, Mohamed Rehan Karim, Mahrez Abdelaziz,
Payam Shafigh, Using waste plastic bottles as additive for stone mastic asphalt,
Mater. Des. 32 (10) (2011) 4844–4849, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2011.06.016.
[28] W. and Shuler, Polymer modified asphalt binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (1992)
66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.07.007.
[29] L.A. Ahmed, Improvement of Marshall properties of the asphalt concrete mixtures
using the polyethylene as additive, Eng. Technol. J. 25 (2007) 383–394.
[30] Chui-Te Chiu, Li-Cheng Lu, A laboratory study on stone matrix asphalt using
ground tire rubber, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (5) (2007) 1027–1033, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.02.005.
[31] F. Moreno-Navarro, M. Sol-Sánchez, M.C. Rubio-Gámez, Structural analysis of
polymer modified bituminous materials in the rehabilitation of light-medium
traffic volume roads, Constr. Build. Mater. 156 (2017) 621–631, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.006.
[32] Yetkin Yildirim, Polymer modified asphalt binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (1)
(2007) 66–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.07.007.
[33] J.E. Martin-Alfonso, A.A. Cuadri, J. Torres, M.E. Hidalgo, P. Partal, Use of plastic
wastes from greenhouse in asphalt mixes manufactured by dry process, Road
Mater. Pavement Des. 20 (sup1) (2019) S265–S281, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2019.1588776.
[34] K.L. Huang, China’s ban could curb plastic waste, Nature. 553 (2018) 405,
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01076-4.
[35] L.M.B. Costa, H.M.R.D. Silva, J.R.M. Oliveira, S.R.M. Fernandes, Incorporation of
waste plastic in asphalt binders to improve their performance in the pavement 6
(2013) 457–464.
[36] L.P.F. Abreu, J.R.M. Oliveira, H.M.R.D. Silva, P.V. Fonseca, Recycled asphalt
mixtures produced with high percentage of different waste materials, Constr.
Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 230–238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.03.063.
[37] Zainab Z. Ismail, Enas A. AL-Hashmi, AL-Hashmi, Use of waste plastic in concrete
mixture as aggregate replacement, Waste Manag. 28 (11) (2008) 2041–2047,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.023.
[38] Liseane P.T.L. Fontes, Glicério Trichês, Jorge C. Pais, Paulo A.A. Pereira,
Evaluating permanent deformation in asphalt rubber mixtures, Constr. Build.
Mater. 24 (7) (2010) 1193–1200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2009.12.021.
[39] Serkan Tapkın, Abdulkadir Çevik, Ün Uşar, Accumulated strain prediction of
polypropylene modified marshall specimens in repeated creep test using artificial
neural networks, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (8) (2009) 11186–11197, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.089.
[40] G. Polacco, S. Filippi, F. Merusi, G. Stastna, A review of the fundamentals of
polymer-modified asphalts: Asphalt/polymer interactions and principles of
compatibility, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 224 (2015) 72–112, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cis.2015.07.010.
[41] A. Modarres, H. Hamedi, Effect of waste plastic bottles on the stiffness and fatigue
properties of modified asphalt mixes, J. Mater. 61 (2014) 8–15, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2014.04.046.
[42] I.A. El-Naga, M. Ragab, Benefits of utilization the recycle polyethylene
terephthalate waste plastic materials as a modifier to asphalt mixtures, Constr.
Build. Mater. 219 (2019) 81–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.05.172.
[43] L.M.B. Costa, J. Peralta, J.R.M. Oliveira, H.M.R.D. Silva, A new life for cross-
linked plastic waste as aggregates and binder modifier for asphalt mixtures, Appl.
Sci. 7 (2017) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/app7060603.
[44] P. Lastra-González, M.A. Calzada-Pérez, D. Castro-Fresno, Á. Vega-Zamanillo,
I. Indacoechea-Vega, Comparative analysis of the performance of asphalt
11
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
concretes modified by dry way with polymeric waste, Constr. Build. Mater. 112
(2016) 1133–1140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.156.
[45] Kyu-Dong Jeong, Soon-Jae Lee, Kwang W. Kim, Laboratory evaluation of flexible
pavement materials containing waste polyethylene (WPE) film, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (4) (2011) 1890–1894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2010.11.068.
[46] E. Ahmadinia, M. Zargar, M.R. Karim, M. Abdelaziz, E. Ahmadinia, Performance
evaluation of utilization of waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in stone
mastic asphalt, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 984–989, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.015.
[47] H. Yu, Z. Zhu, Z. Zhang, J. Yu, M. Oeser, D. Wang, Recycling waste packaging
tape into bituminous mixtures towards enhanced mechanical properties and
environmental benefits, J. Clean. Prod. 229 (2019) 22–31, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.409.
[48] Goutham Sarang, B.M. Lekha, G. Krishna, A.U. Ravi Shankar, Comparison of
Stone Matrix Asphalt mixtures with polymer-modified bitumen and shredded
waste plastics, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 17 (4) (2016) 933–945, https://doi.
org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1124799.
[49] C. Brovelli, M. Crispino, J. Pais, P. Pereira, Using polymers to improve the rutting
resistance of asphalt concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 77 (2015) 117–123, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.060.
[50] A. Modarres, H. Hamedi, Developing laboratory fatigue and resilient modulus
models for modified asphalt mixes with waste plastic bottles (PET), Constr. Build.
Mater. 68 (2014) 259–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.054.
[51] T. Baghaee Moghaddam, M.R. Karim, T. Syammaun, Dynamic properties of stone
mastic asphalt mixtures containing waste plastic bottles, Constr. Build. Mater. 34
(2012) 236–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.054.
[52] L. da Silva, A. Benta, L. Picado-Santos, Asphalt rubber concrete fabricated by the
dry process: Laboratory assessment of resistance against reflection cracking,
Constr. Build. Mater. 160 (2018) 539–550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.11.081.
[53] Q. Zhang, S.W. Goh, Z. You, Study on dynamic modulus of waste plastic modified
asphalt mixture using waste plastic bag chips, Adv. Mater. Res. 261–263 (2011)
824–828, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.261-263.824.
[54] Mohammed Nouali, Zohra Derriche, Elhem Ghorbel, Li Chuanqiang, Plastic bag
waste modified bitumen a possible solution to the Algerian road pavements, Road
Mater. Pavement Des. 21 (6) (2020) 1713–1725, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2018.1560355.
[55] M.A. Dalhat, H.I.A. Wahhab, Performance of recycled plastic waste modified
asphalt binder in Saudi Arabia Performance of recycled plastic waste modified
asphalt binder in Saudi Arabia, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 8436 (2017) 1–10. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2015.1088150.
[56] Feng Ma, Jiasheng Dai, Zhen Fu, Jenny Liu, Wenhao Dong, Zhen Huang, A New
type of crumb rubber asphalt mixture: A dry process design and performance
evaluation, Appl. Sci. 10 (1) (2020) 372, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010372.
[57] C. Chin, P. Damen, Viability of Using Recycled Plastics in Asphalt and Sprayed
Sealing Applications, Austroads Ltd (2019).
[58] A. Arulrajah, E. Yaghoubi, Y.C. Wong, S. Horpibulsuk, Recycled plastic granules
and demolition wastes as construction materials: Resilient moduli and strength
characteristics, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 639–647, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.178.
[59] Arminda Almeida, Silvino Capitão, Rita Bandeira, Mariana Fonseca, Luís Picado-
Santos, Performance of AC mixtures containing flakes of LDPE plastic film
collected from urban waste considering ageing, Constr. Build. Mater. 232 (2020)
117253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117253.
[60] Baron W. Colbert, Zhanping You, Properties of Modified Asphalt Binders Blended
with Electronic Waste Powders, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (10) (2012) 1261–1267,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000504.
[61] Mauro Ranieri, Liliana Costa, Joel R. M. Oliveira, Hugo M. R. D. Silva,
Clara Celauro, Asphalt Surface Mixtures with Improved Performance Using Waste
Polymers via Dry and Wet Processes, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (10) (2017)
04017169, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002022.
[62] Z.N. Kalantar, M.R. Karim, A. Mahrez, A review of using waste and virgin
polymer in pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 33 (2012) 55–62, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.01.009.
[63] Fereydoon Moghadas Nejad, Mohsen Gholami, Koorosh Naderi,
Mohammad Rahi, Evaluation of rutting properties of high density polyethylene
modified binders, Mater. Struct. Constr. 48 (10) (2015) 3295–3305, https://doi.
org/10.1617/s11527-014-0399-z.
[64] S.A. Tahami, A.F. Mirhosseini, S. Dessouky, H. Mork, A. Kavussi, The use of high
content of fine crumb rubber in asphalt mixes using dry process, Constr. Build.
Mater. 222 (2019) 643–653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.06.180.
[65] Nacer Akkouri, Khadija Baba, Sana Simou, Latifa ELfarissi,
Abderrahman Nounah, A. Akhssas, K. Baba, L. Bahi, F. Benradi, E. Cherkaoui,
M. Khamar, A. Lahmili, M. Menzhi, A. Nounah, L. Ouadif, Recycled
thermoplastics modified bitumen improved with thermoplastic elastomer, E3S
Web Conf. 150 (2020) 02015, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015002015.
[66] Sabzoi Nizamuddin, Muhammad Jamal, Rebecca Gravina, Filippo Giustozzi,
Recycled plastic as bitumen modifier: The role of recycled linear low-density
polyethylene in the modification of physical, chemical and rheological properties
of bitumen, J. Clean. Prod. 266 (2020) 121988, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.121988.
[67] S. Ponnada, K. Vamsi Krishna, Experimental investigation on modification of
rheological parameters of bitumen by using waste plastic bottles, Mater. Today
Proc. 32 (2020) 692–697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.243.
S. Heydari et al.
[68] Sevil Köfteci, Taylan Gunay, Perviz Ahmedzade, Rheological Analysis of Modified
Bitumen by PVC Based Various Recycled Plastics, J. Transp. Eng. Part B
Pavements. 146 (4) (2020) 04020063, https://doi.org/10.1061/
JPEODX.0000214.
[69] B. Ibrahim, A. Wiranata, A. Malik, The effect of addition of antioxidant 1,2-
dihydro-2,2,4-trimethyl-quinoline on characteristics of crepe rubber modified
asphalt in short term aging and long term aging conditions, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020)
1–23, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207236.
[70] Rabindra Kumar Padhan, Chandrasekhar Mohanta, Anand Sreeram,
Anurag Gupta, Rheological evaluation of bitumen modified using antistripping
additives synthesised from waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 21 (9) (2020) 1083–1091, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10298436.2018.1519192.
[71] M. Attaelmanan, C.P. Feng, A.H. Ai, Laboratory evaluation of HMA with high
density polyethylene as a modifier, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2764–2770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.037.
[72] Fereidoon Moghadas Nejad, Pedram Aghajani, Amir Modarres, Hasan Firoozifar,
Investigating the properties of crumb rubber modified bitumen using classic and
SHRP testing methods, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 481–489, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.048.
[73] K. Yan, H. Xu, L. You, Rheological properties of asphalts modified by waste tire
rubber and reclaimed low density polyethylene, Constr. Build. Mater. 83 (2015)
143–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.092.
[74] P. Ahmedzade, K. Demirelli, T. Günay, F. Biryan, O. Alqudah, Effects of Waste
Polypropylene Additive on the Properties of Bituminous Binder, Procedia Manuf.
2 (2015) 165–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.029.
[75] H.A. Shahane, S.S. Bhosale, E-Waste plastic powder modified bitumen:
rheological properties and performance study of bituminous concrete, Road
Mater. Pavement Des. (2019) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2019.1642944.
[76] Camilo Vargas, Ali El Hanandeh, Systematic literature review, meta-analysis and
artificial neural network modelling of plastic waste addition to bitumen, J. Clean.
Prod. 280 (2021) 124369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124369.
[77] Ilya Binti Joohari, Filippo Giustozzi, Chemical and high-temperature rheological
properties of recycled plastics-polymer modified hybrid bitumen, J. Clean. Prod.
276 (2020) 123064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123064.
[78] Sandip Karmakar, Tapas Kumar Roy, Influence of plastic waste on chemical and
mechanical properties of modified bitumen used in the bituminous mix for
flexible pavement, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (2) (2021) 04020440, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003545.
[79] A. Gawande, G. s. Zamre, V.C. Renge, G.R. Bharsakale, S. Tayde, Utilization of
waste plastic in asphalting of roads, Sci. Rev. Chem. Commun. 2 (2012) 147–157.
[80] Giovanni Polacco, Stefano Berlincioni, Dario Biondi, Jiri Stastna,
Ludovit Zanzotto, Asphalt modification with different polyethylene-based
polymers, Eur. Polym. J. 41 (12) (2005) 2831–2844, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eurpolymj.2005.05.034.
[81] R. Yu, C. Fang, P. Liu, X. Liu, Y. Li, Storage stability and rheological properties of
asphalt modified with waste packaging polyethylene and organic
montmorillonite, Appl. Clay Sci. 104 (2015) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2014.11.033.
[82] B. Fethiza Ali, K. Soudani, S. Haddadi, Effect of waste plastic and crumb rubber
on the thermal oxidative aging of modified bitumen, Road Mater. Pavement Des.
(2020) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2020.1820893.
[83] Linglin Li, Yangming Gao, Yuqing Zhang, Fatigue cracking characterisations of
waste-derived bitumen based on crack length, Int. J. Fatigue. 142 (2021) 105974,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105974.
[84] Weidong Cao, Study on properties of recycled tire rubber modified asphalt
mixtures using dry process, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (5) (2007) 1011–1015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.02.004.
[85] Israel Rodríguez-Fernández, Farrokh Tarpoudi Baheri, Maria Chiara Cavalli, Lily
D. Poulikakos, Moises Bueno, Microstructure analysis and mechanical
performance of crumb rubber modified asphalt concrete using the dry process,
Constr. Build. Mater. 259 (2020) 119662, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.119662.
[86] M.A. Dalhat, H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab, Performance of recycled plastic waste
modified asphalt binder in Saudi Arabia, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 18 (2017)
349–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2015.1088150.
[87] V.S. Punith, A. Veeraragavan, Behavior of asphalt concrete mixtures with
reclaimed polyethylene as additive, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (2007) 500–507,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19.
[88] Abolfazl Hassani, Hossein Ganjidoust, Amir Abedin Maghanaki, Use of plastic
waste (poly-ethylene terephthalate) in asphalt concrete mixture as aggregate
replacement, Waste Manag. Res. 23 (4) (2005) 322–327, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X05056739.
[89] N. Suaryana, E. Nirwan, Y. Ronny, Plastic bag waste on hotmixture asphalt as
modifier, Key Eng. Mater. 789 (2018) 20–25, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.
scientific.net/KEM.789.20.
[90] R. Vasudevan, A. Ramalinga Chandra Sekar, B. Sundarakannan, R. Velkennedy,
A technique to dispose waste plastics in an ecofriendly way - Application in
construction of flexible pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1) (2012) 311–320,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.031.
[91] S.E. Zoorob, L.B. Suparma, Laboratory design and investigation of the properties
of continuously graded asphaltic concrete containing recycled plastics aggregate
replacement (plastiphalt), Cem. Concr. Compos. 22 (4) (2000) 233–242, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00026-3.
12
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
[92] Muhammad Bilal Khurshid, Nadeem Anwer Qureshi, Arshad Hussain,
Muhammad Jawed Iqbal, Enhancement of hot mix asphalt (HMA) properties
using waste polymers, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 44 (10) (2019) 8239–8248, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13369-019-03748-3.
[93] F. Moreno, M.C. Rubio, M.J. Martinez-Echevarria, The mechanical performance
of dry-process crumb rubber modified hot bituminous mixes: The influence of
digestion time and crumb rubber percentage, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012)
466–474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.046.
[94] M.A. Dalhat, H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab, K. Al-Adham, Recycled plastic waste asphalt
concrete via mineral aggregate substitution and binder modification, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 31 (2019) 04019134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-
5533.0002744.
[95] J. Zhu, B. Birgisson, N. Kringos, Polymer modification of bitumen: Advances and
challenges, Eur. Polym. J. 54 (2014) 18–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eurpolymj.2014.02.005.
[96] M. Mitchell, B. Muftakhidinov, T. Winchen, Engauge Digitizer Software (2019),
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3941227.
[97] ASTM D 6927, Standard Test Method for Marshall Stability and Flow of
Bituminous Mixtures, Annu. B. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. ASTM Stand. (2007) 1–44.
[98] ASTM D 6926, Standard Practice for Preparation of Bituminous Specimens Using
Marshall, Annu. B. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. ASTM Stand. i (2014) 1–6.
[99] ASTM D 3203, Standard Test Method for Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense
and Open Bituminous Paving Mixtures, ASTM. (2007) 1–44.
[100] Soon-Jae Lee, Serji N. Amirkhanian, Seung-Zoon Kwon, The effects of compaction
temperature on CRM mixtures made with the SGC and the Marshall compactor,
Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (6) (2008) 1122–1128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2007.03.003.
[101] Talal H. Fadhil, Rahel Khalid Ibrahim, Hardi Saadullah Fathullah, The influence
of curing methods on marshall stability and flow, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
671 (2020) 012132, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/671/1/012132.
[102] J. Geraldin, A. Makmur, Experimental Study on the Effects of Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement towards Marshall Parameters on Asphalt Course-Wearing Course, IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 498 (2020) 012025, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/498/1/012025.
[103] Mostafa Vamegh, Mahmoud Ameri, Seyed Farhad Chavoshian Naeni,
Experimental investigation of effect of PP/SBR polymer blends on the moisture
resistance and rutting performance of asphalt mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 253
(2020) 119197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119197.
[104] Nicola Baldo, Evangelos Manthos, Matteo Miani, Stiffness modulus and marshall
parameters of hot mix asphalts: Laboratory data modeling by artificial neural
networks characterized by cross-validation, Appl. Sci. 9 (17) (2019) 3502,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9173502.
[105] A.K. Apeagyei, Flow number predictive models from volumetric and binder
properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 64 (2014) 240–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.04.069.
[106] Md Rashadul Islam, Sylvester A. Kalevela, Shelby K. Nesselhauf, Sensitivity of the
flow number to mix factors of hot-mix asphalt, Infrastructures. 4 (2) (2019) 34,
https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures4020034.
[107] A. Aksoy, E. Iskender, H. Tolga Kahraman, Application of the intuitive k-NN
Estimator for prediction of the Marshall Test (ASTM D1559) results for asphalt
mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 34 (2012) 561–569, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.02.091.
[108] A.V. Tiwari, Y.R.M. Rao, Study of plastic waste mixed bituminous concrete using
dry process for road construction, Sel. Sci. Pap. - J. Civ. Eng. 13 (2019) 105–112,
https://doi.org/10.1515/sspjce-2018-0024.
[109] A.I. Al-Hadidy, Y. Tan, Evaluation of Pyrolisis LDPE Modified Asphalt Paving
Materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2009) 618–622. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2009)21:10(618).
[110] M.O. Hamzah, B. Golchin, C.T. Tye, Determination of the optimum binder content
of warm mix asphalt incorporating Rediset using response surface method,
Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1328–1336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2013.06.023.
[111] Mustafa Karaşahin, Serdal Terzi, Evaluation of marble waste dust in the mixture
of asphaltic concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (3) (2007) 616–620, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.12.001.
[112] J.G. Speight, Chapter 5: Test Methods for Aggregate and Asphalt Concrete-
CHAPTER 5, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-800273-5.00005-2.
[113] C. Sangiorgi, S. Eskandarsefat, P. Tataranni, A. Simone, V. Vignali, C. Lantieri,
G. Dondi, A complete laboratory assessment of crumb rubber porous asphalt,
Constr. Build. Mater. J. 132 (2017) 500–507.
[114] Fereidoon Moghadas Nejad, Alireza Azarhoosh, Gholam Hossein Hamedi, Effect
of high density polyethylene on the fatigue and rutting performance of hot mix
asphalt - a laboratory study, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 15 (3) (2014) 746–756,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.876443.
[115] H. Ziari, E. Nasiri, A. Amini, O. Ferdosian, The effect of EAF dust and waste PVC
on moisture sensitivity, rutting resistance, and fatigue performance of asphalt
binders and mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 203 (2019) 188–200, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.101.
[116] Jalal J. Jafar, Utilisation of waste plastic in bituminous mix for improved
performance of roads, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20 (1) (2016) 243–249, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12205-015-0511-0.
[117] F. Moghadas Nejad, M. Arabani, G.H. Hamedi, A.R. Azarhoosh, Influence of using
polymeric aggregate treatment on moisture damage in hot mix asphalt, Constr.
Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1523–1527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2013.06.060.
S. Heydari et al.
[118] F. Moreno, M. Sol, J. Martín, M. Pérez, M.C. Rubio, The effect of crumb rubber
modifier on the resistance of asphalt mixes to plastic deformation, Mater. Des. 47
(2013) 274–280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.022.
[119] T.B. Moghaddam, M.R. Karim, T. Syammaun, Dynamic properties of stone mastic
asphalt mixtures containing waste plastic bottles, Constr. Build. Mater. 34 (2012)
236–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.054.
[120] Mohammad T. Awwad, Lina Shbeeb, The use of polyethylene in hot asphalt
mixtures, Am. J. Appl. Sci. 4 (6) (2007) 390–396, https://doi.org/10.3844/
ajassp.2007.390.396.
[121] Giovanni Polacco, Jiri Stastna, Dario Biondi, Federico Antonelli,
Zora Vlachovicova, Ludovit Zanzotto, Rheology of asphalts modified with
glycidylmethacrylate functionalized polymers, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 280 (2)
(2004) 366–373, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.08.043.
[122] A.I. Al-Hadidy, T. Yi-qiu, Mechanistic approach for polypropylene-modified
flexible pavements, Mater. Des. 30 (2009) 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matdes.2008.06.021.
[123] F. Moreno-Navarro, M.C. Rubio-Gámez, A review of fatigue damage in
bituminous mixtures: Understanding the phenomenon from a new perspective,
Constr. Build. Mater. 113 (2016) 927–938, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.03.126.
[124] D. Malik Shoeb Ahmad, Low Density Polyethylene Modified Dense Graded
Bituminous Macadam, Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 16 (2014) 366–372. https://
doi.org/10.14445/22315381/ijett-v16p273.
[125] Ahmed Mohamady Abd-Allah, Mohamed Ibrahim El-sharkawi Attia, Mahmoud
Fathy Abd-Elmaksoud Khamis, Eslam Magdy Mohammed DeefAllah, Effect of
Using Polymers on Bituminous Mixtures Characteristics in Egypt, IOSR J. Mech,
Civ. Eng. 11 (4) (2014) 54–63, https://doi.org/10.9790/168410.9790/1684-
114710.9790/1684-11475463.
[126] Ayman M. Othman, Effect of low-density polyethylene on fracture toughness of
asphalt concrete mixtures, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (10) (2010) 1019–1024, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000106.
[127] M.R. Mohd Hasan, B. Colbert, Z. You, A. Jamshidi, P.A. Heiden, M.O. Hamzah,
A simple treatment of electronic-waste plastics to produce asphalt binder
additives with improved properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 110 (2016) 79–88,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.017.
[128] Q. Xue, L. Liu, Y.J. Chen, Study on the action effect of pavement straw composite
fiber material in asphalt mixture, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 293–299,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.031.
[129] J. Shen, B. Li, Z. Xie, Interaction between crumb rubber modifier (CRM) and
asphalt binder in dry process, Constr. Build. Mater. 149 (2017) 202–206, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.191.
[130] D. Movilla-Quesada, A.C. Raposeiras, J. Olavarría, Effects of recycled
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) on stiffness of hot asphalt mixtures, Adv. Civ.
Eng. 2019 (2019) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6969826.
[131] D. Movilla-Quesada, A.C. Raposeiras, L.T. Silva-Klein, P. Lastra-González,
D. Castro-Fresno, Use of plastic scrap in asphalt mixtures added by dry method as
13
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125185
a partial substitute for bitumen, Waste Manag. 87 (2019) 751–760, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.018.
[132] G. White, G. Reid, Recycled waste plastic for extending and modifying asphalt
binders, Symp. Pavement Surf. Charact. (2018) 1–13.
[133] M. Singh, P. Kumar, M.R. Maurya, Strength characteristics of SBS modified
asphalt mixes with various aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 (2013) 815–823,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.062.
[134] M.A. Dalhat, H.I. Al-Abdul Wahhab, Cement-less and asphalt-less concrete
bounded by recycled plastic, Constr. Build. Mater. 119 (2016) 206–214. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.010.
[135] P.S. Chowdhury, S. Kumar, D. Sarkar, Performance Characteristic Evaluation of
Asphalt Mixes with Plastic Coated Aggregates, in, Transp. Res. (2020) 793–803,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9042-6.
[136] J. Song, C. Chang, H. Yang, Comparing tests on water relating stability of
polyester and polyacrylonitrile fiber reinforced asphalt mixture, Adv. Mater. Res.
287–290 (2011) 742–746, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
AMR.287-290.742.
[137] T. Takaikaew, P. Tepsriha, S. Horpibulsuk, M. Hoy, K.E. Kaloush, A. Arulrajah,
Performance of fiber-reinforced asphalt concretes with various asphalt binders in
Thailand, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2018) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0002433.
[138] Y. Miao, T. Wang, L. Wang, Influences of interface properties on the performance
of fiber-reinforced asphalt binder, Polymers (Basel). 11 (2019) 1–12, https://doi.
org/10.3390/polym11030542.
[139] ASTM, C136, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates, Annu. B. ASTM Stand. (2014) 3–7, https://doi.org/10.1520/C0136.
[140] Transp. NSW. (2020).
[141] AASHTO. 08 (2015).
[142] H. Fazaeli, Y. Samin, A. Pirnoun, A.S. Dabiri, Laboratory and field evaluation of
the warm fiber reinforced high performance asphalt mixtures (case study Karaj –
Chaloos Road), Constr. Build. Mater. 122 (2016) 273–283, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.139.
[143] Pyeong Jun Yoo, Byung Sik Ohm, Ji Young Choi, Toughening characteristics of
plastic fiber-reinforced hot-mix asphalt mixtures, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 16 (5) (2012)
751–758, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-012-1384-0.
[144] S. Köfteci, Effect of HDPE Based Wastes on the Performance of Modified Asphalt
Mixtures, Procedia Eng. 161 (2016) 1268–1274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2016.08.567.
[145] Serkan Tapkın, The effect of polypropylene fibers on asphalt performance, Build.
Environ. 43 (6) (2008) 1065–1071, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2007.02.011.
[146] Z. Dehghan, A. Modarres, Evaluating the fatigue properties of hot mix asphalt
reinforced by recycled PET fibers using 4-point bending test, Constr. Build. Mater.
139 (2017) 384–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.082.