Resources 12 00010

resources
Review
Structural Performance of Waste Plastic Bottles Modified
Asphalt: A Review
Abdul Muqeet Shah 1,2 , Rida Hameed Lodhi 1 , Muhammad Faisal Javed 3, * , Michał Jasiński 4,5, * ,
Elżbieta Jasińska 6 and Miroslava Gono 5
1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2 Department of Civil Engineering and Technology, Grand Asian University Sialkot, Sialkot 51310, Pakistan
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Abbottabad Campus, COMSATS University Islamabad,
Islamabad 45550, Pakistan
4 Department of Electrical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
5 Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, 708 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic
6 Department of Operations Research and Business Intelligence, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology,
50-370 Wrocław, Poland
* Correspondence: arbabfaisal@cuiatd.edu.pk (M.F.J.); michal.jasinski@pwr.edu.pl (M.J.)
Abstract: The usage of plastic materials in our daily life is increasing day by day. These plastic
materials are somehow beneficial for us, but the disposal of waste plastic materials has become a
serious problem. The use of plastic not only enhances road construction but also helps extend the
life of roads and improves the environment. Waste plastics use in roads increases durability and
also reduces water retention. This research reviews the use of waste plastics in asphalt pavement.
In this study, the properties such as Marshall stability, flow, resilient modulus, fatigue, etc., are
studied to boost the usage of waste plastic in asphalt pavements. It is concluded that with the use
of waste plastic in asphalt pavement, the quality of roads will be enhanced, and it will also be very
beneficial for our environment. The other major advantage is that it will be very cost-effective for
underdeveloped countries.
Citation: Shah, A.M.; Lodhi, R.H.;
Javed, M.F.; Jasiński, M.; Jasińska, E.;
Keywords: pavement; asphalt; plastics
Gono, M. Structural Performance of
Waste Plastic Bottles Modified
Asphalt: A Review. Resources 2023,
12, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
resources12010010 The chain of roads for the connectivity of different parts of the country is the basic need
Academic Editors: Eleni Iacovidou of any country. The increase in traffic volume due to the increasing population demands
and Eva Pongrácz higher performance from road pavements. Normal materials used for pavement fail to
resist the load of the higher volume of traffic. Hence, natural and synthetic polymers are
Received: 16 November 2022 incorporated into the asphalt to fulfill the high demand for loads on pavements. In the
Revised: 10 December 2022
last decade, several research groups from Canada, the USA, China, and a few European
Accepted: 20 December 2022
countries have devoted their research facilities to enhance the performance of asphalt by
Published: 6 January 2023
incorporating different polymers. Various modifiers can be used to improve the properties
of pavements, but few are found in nature [1]. These modifiers are tough to discover and
are uneconomical when incorporated as a modifier [2]. Using waste material as a modifier
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
will be a smart choice as it will reduce the cost of production of high-performance pavement
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. as well as reduce the problem of dumping waste [3].
This article is an open access article The use of PET bottles is increasing worldwide. Global plastic production has in-
distributed under the terms and creased steadily for over 50 years. Approximately 299 million tons of plastic were man-
conditions of the Creative Commons ufactured in 2013, which contributed to a 3.90% increase in manufacturing in 2012. The
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// average growth rate of plastics was 8.70% from 1951 to 2012 annually, increasing from
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 1.7 million tons to almost 300 million tons today. At the same time, its negative environmen-
4.0/). tal impact is well known, affecting all types of organisms in the universe [4–8]. However,
Resources 2023, 12, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12010010 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/resources

Resources 2023, 12, 10 2 of 29
plastic recovery and recycling remain inadequate, with millions of tons of plastic being
dumped into landfills and oceans each year. Since plastic does not naturally decompose,
alternative methods must be implemented to recycle plastic materials. Recent research
shows that waste PET bottles can not only be used as modifiers but also partially replace
aggregates in pavement construction [9]. PET bottles are made of poly-ethylene terephtha-
late (PET), which makes them impact-resistant and provides an excellent barrier against
moisture [10]. Therefore, using PET bottles on road surfaces may help decrease material
waste and advance road performance [11–15].
The key objective of this review article is to explore an updated and critical review
of the use of plastic bottles in pavements as an aggregate and modifier replacement. In
Section 2, a brief introduction to various types of plastics used in asphaltic pavements is
discussed. A comparison of different kinds of mixing procedures used for the mixing of
plastics in asphalt is presented in the Section 2. A broad review of experimental tests made
to study the mechanical behavior of PET asphalt is presented in Section 3. These sections
also highlight needs, research gaps, and new directions for researchers. Finally, Section 4
deals with conclusions.
2. Plastics
The word “plastic” refers to the property of plasticity, the capability to distort without
breaking [16]. All synthetic or semi-synthetic organic polymers are called plastics. The
Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) developed an identification structure in 1988 to help
clients and recyclers classify various categories of plastics. The manufacturer usually puts
its number (SPI code) on each product. It will give a basic overview of the types of plastics
linked with each code number. Plastics can be classified into two types.
• Thermosetting polymers
Thermosetting polymers are also recognized as thermosets and harden into an ever-
lasting shape. Because they are amorphous and have unlimited molecular weights, they
cannot be used as modifiers.
• Thermoplastics
Thermoplastics can be molded into any shape and can also be remolded. These
plastics are generally amorphous, but some have a moderately crystalline structure. Their
molecular weights range from 20,000–500,000 amu. All thermoplastics can be used in
asphalt as a modifier.
2.1. Methods of Mixing

For mixing plastics generally, two methods are used to incorporate polymers:
• Wet Process (addition of latex polymers).
• Dry Process (addition of solid polymers).
The solid polymer is added to asphalt at elevated temperatures, and the modified
asphalt is incorporated into the paving mix while using the wet process. The temper-
ature during mixing and time depends upon the nature of the bitumen and polymer.
Naskar et al. [17] studied the result of plastic waste as a modifier on the degradation rate
and thermal stability of bitumen. The researchers diversified a variety of plastic waste
with 60/70 permeable bitumen at 180 ◦ C for 45 min. Garcia Morales et al. [18] used four
categories of polymer waste and mixed them with 60/70 permeable bitumen. After that,
these samples were treated at 180 ◦ C for 6 h. A report by Shell [19] proposes that the mix
temperature should not surpass 185 ◦ C. Else, bitumen will burn, and the mixing time must
be sufficient to evenly distribute the plastic waste into the bitumen matrix.
The dry process is carried out by mixing polymer with aggregate in the form of
solids, such as chips or granules, before bitumen is incorporated. Awwad and Shbeeb [20]
tested the dry method for mixing in their study. Researchers used two different forms
of poly-ethylene, i.e., high-density poly-ethylene (HDPE) and low-density poly-ethylene
(LDPE). Ref. [21] also used the dry process to study the microstructural properties of hot
rolled asphalt modified with various percentages and different crumb rubber sizes. If we
compare both processes, the wet process requires a huge investment, more plants, and
powerful machinery, so it is not commonly used. On the other hand, by using a dry pro-
Resources 2023, 12, 10 cess, the binding property of aggregates becomes double and the bitumen bonding 3 of 29 be-
comes stronger than normal; besides this dry process, malleable film of various plastics
can be incorporated. There is no need for heavy machines for the dry process.
(LDPE). Ref. [21] also used the dry process to study the microstructural properties of hot
rolled asphalt
2.2. Publications modified
and Subject Areaswith various percentages and different crumb rubber sizes. If we
compare both processes, the wet process requires a huge investment, more plants, and
To discover
powerfulthe significant
machinery, so it isresearch areas,
not commonly an On
used. analysis ishand,
the other performed
by usingwith the help of
a dry process,
a Scopus analyzer. Figure 1 elaborated that engineering 31%, material science 27%, and
the binding property of aggregates becomes double and the bitumen bonding becomes
stronger
environmental than normal;
science with 15% besides this dry process,
contributed malleable
as three film of various
units generating plastics
leading can be and
articles
incorporated. There is no need for heavy machines for the dry process.
contributing approximately 73% of the total document count. On the other hand, Figure 2
describes the types of articles
2.2. Publications forAreas
and Subject the investigated terms in the database of Scopus. Ac-
cording to theTo results,
discover 65% contributeresearch
the significant towards research
areas, articles,
an analysis 16% are
is performed related
with the help toofbook
a Scopus analyzer. Figure 1 elaborated that engineering 31%, material
chapters, and 13% go toward review articles. Moreover, the data for annual research pub- science 27%, and
lications inenvironmental
the respective science with 15% contributed as three units generating leading articles
field are shown in Figure 3. From 2010 to 2022, the highest num-
and contributing approximately 73% of the total document count. On the other hand,
ber of articles published
Figure 2 describeswas 436 in
the types of the year
articles for2022, while in 2010,
the investigated terms there were only
in the database 27 papers
of Scopus.
published.According
This shows a significant increase in the research on waste plastics in
to the results, 65% contribute towards research articles, 16% are related to book asphalt
pavements. chapters, and 13% go toward review articles. Moreover, the data for annual research
publications in the respective field are shown in Figure 3. From 2010 to 2022, the highest
number of articles published was 436 in the year 2022, while in 2010, there were only
27 papers published. This shows a significant increase in the research on waste plastics in
asphalt pavements.
Social Sciences
5%
Environmental Earth and
Science 15% Planetary
Energy 12%
Sciences 5%
Chemical
Engineering 2%
Materials Science
Agricultural
27%
and Biological
Sciences 1%
Chemistry 1%
Engineering 31% Business,
Management
and
Accounting
1%
Figure 1. Subject Area of Articles.
Figure 1. Subject Area of Articles.
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Resources 2023, 12, 10 4 of 29
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 31
Figure 2. Article Types Published.

AnnualPublication
Figure3.3.Annual
Figure PublicationTrend
Trendof
ofArticles.
Articles.
3. Tests for PET Asphalt

3. Tests for PET Asphalt
Tests for Bituminous Mix
Thefollowing
The following are
are tests
tests commonly performed
performed to
to evaluate
evaluatevarious
variousproperties
propertiesofofbitumi-
bitu-
Figure 3. Annual Publication Trend of Articles.
nous materials.
minous materials.
• Marshall
MarshallStability;
Stability;
• Tests
3. for PET
Marshall
Marshall Flow;Asphalt
Flow;
• Marshall Quotient;
Marshall Quotient;
• Bulk
BulkSpecific
SpecificGravity;
Gravity;
The following are tests commonly performed to evaluate various properties o
• Stiffness;
Stiffness;
minous
 materials.
Air Voids;
 Indirect
MarshallTensile Strength (ITS);
Stability;
 Wheel Track Test;
 Marshall Flow;
 Marshall Quotient;
Resources 2023, 12, 10 5 of 29
• Air Voids;
• Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS);
• Wheel Track Test;
• Resilient Modulus (MR);
• Drain Down Test;
• Density;
• Dynamic Creep;
• Fatigue.
Tests for Aggregate
• Aggregate Impact Value Test;
• Aggregate Crushing Value;
• Water Absorption;
• Stripping Value;
• LOS Angeles Abrasion Test;
• Specific Gravity;
• Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA);
• Voids Filled with Bitumen (VFA);
• Voids in Total Mix (VTM).
3.1. Marshall Stability

The Marshall stability (MS) is described as the extreme strength load achieved during
a constant strain rate loading sequence and is one of the most significant properties used in
asphalt mix design [22]. MS can be used to observe the manufacturing procedure of asphalt
mixtures in factories. MS can also be used to evaluate relatively different mixtures.
Ref. [23] reported the effect of poly-ethylene as a modifier on the MS value of the
asphalt mixture. The author studied six various percentages (15, 10, 7.5, 5, and 2.5% by
weight of bitumen) of poly-ethylene. The maximum increase in MS value was observed
when 12.5% poly-ethylene was added to the mixture. Ref. [24] performed a similar study
while using HDPE instead of poly-ethylene. The maximum increase was observed for 4%
HDPE. Ref. [25] performed similar studies by using devulcanized PET as a modifier in
seven different percentages (2.5–15% by the wt.% of asphalt binder). The highest increase
of 25.44% in MS value was witnessed for 10% devulcanized PET. The results of these
studies are summarized in Figure 4 for comparison purposes. The MS value of the mixture
increases due to the addition of plastic till optimum content due to the reduction in viscosity
of the mixture. However, after the optimum content, the MS value decreases due to the
enhanced friction between different particles of the mixture. The difference observed in the
optimum percentages is due to the usage of various types of plastic, different amounts of
asphalt content, and a different mixing method.
PET reinforced in Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) with a size of 2.35 mm was used by the
researcher in [26]. The PET used was 0.2–1% by following the dry method for mixing. The
author concluded that the PET-enriched blend shows a higher MS value than the control
blend (the blend does not contain PET particles). Adding PET particles up to 0.4% was
shown to increase the MS value, while further addition of PET (e.g., 1% PET) decreased
the MS value. Therefore, a PET content of 0.4% is considered to be the stability case. On
the other hand, the MS of the PET blend increased by 9.98%, Ref. [2] determined the effect
of PET incorporation (2–10%) on the SMA mix and its properties. The author concluded
that the stability values increased after the addition of PET until reaching a maximum level,
which was about 6% of the PET used, and then started to decrease as shown in Figure 5.
MS values were generally higher compared to control blends (blended with 0% PET). The
single blend that showed a lower stability value was the 10% PET blend. Adding polymer
to HMA improved stability because it improved adhesion between materials in the mixture.
Adding the optimum amount of PET, i.e., 6%, to the blend increased the DM of the PET
blend by 4.5%.
PET bottles in different percentages of 0.2–1% by weight of aggregate particles. The a
thors concluded that incorporating waste PET bottles up to 0.6% plastic into the asph
mixture increases MS; however, higher plastic content reduces MS. In addition, it w
noted that the MS value decreases with increasing asphalt content. MS of PET mixtu
Resources 2023, 12, 10 was increased by 9.99% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e., 0.6%. was added to t
6 of 29
mixture. This result specifies that the incorporation of waste PET bottles improved t
adhesion between aggregate particles and asphalt binder.
Marshall Stability
9.5
5%
9.3
5.50%
Marshall Stability (kN)

9.1
8.9 6%
8.7
6.50%
8.5
7%
8.3
8.1 5%
7.9 5.50%
7.7
6%
7.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 6.50%
Plastic Content (%) 7%
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7o

Figure
Figure 4. Marshall 4. Marshall
Stability Stability
vs. Plastic vs. Plastic Content.
Content.
Marshall Stability
12
10
Marshall Stability (KN)
8
5%
6 5.50%
6%
4
6.50%
2
7%
0
2 4 6 8 10
Plastic Content (%)
FigureStability
Figure 5. Marshall 5. Marshall Stability
Content.
Ref. [27] used plastic waste as part of aggregate replacement in the asphalt mixture.
Marshall
Different percentages (5–25%) of aggregates wereStability
replaced with plastic waste, as shown in
Figure 6. All replacements were made with % weight of aggregate, and the particle sizes
10
ranged from 19 mm to 0.3 mm. The author reported an increase in the MS when a portion
9.8
of aggregate is replaced with proper-sized plastic waste, with 15% replacement showing
9.6
the optimum value. However, if the aggregate size is too large (retained on sieve #3/4), MS
9.4
tends to decrease with an increase in aggregate replacement. In [28,29], PET was used as
reinforcement 9.2in tests. The author added different percentages of PET (% of aggregate)
in the range of9 4–10%. From the results, the authors concluded that increasing the PET
content of the 8.8improved blends tended to increase the MS until reaching the maximum
value for the8.6 blends containing 4% PET, as shown in Figure 7. Further increase of this
polymer reduces 8.4 the stability of the blend under compressive stress. The rise or fall in
stability can be8.2credited to the increase in the viscosity of the binder in the existence of the
polymer. MS of8 PET mixtures was increased by 67.65% when an optimum amount of PET,
i.e., 4%, was added 0 to the mixture.
5 10 15 20 25
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 6. Marshall Stability vs. Plastic Content.

2
7%
0
2 4 6 8 10
Plastic Content (%)
Resources 2023, 12, 10 7 of 29
Marshall
Marshall Stability
Stability
10
12
9.8
10
(kN)
9.6
Stability(kN)
9.4
8
MarshallStability 9.2
96
8.8 (Aggregate)
Marshall
8.64 (Bitumen)
8.4
2
8.2
80
0 0 2.55 5 10
7.5 10 1512.5 15 20 25
Plastic Content
Plastic Content (%) (%)
Figure Figure 6. Marshall

6. Marshall Stability
Stability vs. Plastic
vs. Plastic Content.Content.
Marshall Stability
200
180
160
140
120
100
(Aggregate)
80
60 (Bitumen)
40
20
0
0 4 6 8 10
Plastic Content (%)

3.2. In
Marshall
Figure Flow
8 MS of PET mixtures was increased by 19.5% when an optimum amount of
PET, i.e.,
The15%, was added
Marshall flow to the is
(MF) mixture. While on
the measure the other hand,
of elastoplastic ref. [30] of
distortion used wastedeter-
asphalt PET
bottles
minedin different
during percentages
stability of 0.2–1%
testing. The by weight
MF value refers toofvertical
aggregate particles.
distortion when The
theauthors
extreme
concluded that incorporating
load is reached. In addition, waste
MS and PETMFbottles
can beupusedto 0.6% plastic the
to monitor intoasphalt
the asphalt mixture
mixture man-
increases MS; however, higher plastic content reduces MS. In addition, it
ufacturing process and evaluation of different mixtures. The MF value indicates the flex- was noted that
the MS value
ibility decreasesperformance
and plasticity with increasing asphalt
of HMA content.
under MS
cyclic of PET mixtures was increased
loading.
by 9.99% when
In ref. [17],anthe
optimum
authors amount of PET,proportions
used different i.e., 0.6%. was added to the(2.5–15
of poly-ethylene mixture. This
wt.% bi-
result specifies
tumen). that the
According to incorporation
the authors [23],of waste PET
the MF ofbottles improved
the modified the adhesion between
asphalt-concrete mix was
aggregate
lesser thanparticles
that of and asphalt(no
the control binder.
modifier (3.5 mm)) for all percentages of poly-ethylene.
This may be credited to the decrease in binder viscosity with increasing poly-ethylene
content. This agrees with the result of ref. [25]. A decrease in MF suggests an increasing
effect of poly-ethylene content on the internal friction of concrete. Generally, MF decreases
with the increase in poly-ethylene content [25].
In ref. [24], the author added HDPE-based waste material to the bitumen as a modi-
fier in the amount of 1–4%. A slight increase of MF was observed by 2% and 3% of coded
Resources 2023, 12, 10 8 of 29
Marshall Stability
12
10

8
6
(Aggregate)
4 (Bitumen)
0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Plastic Content (%)
Figure8.7.Marshall
Figure MarshallStability
Stabilityvs.
vs.Plastic
PlasticContent.
Content.
3.2. Marshall Flow

Marshall Stability
The Marshall flow (MF) is the measure of elastoplastic distortion of asphalt determined
during stability testing. The MF value refers to vertical distortion when the extreme load is
reached. 200In addition, MS and MF can be used to monitor the asphalt mixture manufacturing
process180 and evaluation of different mixtures. The MF value indicates the flexibility and
plasticity160performance of HMA under cyclic loading.
In 140
ref. [17], the authors used different proportions of poly-ethylene (2.5–15 wt.%
bitumen). 120 According to the authors [23], the MF of the modified asphalt-concrete mix was
lesser than
100 that of the control (no modifier (3.5 mm)) for all percentages of poly-ethylene.
This may (Aggregate)
80 be credited to the decrease in binder viscosity with increasing poly-ethylene
content.60 This agrees with the result of ref. [25]. A decrease in MF suggests an increasing
(Bitumen)
effect of 40 poly-ethylene content on the internal friction of concrete. Generally, MF decreases
with the20 increase in poly-ethylene content [25].
In ref.0
[24], the author added HDPE-based waste material to the bitumen as a modifier
in the amount of01–4%. A slight 4 increase
6 of MF8was observed 10 by 2% and 3% of coded
specimens. The maximum value was obtained by 4%. MF of PET mixtures was increased
Plastic Content (%)
by 6% when an optimum amount of PET was added.
Ref. [26] used different content of PET ranging from 0.2–1% by the % weight of
Figure 8. Marshall
aggregate. Stability
The asphalt vs. Plastic
content usedContent.
in the mixture was 5–7%. The author concluded from
the results that, with the increase of plastic content and asphalt content, the MF increases
3.2. to
due Marshall
the lower Flowinternal friction as compared to the normal samples (having 0% PET).
MF ofThe PETMarshall
mixturesflow was increased
(MF) is the bymeasure
12.84% when an optimum
of elastoplastic amountof
distortion of asphalt
PET, i.e.,deter-
1%,
was added to the mixture. On the other hand, the same proportion
mined during stability testing. The MF value refers to vertical distortion when the extreme(0.2–1% by the wt. of
aggregate) of PET content was used by [28], while the asphalt
load is reached. In addition, MS and MF can be used to monitor the asphalt mixture man-content was 5–7%. As a
result, MF increased
ufacturing process and directly with the
evaluation ofincrease
differentinmixtures.
PET content.
The MF Thevalue
results may show
indicates thethat
flex-
PET-reinforced mixtures
ibility and plasticity have less internal
performance of HMA friction
underascyclic
compared to the control samples (with
loading.
no plastic).
In ref.MF of the
[17], PETauthors
mixtures wasdifferent
used increasedproportions
by 28.16% when an optimum (2.5–15
of poly-ethylene amountwt.% of PET,
bi-
i.e., 1%, was added to the mixture. In ref. [2], the same asphalt content
tumen). According to the authors [23], the MF of the modified asphalt-concrete mix was (5–7%) and different
ratios
lesserofthan
PETthat(2–10%
of the bycontrol
the wt.(no of the bitumen)
modifier (3.5 were
mm))studied. The authorofconcluded
for all percentages poly-ethylene.that
adding PET up to 4% results in a decrease in MF, as shown in Figure
This may be credited to the decrease in binder viscosity with increasing poly-ethylene 9. Ref. [27] also used
plastic
content.wasteThiswith five with
agrees different percentages
the result of ref.(5–25%) by wt. of in
[25]. A decrease total
MFaggregate.
suggests It anisincreasing
reported
that with
effect the addition of
of poly-ethylene plastic,
content onthe
thevalue of MF
internal goesofup,
friction as shown
concrete. in Figure
Generally, MF10. MF of
decreases
PET mixtures was increased by 48.11%
with the increase in poly-ethylene content [25]. when an optimum amount of PET, i.e., 25%, was
addedIn toref.
the [24],
mixture. [29] reported the effect of MF at different plastic
the author added HDPE-based waste material to the bitumen as a modi- percentages (4–10%)
fier in the amount of 1–4%. A slight increase of MF was observed by 2% and 3% of coded
[27] also used plastic waste with five different percentages (5–25%) by wt. of total aggre-
gate. It is reported that with the addition of plastic, the value of MF goes up, as shown in
Figure 10. MF of PET mixtures was increased by 48.11% when an optimum amount of
PET, i.e., 25%, was added to the mixture. [29] reported the effect of MF at different plastic
Resources 2023, 12, 10 percentages (4–10%) per weight % aggregate in asphalt mixtures. The lowest9 MF of 29of a nor-
mal asphalt mixture was 2.85 mm. The MF of the modified asphalt mixture was higher
than that of the normal asphalt mixture. The variance between modified asphalt and nor-
mal asphalt varied from 18% to 38%. The maximum MF was 3.9 mm, and this was with
per weight %10%
aggregate in asphalt mixtures. The lowest MF of a normal asphalt mixture
plastic added.
was 2.85 mm. TheHowever,
MF of the if modified asphalt
PET is added moremixture
than 4%,was higher
then than thatshowing
MF increases, of the normal
an increase in
asphalt mixture.
flow. MF of PET mixtures was increased by 46.35% when an optimumvaried
The variance between modified asphalt and normal asphalt amountfrom
of PET, i.e.,
18% to 38%. 10%,
The maximum MF was 3.9 mm, and this was with
was added to the mixture, as shown in Figure 11. 10% plastic added.
Plastic Content vs Marshall Flow

6.5
5%
6
5.50%
5.5
Marshall Flow (mm)
6%
5
6.50%
4.5
7%
4
5%
3.5
5.50%
3
6%
2.5
6.50%
2
7%
100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%
Plastic Content(%) 5%

FigureFlow
Figure 9. Marshall 9. Marshall Flow
vs. Plastic vs. Plastic
Content vs. Content
Asphaltvs. Asphalt Content.
Content.
Plastic Content vs Marshall Flow

4.5
4
Marshall Flow (mm)
3.5
2.5 (Aggregate)
(Bitumen)
2
1.5
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 10. Marshall Flow vs. Plastic Content.

However, if PET is added more than 4%, then MF increases, showing an increase in
Marshall Flow
flow. MF of PET mixtures was increased by 46.35% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e.,
4.1 added to the mixture, as shown in Figure 11.
10%, was
3.9
Marshall Flow (mm)
3.7
3.5
3.3 (Aggregate)
3.1 (Bitumen)
2.9
2.7
1.5
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plastic Content (%)
Resources 2023, 12, 10 10 of 29
Marshall Flow
4.1
3.9
Marshall Flow (mm)
3.7
3.5
3.3 (Aggregate)
3.1 (Bitumen)
2.9
2.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Plastic Content (%)

3.3. Marshall
3.3. Quotient
Marshall Quotient
The Marshall quotient (MQ) is the relation of stability to flow and can be used to
The Marshall quotient (MQ) is the relation of stability to flow and can be used to
measure a material’s struggle with permanent deformation during service (Hinislioglu
measure a material’s struggle with permanent deformation during service (Hinislioglu
and Agar, 2004). MQ is an index of shear stress resistance, mix stiffness, and rutting of
and Agar, 2004). MQ is an index of shear stress resistance, mix stiffness, and rutting of
bituminous mixtures. A high MQ value indicates high stiffness and resistance to cracking.
bituminous mixtures. A high MQ value indicates high stiffness and resistance to cracking.
In [2], MQ was calculated to assess the specimen’s resistance to deformation. For this
In [2], MQ was calculated to assess the specimen’s resistance to deformation. For
purpose, the author used PET from 2 to 10% by weight of bitumen. From the results, it
this purpose, the author used PET from 2 to 10% by weight of bitumen. From the results,
can be observed that adding PET increases MQ. This is because it is stiffer and more re-
it can be observed that adding PET increases MQ. This is because it is stiffer and more
sistant to severe deformations due to heavy loads. MQ of PET mixtures was increased by
11.52% when resistant to severeamount
an optimum deformations
of PET,due to heavy
i.e., 4%, loads.toMQ
was added theof PET mixtures
mixture, was
as shown in increased by
11.52%
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR
Figure 12. PEERwhen
REVIEWan optimum amount of PET, i.e., 4%, was added to the mixture, as shown11inof 31
Figure 12.
Plastic Content vs Marshall Quotient

4.5
3.5
Marshall Quotient
5%
3
5.50%
2.5
6%
2 6.50%
7%
1.5
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Plastic Content (%)
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Marshall Marshallvs.
Quotient Quotient
Plasticvs. Plastic Content.
Content.
3.4. Bulk
3.4. Bulk Specific Specific Gravity
Gravity
The bulk
The bulk specific specific
gravity gravity
(BSG) (BSG) to
is used is used
checktothe
check the specific
specific gravitygravity of a compressed
of a compressed
HMA sample by computing the ratio of its weight to the weight of
HMA sample by computing the ratio of its weight to the weight of an equal amount an equal amount
of of
water. The HMA BSG is required to identify weight-volume relations and to determine
various volume-related quantities, such as air voids and mineral aggregate (VMA) voids.
In [2], the authors determined the properties of mixtures having various proportions
(2–10%) of PET to the weight of bitumen. For each binder content, increasing the PET
content decreases the BSG of the mixture. The decrease in BSG (for PET blends) is due to
Resources 2023, 12, 10 11 of 29
water. The HMA BSG is required to identify weight-volume relations and to determine
various volume-related quantities, such as air voids and mineral aggregate (VMA) voids.
In [2], the authors determined the properties of mixtures having various proportions
(2–10%) of PET to the weight of bitumen. For each binder content, increasing the PET content
decreases the BSG of the mixture. The decrease in BSG (for PET blends) is due to the lower
PET compared to single aggregates. BSG of PET mixtures was increased by 12.93% when an
optimum amount of PET, i.e., 4%, was added to the mixture, as shown in Figure 13.
Plastic Content vs Bulk Specific Gravity

2.34
0%
2.33
0.20%
Gulk Specific Gravity (g/cm³)
2.32 0.40%
2.31 0.60%
Plastic Content vs Bulk Specific Gravity
0.80%
2.34 2.3
0% 1%
2.33 2.29 0.20% 0%
Gulk Specific Gravity (g/cm³)
2.32 2.28 0.40% 2%
2.31 0.60% 4%
2.27
0.80% 6%
2.3
2.26 1% 8%
2.29 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500%
0%
Plastic COntent (%) 10%
2.28 2%
4%
2.27 Figure
Figure 13. Bulk 13. Bulk
Specific Specific
Gravity GravityContent.
6%
2.26
100% In [30],
150% 200%the 250%
author300%
performed
350% the400%BSG450%
test on the specimens
500%
8% containing waste PET
bottles in different percentages
Plastic COntent (%)
(0.2–1%) by the weight of aggregate.
10% The author concluded
that after the addition of waste plastic, the BSG tends to decrease. BSG of PET mixtures was
increased by 0.79% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e., 1%, was added to the mixture,
Figure 13. Bulk Specific Gravity vs. Plastic Content.
as shown in Figure 14.
3.5. Stiffness
The stiffness of the mixtures is attained as a relationship between applied stress and
theSpecific
Figure 14. Bulk specimen’s distortion.
Gravity vs. PlasticStiffness
Content. is the essential parameter for measuring rutting. A
pavement with higher stiffness is worth it. However, if the stiffness is too high, fatigue
3.5. Stiffness cracks can occur.
Ref. [26] determined the variation of stiffness values as a function of PET content (0.2–
The stiffness of the mixtures is attained as a relationship between applied stress and
1%) at different stress levels. The results show that the mixture’s stiffness decreases at
the specimen’s distortion. Stiffness is the essential parameter for measuring rutting. A
high-stress levels. Adding PET reduces the stiffness of the blend. It is also worth noting
cracks can occur. that the blends reinforced with 1% PET exhibited nearly identical stiffness values at dif-
ferent stress
Ref. [26] determined levels. This
the variation result may
of stiffness specify
values that theofPET-enhanced
as a function blend is more flexible
PET content (0.2–
Resources 2023, 12, 10 12 of 29
3.5. Stiffness
The stiffness
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW of the mixtures is attained as a relationship between applied stress and 13 of 31
the specimen’s distortion. Stiffness is the essential parameter for measuring rutting. A
cracks can occur.
than the control blend, specifically the higher amount in PET-enhanced samples. The stiff-
Ref. [26] determined the variation of stiffness values as a function of PET content
ness of PET mixtures was increased by 3.88% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e., 0.2%,
(0.2–1%) at different stress levels. The results show that the mixture’s stiffness decreases at
was added to the mixture; the same proportion of PET is used by weight of aggregate
high-stress levels. Adding PET reduces the stiffness of the blend. It is also worth noting that
particles at the stress level of 250 kPa, 350 kPa, and 450 kPa [30]. The author determined
the blends reinforced
that with with 1%
the increase PETcontent,
in PET exhibited
the nearly
stiffnessidentical stiffnessdecreases.
of the specimen values atThe different
stiffness
stress levels.
of PET mixtures was increased by 3.88% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e.,than
This result may specify that the PET-enhanced blend is more flexible 0.2%,thewas
controladded
blend,tospecifically the higher amount
the mixture, as shown in Figure 15. in PET-enhanced samples. The stiffness of
PET mixtures Ref.was
[29]increased
reported thebyeffect
3.88% ofwhen
diverse anpercentages
optimum amountof plasticof PET, i.e.,
(0.4–1%) on 0.2%, was
stiffness. The
added modified
to the mixture; the same proportion of PET is used by weight of aggregate
asphalt’s stiffness increases by 4% and 6% and decreases by 8% and 10%. There- particles
at the stress level ofcan
fore, plastics 250increase
kPa, 350 kPa, and
stiffness 450
up to kPa [30].
a certain The author
percentage and determined thatreaching
decrease it after with
the increase in PET content, the stiffness of the specimen decreases. The stiffness
the optimum value. Regular asphalt mixtures have the lowest stiffness, i.e., 8.53 kN/mm. of PET
mixturesThewas increased
stiffness bymixtures
of PET 3.88% when an optimum
was increased amount
by 539.5% of PET,
when i.e., 0.2%,amount
an optimum was addedof PET
to the mixture, as shown
i.e., 6%, was added into Figure 15. as shown in Figure 16.
the mixture,
Stiffness
5000
4500
4000
3500
Stiffness (MPa)
250kpa
3000
350kpa
2500
450kpa
2000
1500 250kpa
1000 350kpa
500
450kpa
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Plastic Content (%)
Figure
Figure 15. 15. Stiffness
Stiffness vs. Plastic
vs. Plastic Content.
Content.
Ref. [29] reported the effect of diverse percentages of plastic (0.4–1%) on stiffness.
The modified asphalt’s stiffness increases by 4% and 6% and decreases by 8% and 10%.
Therefore, plastics can increase stiffness up to a certain percentage and decrease it after
reaching the optimum value. Regular asphalt mixtures have the lowest stiffness, i.e.,
8.53 kN/mm. The stiffness of PET mixtures was increased by 539.5% when an optimum
amount of PET i.e., 6%, was added to the mixture, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Stiffness vs. Plastic Content.
3.6. Aggregate Impact Value

500
450kpa
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Plastic Content (%)
Resources 2023, 12, 10 13 of 29

3.6. Aggregate Impact Value
3.6. Aggregate Impact
The ability
abilityofofaValue
amaterial to to
material oppose
oppose an impact
an impact is said to beto
is said toughness. Thus, the
be toughness. aggre-
Thus, the
gate should
aggregate have sufficient
should toughness
have sufficient so that
toughness so it canitresist
that fragmentation
can resist due due
fragmentation to impact. To
to impact.
measure
To measurethis, an an
this, Impact Value
Impact Test
Value is used.
Test is used.
Eight % and 10 % propylene were used by by[31],
[31], and
and from
from the
the results,
results, it is concluded
that by increasing
increasingthe thepropylene
propyleneratio
ratiothe
thequality
qualityof of
aggregate
aggregate becomes good,
becomes good,which results
which re-
in improving AIV as shown in Figure 17. Hence, poor aggregate
sults in improving AIV as shown in Figure 17. Hence, poor aggregate quality can quality can therefore
coating with
be enabled by coating with a polymer. It also contributes
contributes to to improving
improving thethe quality
quality ofof the
the
flexible pavement.
Figure 17. Aggregate Impact Value vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 17. Aggregate Impact Value vs. Plastic Content.
3.7. Aggregate Crushing Value
3.7. Aggregate Crushing Value
Aggregate crush value (ACV) offers a comparative measure of aggregate resistance to
Aggregate
crushing under crush value (ACV)
progressively offers
applied a comparative measure of aggregate resistance
loads.
to crushing under progressively applied loads.
In [31], the author used 8% and 10% propylene, and the results are shown in Figure 18.
FromInthis
[31], the author
result, it was used 8% and
concluded 10%
that propylene,
aggregates andlower
with the results
ACV hadare shown
a lowerinfracture
Figure
18.
rateFrom
underthis
loadresult,
and aitlonger
was concluded that
road service aggregates
life. with lowerare
Weaker aggregates ACV had adue
crushed lower frac-
to traffic
ture
load.rate under
It can load and athat
be observed longer road serviceaggregates
plastic-coated life. Weaker aggregates
have lower ACVare crushed due to
and withstand
traffic loads
load. It can effectively
more be observed thatplain
than plastic-coated
aggregates.aggregates have lower ACV and with-
stand traffic loads more effectively than plain aggregates.
Aggregate crush value (ACV) offers a comparative measure of aggregate resistance
to crushing under progressively applied loads.
In [31], the author used 8% and 10% propylene, and the results are shown in Figure
18. From this result, it was concluded that aggregates with lower ACV had a lower frac-
ture rate under load and a longer road service life. Weaker aggregates are crushed due to
Resources 2023, 12, 10 traffic load. It can be observed that plastic-coated aggregates have lower ACV and 14 of 29
with-
stand traffic loads more effectively than plain aggregates.
Figure 18. Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 18. Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Plastic Content.
3.8. Specific Gravity
3.8. Specific Gravity
The specific gravity (SG) of an aggregate is an unintended measure of its strength.
The specific gravity (SG) of an aggregate is an unintended measure of its strength.
The higher the SG, the higher will be the strength. The SG value of a plain aggregate is
The higher the SG, the higher will be the strength. The SG value of a plain aggregate is
lower than that of plastic-coated aggregate. Since aggregates with lower SG are commonly
lower than that of plastic-coated aggregate. Since aggregates with lower SG are commonly
weaker than aggregates with higher SG values, this result indicates that the incorporation
weaker than aggregates with higher SG values, this result indicates that the incorporation of
of plastic increases the SG of the aggregate. The range should be 2.5 to 3.0% [31]. In Figure
plastic increases the SG of the aggregate. The range should be 2.5 to 3.0% [31]. In Figure 19,
19, the SG of PET mixtures is increased by 42.86% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e.,
the SG of PET mixtures is increased by 42.86% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e., 10%,
10%, is added
is added to the
to the mixture.
mixture.
Figure 19. Specific Gravity vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 19. Specific Gravity vs. Plastic Content.
3.9. Stripping Value
3.9. Stripping Value value of an aggregate is calculated as the ratio of the visually observed
The stripping
The stripping
uncoated surfacevalue
to theof an aggregate
total surface of isthecalculated asarticulated
aggregate, the ratio ofas
the visually observed
a percentage.
This
uncoated valueto
surface indicates
the totalthe effectofofthe
surface moisture on articulated
aggregate, the bond ofasthe bituminous layer to
a percentage.
theThis
surface
valueparticles
indicatesof the
theeffect
aggregate. Aggregates
of moisture on the containing
bond of theplastic coatings
bituminous have
layer zero
to the
delamination
surface particlesvalue.
of theSo, the aggregate
aggregate. is more
Aggregates appropriate
containing for the
plastic bituminous
coatings roadde-
have zero than
the ordinary
lamination aggregate.
value. In [31], theisresults
So, the aggregate obtained with
more appropriate forthe
thecontrol sample
bituminous are than
road withinthethe
IRC criteria,
ordinary but theInaggregate
aggregate. [31], the coating reduces the
results obtained aggregate’s
with affinity
the control samplefor are
water, as shown
within the
in Figure 20. The range must be less than 25%.
IRC criteria, but the aggregate coating reduces the aggregate’s affinity for water, as shown
in Figure 20. The range must be less than 25%.
Resources 2023,
Resources 12,12,
2023, x FOR
10 PEER REVIEW 16 15
of 31
of 29
Figure 20. Stripping Value vs. Plastic Content.
In [14] the plastic laminated aggregates and bitumen were placed in water for 72 h.
The mixture exposed no signs of delamination. This verifies that it has excellent water
resistance.
In [14] the plastic laminated aggregates and bitumen were placed in water for 72 h. The
3.10.
InWater
mixture Absorption
[14]exposed
the plastic laminated
no signs aggregatesThis
of delamination. andverifies
bitumen were
that placed
it has in water
excellent waterfor 72 h.
resistance.
The mixture exposed
Aggregates areno signs
also of delamination.
selected This ability
based on their verifies to
that it hasmoisture.
absorb excellent water
Covering the
3.10. Water
resistance. Absorption
aggregate with plastic improves its absorbency. Plastic coatings reduce moisture absorp-
tion andAggregates
improveare also selected
aggregate basedand
quality on their ability to absorb
performance moisture.
in flexible paving.Covering thethe au-
In [31],
3.10. Water Absorption
aggregate with plastic improves its absorbency. Plastic coatings reduce moisture absorption
thors demonstrated that the moisture absorption of the aggregate is within IRC specifica-
and improve aggregate
Aggregates qualitybased
are also selected and performance in flexible
on their ability to absorbpaving. In [31],
moisture. the authors
Covering the
tions and reduced
demonstrated
to zero
that the
by the
moisture
coating. of
The range mustis be less IRC
thanspecifications
10%, as shown in
aggregate with plastic improves itsabsorption
absorbency. the aggregate
Plastic withinmoisture
coatings reduce absorp-
Figure
and 21. to zero by the coating. The range must be less than 10%, as shown in Figure 21.
reduced
tion and improve aggregate quality and performance in flexible paving. In [31], the au-
thors demonstrated that the moisture absorption of the aggregate is within IRC specifica-
tions and reduced to zero by the coating. The range must be less than 10%, as shown in
Figure 21.
Figure 21. Water Absorption vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 21. Water Absorption vs. Plastic Content.
The authors [14] reported that the amount of water absorbed decreased with increasing
Figure 21.
plastic Water
Thecoating.Absorption
authorsThis vs. Plastic
[14]shows
reported Content.
that that
the plastic coatingof
the amount decreases air voids.decreased
water absorbed Therefore, with
plastic
increas-
coating
ing of coating.
plastic aggregates helps
This to increase
shows aggregate
that the quality. decreases air voids. Therefore, plas-
plastic coating
The authors [14] reported that the amount of water absorbed decreased with increas-
tic plastic
coatingcoating.
ing3.11.
of aggregates
This shows
helps to increase aggregate quality.
that the plastic coating decreases air voids. Therefore, plas-
Los Angeles Abrasion Value
tic coating of aggregates
Frequent helps to increase
vehicle movements aggregate
will cause wearquality.
to the pavement. The test shows this
3.11. Los Angeles Abrasion Value
wear and tear as a percentage. In this research, the wear values for plastic laminated
3.11. Los Angeles
aggregates wereAbrasion Value order to the percentage of plastic. Comparing the abrasion
in descending
Resources 2023, 12, 10 Frequent vehicle movements will cause wear to the pavement. The test shows 16 this
of 29
wear and tear as a percentage. In this research, the wear values for plastic laminated ag-
gregates were in descending order to the percentage of plastic. Comparing the abrasion
value of plain aggregate with that of plastic laminated aggregate, the value of a coated
value of plain aggregate with that of plastic laminated aggregate, the value of a coated
aggregate is lower. From the pp8 and pp10 specimens of [31], the results attained are in
aggregate is lower. From the pp8 and pp10 specimens of [31], the results attained are in
range and can therefore be used for construction, as shown in Figure 22. So the range must
range and can therefore be used for construction, as shown in Figure 22. So the range must
be less than 35% [31].
be less than 35% [31].
Figure 22. Los Angeles Abrasion Value vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 22. Los Angeles Abrasion Value vs. Plastic Content.
3.12. Air Void
3.12. AirTheVoid
air void (AV) is known as the key parameter of bituminous mixtures used in
pavement
The airdesign
void (AV)and obtaining
is knownoptimal asphalt
as the key content.ofExcessive
parameter bituminous AV causes cracking
mixtures used indue
to inadequate
pavement design asphalt binder covering
and obtaining optimalthe aggregate,
asphalt while
content. low AV can
Excessive AV cause
causesmore plastic
cracking
flow
due to (rutting)
inadequate andasphalt
asphaltbinder
bleeding. Ref. [2]
covering thedetermined the effect
aggregate, while low ofAVvarying percentage
can cause more
plastic
plastic content
flow fromand
(rutting) 2 toasphalt
10% onbleeding.
the AV ofRef.
SMA.[2] In this case, increasing
determined the effect ofthe PET content
varying per-
results
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR centage
PEER in more
plastic
REVIEW AVs remaining
content from 2 to 10% as crystal. However,
on the AV of SMA. theInincreased
this case, surface
increasingareathe
must
of 31 be
18 PET
wettedresults
content by thein binder,
more ultimately
AVs remaining leading
as to increased
crystal. AV inthe
However, the increased
mixture. Further, when
surface area
PET was used in the blend, it appeared to be less compact, allowing
must be wetted by the binder, ultimately leading to increased AV in the mixture. Further, higher AV values to be
obtained.
when PET The AVs
wasis used
content of the PET blend
in the binder
too low, blend,will increased
it appeared by
come out,toand9.02%
bethe
lesswhen the
compact,
two optimal
will be inallowing amount
the asphalthigherof AV
mixture, PET,
i.e., 10%, was
values toreducing added to
durability.
be obtained. the blend as shown in Figure 23.
The AVs of the PET blend increased by 9.02% when the optimal
amount of PET, i.e., 10%, was added to the blend as shown in Figure 23.
Ref. [26] used some different percentages of PET, which was 5–25% by the weight of
Plastic Content vs Air Voids
aggregates. However, in the result, the same reasons are concluded that with the increase
7.5
in the percentage of plastic waste, the AVs decrease, as shown in Figure 24.
7
Ref. [15] reported that the values were below the acceptable range of 3 to 5% for AV
content, 6.5
except for samples containing PET at a temperature of 140 °C. However, the slope
of the experimental
6 mixture was steeper than the normal mixture. Similarly, the maxi-
Air Voids (%)
5%
mum AV5.5content obtained was 5.20% at a constant temperature of 140 °C for 6% PET, and
the lowest5 AV content was 3.17% at a compression temperature of 1705.50% °C, as shown in
Figure 25. In [2], the author confirms that the incorporation of PET created 6% more AVs, with
4.5
the chopped PET left as crystals yielding more surface area. 6.50%
4
Increasing the compression temperature reduces the amount of AVs. 7% In addition, ref.
3.5
[32] verified that the AV percentage reduced with increasing compaction temperature due
3
to the greasing effect of asphalt in maintaining a binder viscosity appropriate for compac-
0 2 4 6 8 10
tion. Therefore, the plastic particles are mostly melted and can range throughout the AV.
Plastic Content (%)
So, if the AV content is too high, air and water can get into the AV space, but if the AV
Figure Figure
23. Air23. Air Voids
Voids vs. Plastic
Content.
5
Air V
6%
4.5
6.50%
4
7%
3.5
Resources 2023, 12, 10 17 of 29
3
0 2 4 6 8 10
Plastic Content (%)
Ref. [26] used some different percentages of PET, which was 5–25% by the weight of
aggregates. However, in the result, the same reasons are concluded that with the increase
Figure 23. Air Voidsofvs.
in the percentage Plasticwaste,
plastic Content.
the AVs decrease, as shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Air Voids vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 24. Air Voids vs. Plastic Content.
Ref. [15] reported that the values were below the acceptable range of 3 to 5% for
AV content, except for samples containing PET at a temperature of 140 ◦ C. However, the
slope of the experimental mixture was steeper than the normal mixture. Similarly, the
maximum AV content obtained was 5.20% at a constant temperature of 140 ◦ C for 6% PET,
and the lowest AV content was 3.17% at a compression temperature of 170 ◦ C, as shown in
Figure 25. In [2], the author confirms that the incorporation of PET created more AVs,19with
of 31
the chopped PET left as crystals yielding more surface area.
Figure25.
Figure 25. Air
AirVoids
Voidsvs.
vs.Plastic
PlasticContent.
Content.
3.13.Increasing
ITS Test the compression temperature reduces the amount of AVs. In addition,
ref. [32] verified
Indirect that strength
tensile the AV percentage reduced
(ITS) testing is usedwith increasing
to determine thecompaction temperature
indirect tensile strength
due to the greasing effect of asphalt in maintaining a
of a mixture and helps determine the heat crack resistance of a mix. binder viscosity appropriate for
compaction. Therefore, the plastic particles are mostly melted and can range
In [33], the authors reported that temperature affects the ITS of samples. The authors throughout
the AV. the
tested So, specimens
if the AV content
at 5 °Cisand
too high,
20 °C,air
asand water
shown in can get into
Figure the addition
26. The AV space,ofbut
2%ifPET
the
AV content is too low, the binder will come out, and the two will be in the
increased ITS at both test temperatures. Moreover, the ITS decreased constantly with theasphalt mixture,
reducing durability.
addition of PET content. Due to higher PET contents, bitumen gathers on the external
surface of the plastic particles. The ITS of the PET blend increased by 13.1% when the
optimal amount of PET, i.e., 2%, was added to the blend.
In [34], ITS tests performed on samples containing different plastic content variations
(2.5–15%) show that the addition of PET raises the tensile strength of the modified asphalt
Resources 2023, 12, 10 18 of 29
3.13. ITS Test

Indirect tensile strength (ITS) testing is used to determine the indirect tensile strength
of a mixture and helps determine the heat crack resistance of a mix.
In [33], the authors reported that temperature affects the ITS of samples. The authors
tested the specimens at 5 ◦ C and 20 ◦ C, as shown in Figure 26. The addition of 2% PET
increased ITS at both test temperatures. Moreover, the ITS decreased constantly with the
addition of PET content. Due to higher PET contents, bitumen gathers on the external
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWof the plastic particles. The ITS of the PET blend increased by 13.1%
surface 20 ofwhen
31 the
optimal amount of PET, i.e., 2%, was added to the blend.
Plastic Content vs ITS

3500
3000
2500
ITS (kpa)
5°C
20°C
2000
5°C
1500 20 of 31
20°C
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10
Plastic
PlasticContent
Content (%)vs ITS
3500
Figure Figure
26. ITS26.vs.
ITSPlastic
Content.
3000
In [34], ITS tests performed on samples containing different plastic content variations
2500 ITS
ITS (kpa)
(2.5–15%) show that the addition of PET raises the tensile strength5°Cof the modified asphalt
mix as850
compared to the control mix. Based on the results, it can be
2000
perceived that the PET
20°C
800
modification increases the moisture sensitivity of the asphalt mixture, 5°C but with higher PET
750
percentages (above 12.5), the improvement decreases, as shown in 20°C Figure 27. The ITS of the
1500
700 increased by 35.68% when the optimum amount of PET, i.e., 7.5%, was added to
PET blend
ITS (kpa)
650
the blend.
1000 From the result of [29], it can be observed that the ITS of the modified asphalt
600 is 0lesser than
mixture 2 that of4 the normal 6 8 mixture.
asphalt 10 The ITSDRY
of a normal asphalt
550 is 1094 kPa. The highest
mixture Plastic Content (%)
ITS among the modified asphalt concretes
WET is 1049 kPa,
500
8% plastic, which is 4% lesser than the tensile strength of normal asphalt mixtures. It has a
450
minimum
FigureITS of 844
26. ITS kPa Content.
vs. Plastic and contains 4% plastic, which is 24% less.
400
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
ITS(%)
Plastic Content
850
800
Figure 27. ITS vs. Plastic Content.
750
700
ITS (kpa)
650
600 DRY
550 WET
500
450
400
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Plastic Content (%)
FigureFigure 27. ITS vs. Plastic Content.

27. ITS vs. Plastic Content.
650
ITS (k
600 DRY
550 WET
500
Resources 2023, 12, 10 450 19 of 29
400
-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Ref. [35] found that Plastic Content (%)has a significant effect on the ITS of samples. The
temperature
addition of 2% PET increased the ITS at both test temperatures. Moreover, the ITS decreased
constantly by adding PET content. The ITS of the PET blend increased by 12.74% when the
optimal amount of PET, i.e., 2%, was added to the blend as shown in Figure 28.

3.14. Wheel Track Test
3.14. Wheel Track Test
In [35], the authors used various percentages of plastic ranging from 2.5 to 15%. Ac-
In [35], the authors used various percentages of plastic ranging from 2.5 to 15%.
cording to the wheel track test results of [35], the values of all modified blends were lower
According to the wheel track test results of [35], the values of all modified blends were
than those of the control blends, indicating that the addition of polymer improved sensi-
lower than those of the control blends, indicating that the addition of polymer improved
tivity and permanent stress in modified mixtures.
sensitivity and permanent stress in modified mixtures.
Based on the results attained, we conclude that the use of polymers to modify asphalt
Based on the results attained, we conclude that the use of polymers to modify asphalt
mixtures is an effective method for creating mixtures with greater resistance to shear
mixtures is an effective method for creating mixtures with greater resistance to shear forces
forces in asphalt pavements. The results of [36] show that blends comprising waste PET
in asphalt pavements. The results of [36] show that blends comprising waste PET have
have better resistance to everlasting distortion compared to normal blends. Further, the
better resistance to everlasting distortion compared to normal blends. Further, the rut depth
rut depth value increases sharply during the first 15 min; after that, the increase slows and
value increases sharply during the first 15 min; after that, the increase slows and tapers off.
tapers off. After 45 min, the rut depths for the mixtures containing 2–10% PET were 1.78
After 45 min, the rut depths for the mixtures containing 2–10% PET were 1.78 mm, 1.50,
mm, 1.50, 1.25, 1.35, 1.62, and 1.56 mm, respectively, compared to the mixtures containing
1.25, 1.35, 1.62, and 1.56 mm, respectively, compared to the mixtures containing 4% plastics,
4%asplastics,
shown in asFigures
shown 29in Figures 29 and
and 30. The 30. Therut
minimum minimum rutobtained
depth was depth was obtained
with with a
a 28% reduction
28% reduction in rut depth compared to normal
in rut depth compared to normal formulations. formulations.
Figure 29. Rut Depth vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, 10 20 of 29

3.15. Resilient Modulus
The resilient modulus (MR) is an important property of the material used to describe
unbonded pavement materials. MR is the measure of the stiffness of a material and offers a
way to examine material stiffness under various circumstances, such as density, humidity,
and stress levels. MR is normally calculated by laboratory testing by determining the
stiffness of a specimen cylinder under cyclic axial loading. MR is the ratio of the stress on
the axle diverter to the recoverable strain of the axle.
In [36], PET was used as reinforcement in varying proportions (2–10%) based on the
weight of the bitumen content. The authors reported that after the incorporation of PET,
MR values increased until reaching a maximum level and then started to decrease. MR
values of the blends comprising plastic were commonly higher than the normal blends
(0% PET), and the results obtained showed that the MR was maximized by the addition
of 6% PET, which showed a 16% increase in MR. The MR of the PET blend increased by
15.62% when the optimal amount of PET, i.e., 6%, was added to the blend.
In [34], the fatigue and stiffness behavior of modified PET blends were calculated at
two different temperatures of 5 ◦ C and 20 ◦ C. Varying contents of PET (2–10 wt.% bitumen)
were integrated into the asphalt mixture using the method of dry mixing. The authors
concluded that MR decreased with increasing stress levels. However, at a perpetual
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW stress
23 of 31
level, the highest MR values are attained with 2% PET. The MR of the PET blends increased
when the optimal amount of PET, i.e., 2%, was added to the blend, as shown in Figure 31.
Figure 31. Resilient Modulus vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, 10 21 of 29
In [29], the author used different percentages of plastic waste from 4 to 10% at temper-
atures of 25 ◦ C and 40 ◦ C. MR increases with increasing plastic until the optimum plastic
content is reached. MR is reduced with an additional increase in plastic. The modified
asphalt mixture containing 8% plastic has the highest MR at temperatures of 25 ◦ C and
40 ◦ C, which is nearly double that of the normal asphalt mixture. Furthermore, the MR of
the 4% plastic is a minimum of 69%, which is 51% lesser than the simple asphalt mixture,
Figure 31. Resilient of
at temperatures Modulus
40 andvs.
25Plastic
◦ C as Content.
shown in Figure 32.

In the same study, a test was run for MR on the modified PET blend. The authors
used different PET contents between 0.2% and 1% of the total aggregate weight. Likewise,
they found that using 0.2% PET improved the stiffness of the mixture, whereas adding
more than 0.2% as shown in Figure 33 adversely affected the stiffness of the mixture [25].
With the increase in PET amount, the particles obtain more volume within the mixture.
These particles are less rigid than aggregates, so the total rigidity of the mixture decreases
with the increase in PET content. Moreover, the decrease in bitumen film on the aggregate
Figure 32. Resilient
particles could beModulus vs. Plastic
an additional Content.
reason for the decrease in stiffness with higher PET content.
3.16. Drain Down

3.16. Drain Down

particular asphaltic mixture is within quantified satisfactory levels. This test is primarily
intended for mixes with a high content of coarse aggregates, such as Stone Mastic asphalt
and porous asphalt.
Ref. [36] conducted drain-down tests on mixtures containing various proportions of
Resources 2023, 12, 10 waste PET and 2–10% by the weight of bitumen. Experiments have determined 22 of 29 that a
suitable range for the quantity of waste plastic is 4–6% by the weight of bitumen content,
as shown in Figure 34. Irrespective of the PET content used, the void values of the PET
blends were lower than those of the control blends, and increasing the PET content in the
3.16. Drain Down
blends decreased the void values. The reduced drainage values may be a result of the
A drain-down test in
sliced PET used can
thebemixture,
used towhich
determine whether
rests in the measured
crystalline drainage
form, thereby for athe sur-
increasing
particular asphaltic mixture is within quantified satisfactory levels. This test is primarily
face area. However, the increased surface area must be wetted by the binder, which ulti-
intended for mixes
mately with aand
stabilizes high content
holds of coarse
the binder to aggregates,
the surface, such as Stone
reducing Mastic
binder flow.asphalt
and porous asphalt.
Ref. [15] examined the influence of temperature on properties when mixing PET
Ref.waste
[36] conducted drain-down
and Stone Mastic tests
asphalt on mixtures
(SMA) containingThe
before compaction. various proportions
quantity of bitumenof added
waste PET and 2–10% by the weight of bitumen. Experiments have determined
was 6% of the total aggregate weight, as shown in Figure 35. However, the results that a of [15]
suitable range for the quantity of waste plastic is 4–6% by the weight of bitumen content,
show that both samples passed the reference range based on the tolerance of 0.3% residual
as shown in Figure 34. Irrespective of the PET content used, the void values of the PET
particles. The controlled mixture retained only 0.0346% in a beaker with a filling temper-
blends were lower than those of the control blends, and increasing the PET content in the
ature of 170°C. Besides this, a value of 0.0188% was obtained for the experimental mixture.
blends decreased the void values. The reduced drainage values may be a result of the sliced
Specimens with PET have lower retention rates. Ref. [2] conducted research that con-
PET used in the mixture, which rests in crystalline form, thereby increasing the surface
cluded that adding PET lowered the excretion values of the normal mixture. The incorpo-
area. However, the increased surface area must be wetted by the binder, which ultimately
ration of PET made the mixture easier to dispense and less sticky.
stabilizes and holds the binder to the surface, reducing binder flow.
Figure 34. DDT vs. Plastic Content.

Ref. [15] examined the influence of temperature on properties when mixing PET waste
and Stone Mastic asphalt (SMA) before compaction. The quantity of bitumen added was
6% of the total aggregate weight, as shown in Figure 35. However, the results of [15] show
that both samples passed the reference range based on the tolerance of 0.3% residual parti-
cles. The controlled mixture retained only 0.0346% in a beaker with a filling temperature
of 170 ◦ C. Besides this, a value of 0.0188% was obtained for the experimental mixture.
Specimens with PET have lower retention rates. Ref. [2] conducted research that concluded
that adding PET lowered the excretion values of the normal mixture. The incorporation of
PET made the mixture easier to dispense and less sticky.
Resources 2023,Resources
12, 10 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 29 25 o
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2

3.17.35.
Figure Volumetric Properties
DDT vs. Plastic Content.
3.17. Volumetric Properties
The volumetric properties are mirrored in the amount of aggregate and bitume
The volumetric properties
sential to create theare mirrored
desired in the amount
combination of aggregate
of properties. and bitumen
The volumetric properties o
essential to create the desired combination of properties. The volumetric properties of the
mixture are critical to the long-term durability and performance of the pavement.
mixture are critical to the long-term durability and performance of the pavement.
3.17.1. Density
3.17.1. Density
Mass per unit volume is said to be density. The asphalt mixture decreases wit
Mass perincreasing
unit volume is said toof
proportion beplastic
density.
in The
the asphalt mixture decreases
case of density. with themixture
A simple asphalt
increasing proportion of plastic in the case of density. A simple asphalt mixture has a
density of 2.35 g/cm3. A plastic-added asphalt mixture containing 4% of plastic ha
density of 2.35 g/cm3. A plastic-added asphalt mixture containing 4% of plastic has the
maximum density, namely 2.5 g/cm3, which is 6% greater than a normal asphalt mix
maximum density, namely 2.5 g/cm3, which is 6% greater than a normal asphalt mixture.
With the increase in plastic percentage, the density of the mixture decreases. The de
With the increase in plastic percentage, the density of the mixture decreases. The density
of PET mixtures was increased by 6.39% when an optimum amount of PET i.e., 4%
of PET mixtures was increased by 6.39% when an optimum amount of PET i.e., 4%, was
added to the mixture, as shown in Figure 36.
added to the mixture, as shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36. Density vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 36. Density vs. Plastic Content.
3.17.2. Voids in Total Mix

A void in the total mix was observed in the specimens of different percentage
10%). The results show the effect of additional plastic on voids throughout the mix
Resources 2023, 12, 10 24 of 29
3.17.2. Voids in Total Mix

A void in the total mix was observed in the specimens of different percentages (4–10%).
The results show the effect of additional plastic on voids throughout the mixture. The
VTM for simple asphalt mixtures is 3.7%, while the VTM for plastic-incorporated asphalt
mixtures ranges from 4.0 to 7.0%. In the report of JKR [37], the range of VTM is 3 to 5%.
Results show that 4% and 8% of plastics have VTM values out of range, while 6% and 10%
of plastics have VTM values within a range. VTM are also known as air voids, which is
the relation of the volume of voids in the compressed mixture to the total volume of the
compressed mixture. Correct compaction can reduce voids. Compressors require regular
Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWmaintenance to function properly during the compression process. VTM of PET mixtures
27 of 31
was increased by 95.25% when an optimum amount of PET, i.e., 4%, was added to the
mixture, as shown in Figure 37.
Figure 37. VTM vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 37. VTM vs. Plastic Content.
3.17.3. Voids Filled with Asphalt
3.17.3. Voids Filled
The voids withwith
filled Asphalt
asphalt (VFA) are observed depending on the amount of plastic
addition
The voidsat different
filled withweight
asphalt percentages (4–10%) of
(VFA) are observed bitumen.on
depending Voids filled with
the amount asphalt
of plastic
binder at
addition is the percentage
different weight of percentages
voids in mineral aggregate
(4–10%) (VMA)Voids
of bitumen. filled filled
with asphalt cement.
with asphalt
For aisnormal
binder asphalt mixture,
the percentage of voidsthe VFA is 76%,
in mineral and for
aggregate (VMA)10% plastic, the VFA
filled with is 73%
asphalt which
cement.
Forisavery similar.
normal Four
asphalt % plastic
mixture, thehas
VFAtheishighest
76%, andVFAfor(i.e.,
10%141%).
plastic,The
the 6%
VFA and 8% VFAs
is 73% whichare
constant
is very (thatFour
similar. is, 97% and 95%,
% plastic hasrespectively) but fall
the highest VFA outside
(i.e., the
141%). TheJKR6%specification,
and 8% VFAs which
are is
between
constant 70%
(that is,and
97%80%,
andas shown
95%, in Figure but
respectively) 38. fall outside the JKR specification, which
is betweenIn [15],
70%theandauthor
80%,experimented with VFA
as shown in Figure 38. for experimental and temperature-controlled
mixing.
In [15], the author experimented with VFA forexcept
All specimens passed 65–78% tolerance for the temperature
experimental of 140 ◦ C on
and temperature-con-
PET. mixing.
trolled The researcher reducedpassed
All specimens the VFA value tolerance
65–78% with the addition of the
except for PETtemperature
due to the increased
of 140
°C on PET. The researcher reduced the VFA value with the addition ofvalues
surface area of the asphalt-covered mineral aggregates. Higher VFA PET duecantodeliver
the
adequate
increased asphalt
surface content
area of thetoasphalt-covered
increase durability. As the
mineral temperature
aggregates. increases,
Higher more binder
VFA values can
fills the
deliver voids. Blends
adequate asphaltwith PET give
content lower VFA
to increase values compared
durability. to normal blends
As the temperature [15].
increases,
more binder fills the voids. Blends with PET give lower VFA values compared to normal
blends [15].
In [15], the author experimented with VFA for experimental and temperature-con-
trolled mixing. All specimens passed 65–78% tolerance except for the temperature of 140
°C on PET. The researcher reduced the VFA value with the addition of PET due to the
increased surface area of the asphalt-covered mineral aggregates. Higher VFA values can
deliver adequate asphalt content to increase durability. As the temperature increases,
Resources 2023, 12, 10 25 of 29
more binder fills the voids. Blends with PET give lower VFA values compared to normal
blends [15].
Figure38.
Figure 38.VFA
VFAvs.
vs.Plastic
PlasticContent.
Content.
3.17.4. Voids in Mineral Aggregate
3.17.4.Ref.
Voids[15]inused
Mineral
6% ofAggregate
plastic content in the specimen. The results of the control mixture
show Ref. [15] used 6% of plasticof
that the maximum value VMA in
content is 12.36%, and theThe
the specimen. consistent temperature
results of the controlismixture
155 °C.
show that the maximum value of VMA is 12.36%, and the consistent temperature is 155 ◦°C,
On the other hand, for the experimental mixture, the maximum value is 13.80% at 140 C.
as shown
On the other in hand,
Figurefor
39.the
This confirms a study
experimental by [2]
mixture, thethat the incorporation
maximum of plastic
value is 13.80% ◦ C, as
at 140resulted
in the rise
shown of VMA
in Figure 39. values compared
This confirms to theby
a study controlled mixtures,
[2] that the as bulk-specific
incorporation of plastic gravity
resultedval-
in
uesrise
the were reduced
of VMA due compared
values to the irreconcilable properties
to the controlled of aggregates
mixtures, and PET.
as bulk-specific Ref. values
gravity [32] re-
ported
were decreased
reduced due VMA
to the with increasingproperties
irreconcilable compression temperature
of aggregates anddue to Ref.
PET. the greasing effect
[32] reported
of the binder.
decreased VMA The greater
with the VMA
increasing value, thetemperature
compression more spacedue is available for asphalt
to the greasing penetra-
effect of the
tion. The greater the VMA value, the more space is available for asphalt penetration.
binder.
Figure39.
Figure 39.VMA
VMAvs.
vs.Plastic
PlasticContent.
Content.
3.17.5.
3.17.5.Dynamic
DynamicCreep
Creep
The
The findingsfor
findings fordynamic
dynamiccreep
creepare
arepresented
presentedinin[29].
[29].The
Thetest
testisisrepetitive
repetitiveon
onasphalt
asphalt
concrete,
concrete, and rutting occurs at plastic contents between 4 and 10%. The results showthat
and rutting occurs at plastic contents between 4 and 10%. The results show that
the
themodulus
modulusof ofcreep
creeprises
riseswith
withananincreasing
increasingproportion
proportionof ofplastic
plasticup
upto to8%
8% and
and then
then falls.
falls.
The
Themaximum
maximumcreep creepisis72.95
72.95Megapascal
Megapascalafter
after8%
8%usage
usageof ofplastic.
plastic.TheThelowermost
lowermostcreep
creep
factor
factor is 24.87 MPa for 4% plastic, which is 5% lower than normal asphaltmixtures,
is 24.87 MPa for 4% plastic, which is 5% lower than normal asphalt mixtures, asas
shown in Figure 40. Reutilizing waste plastics helps to reduce the everlasting
shown in Figure 40. Reutilizing waste plastics helps to reduce the everlasting distortion distortion of
ruts andand
of ruts coldcold
cracking of pavement
cracking of pavementsurfaces.
surfaces.
The findings for dynamic creep are presented in [29]. The test is repetitive on asphalt
concrete, and rutting occurs at plastic contents between 4 and 10%. The results show that
the modulus of creep rises with an increasing proportion of plastic up to 8% and then falls.
The maximum creep is 72.95 Megapascal after 8% usage of plastic. The lowermost creep
factor is 24.87 MPa for 4% plastic, which is 5% lower than normal asphalt mixtures, as
Resources 2023, 12, 10 26 of 29
shown in Figure 40. Reutilizing waste plastics helps to reduce the everlasting distortion
of ruts and cold cracking of pavement surfaces.
Figure 40. Creep vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 40. Creep vs. Plastic Content.
3.17.6. Fatigue
Fatigue damage, which typically arises at moderate temperatures, is a common prob-
lem in asphalt mixtures. The phenomenon mainly appears as cracks in cobblestones called
alligator cracks. Fatigue life is explained as the number of cycles of loading before the spec-
imen fails or the maximum deformation of 9 mm is reached. In [28], the author reported
the effects of different percentages of plastic content (0.2–1%) for 250 KPa, 350 KPa, and
450 KPa, respectively.
These PET-reinforced blends had significantly longer fatigue life compared to the
control blend. For example, at a stress level of 250 KPa, fatigue life nearly doubles as the
value increases from less than 30,000 cycles for mixtures to more than 60,000 cycles for
mixtures reinforced with 1% of PET. This is perhaps due to the plastic particles improving
the elastic properties of the mixture, absorbing the amount of energy generated by cyclic
loading, and slowing crack opening and circulation in the mixture.
4. Conclusions
The usage of waste plastics in asphalt pavements has proven beneficial for improving
pavement properties, as evidenced by research results in the last 20 years. There seems to
be a consensus among researchers that the proper mixing of certain plastic wastes with
bitumen under optimal conditions can significantly improve the performance and longevity
of pavements. The usage of waste plastics in asphaltic pavements has also been presented
to improve certain pavement properties to levels similar to the use of the virgin polymer.
From the basic economic perspective, the use of waste in the paving and construction of
roads is favorable in many ways, including benefits from better pavement performance
and less burial. Many polymer wastes are hazardous and can be an environmental problem
if they are not recycled or reprocessed effectively. Using waste plastics in pavements not
only improves pavement capabilities and reduces environmental contamination but also
reduces the need to use aggregates in pavements, resulting in long-term cost savings. The
following Tables 1 and 2 shows the summary of the test performed after using different
percentages of plastics and the effect of that addition.
Resources 2023, 12, 10 27 of 29
Table 1. Summary of Usage of Different Percentages of Plastics by Various Authors.
Author % Replacement of Plastics Optimum Value Attained At Replacement

[2] 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 6% By wt. of bitumen
[11] 0, 4, 6, 8, 10 4% By wt. of bitumen
[13] 0, 4, 6, 8, 10 8% By wt. of bitumen
[38] 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 1% By wt. of aggregate
[39] 0, 15, 20, 25, 30 15% By wt. of bitumen
[36] 0, 1, 3, 5 1% By wt. of bitumen
[37] 0, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18 8% By wt. of aggregate
[37] 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 4% By wt. of bitumen
[38] 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.1 0.5% By wt. of aggregate
[39] 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8 6.6% By wt. of bitumen
[20] 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 12% By wt. of bitumen
[23] 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15% 12.5% By wt. of bitumen
[24] 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 4% By wt. of bitumen
[25] 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 2% By wt. of bitumen
[28] 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 0.4% By wt. of bitumen
[33] 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15 7.5–10% By wt. of bitumen
[34] 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 4% By wt. of bitumen
[35] 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 4% By wt. of bitumen
[36] 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 4% By wt. of bitumen
Table 2. Summary of Tests Performed after Using Waste Plastics.
Effect On
Author MS MF MQ BSG VMA VIM VFA VTM Stiffness Density ITS RM Specific AV
% % % % % % % % % % % Gravity %
% %
[2] 6 10 4 0 10 10 - - - - - - - -
[11] 4 10 - - - - 4 4 6 4 - - - -
[13] 4 0 8 - -
[38] - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[39] 15 15 - - - - - - - - - - - -
[36] 7 8 - - - - 7.5 5 - 6.5 - - - -
[37] 18 10 - 13 - - - - - - - - 13 -
[37] 10 10 - - - - - - - 0 - - 8 -
[38] 0.5 1.1 - - 1.1 - - - 0.3 - 1.1 - - 1.1
[39] 6 8 6 - 5 - - - - 7 - - - -
[20] - 8 - - 12 - - - - 12 - - - 12
[23] 10 2.5 - - - - - - - 7 - - - -
[24] 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
[25] 4 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
[28] 5 7 - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - -
[33] 10 - - - - - - - - - 7.5 - - 15
[34] 4 4 - - - - - - - - - 4 - -
[35] 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
[36] - - - - - - - - - - 0 6 - -
Resources 2023, 12, 10 28 of 29
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.S. and R.H.L.; validation M.F.J.; Writing—original

draft, A.M.S., R.H.L. and M.F.J.; Writing—review and editing, M.J., E.J. and M.G.; Supervision, M.F.J.
and M.G., Visualization: E.J., project administration: M.J.; founding: E.J. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: SGS Grant from VSB—Technical University of Ostrava: SP2022/21.
Data Availability Statement: The authors declare that all data supporting the findings of this study
are available within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Sasidharan, M.; Torbaghan, M.E.; Burrow, M. Using Waste Plastics in Road Construction; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton,
UK, 2019.
2. Ahmadinia, E.; Zargar, M.; Karim, M.R.; Abdelaziz, M.; Shafigh, P. Using waste plastic bottles as additive for stone mastic asphalt.
Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 4844–4849. [CrossRef]
3. Xu, F.; Zhao, Y.; Li, K. Using waste plastics as asphalt modifier: A review. Materials 2021, 15, 110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Purcell, A.H.; Smith, F.L. Energy and environmental impacts of materials alternatives: An assessment of quantitative understand-
ing. Resour. Recovery Conserv. 1976, 2, 93–102. [CrossRef]
5. Kumar, S.; Panda, A.K.; Singh, R. A review on tertiary recycling of high-density polyethylene to fuel. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2011, 55, 893–910. [CrossRef]
6. Craighill, A.L.; Powell, J.C. Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1996,
17, 75–96. [CrossRef]
7. Fink, M.; Fink, J.K. Plastics recycling coupled with enhanced oil recovery. A critical survey of the concept. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis
1997, 40, 187–200. [CrossRef]
8. Garforth, A.A.; Ali, S.; Hernández-Martínez, J.; Akah, A. Feedstock recycling of polymer wastes. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci.
2004, 8, 419–425. [CrossRef]
9. Khurshid, M.B.; Qureshi, N.A.; Hussain, A.; Iqbal, M.J. Enhancement of hot mix asphalt (HMA) properties using waste polymers.
Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2019, 44, 8239–8248. [CrossRef]
10. Ben Zair, M.M.; Jakarni, F.M.; Muniandy, R.; Hassim, S. A brief review: Application of recycled polyethylene terephthalate in
asphalt pavement reinforcement. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1303. [CrossRef]
11. Abd Kader, S.A.; Jaya, R.P.; Yaacob, H.; Hainin, M.R.; Hassan, N.A.; Ibrahim, M.H.W.; Mohamed, A.A. Stability and volumetric
properties of asphalt mixture containing waste plastic. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 103, 09002. [CrossRef]
12. Chavan, M.A.J. Use of plastic waste in flexible pavements. Int. J. Appl. Innov. Eng. Manag. 2013, 2, 540–552.
13. Abdullah, M.E.; Abd Kader, S.A.; Jaya, R.P.; Yaacob, H.; Hassan, N.A.; Wan, C.N.C. Effect of waste plastic as bitumen modified in
asphalt mixture. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 103, 09018. [CrossRef]
14. Jethwani, S.; Jha, S.A.; Sangtiani, D. Utilization & Specification of Plastic Waste in Bituminous Roads. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2017, 6,
91–94.
15. Contreras, L.R.Z.; Cabanag, K.L.N.; De Alday, H.A.; Polillo, J.P.L.; Saiyari, D.M.; Manio, M.V.M. Effects of Temperature in
Mechanical Properties of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) Mixture with Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). In Proceedings
of the 2015 International Conference on Environmental Quality Concern, Control and Conservation, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 7–8
May 2015.
16. Ramamurty, U.; Jana, S.; Kawamura, Y.; Chattopadhyay, K. Hardness and plastic deformation in a bulk metallic glass. Acta Mater.
2005, 53, 705–717. [CrossRef]
17. Naskar, M.; Chaki, T.; Reddy, K. Effect of waste plastic as modifier on thermal stability and degradation kinetics of bitumen/waste
plastics blend. Thermochim. Acta 2010, 509, 128–134. [CrossRef]
18. Garcia-Morales, M.; Partal, P.; Navarro, F.; Gallegos, C. Effect of waste polymer addition on the rheology of modified bitumen.
Fuel 2006, 85, 936–943. [CrossRef]
19. Lu, X.; Isacsson, U. Rheological characterization of styrene-butadiene-styrene copolymer modified bitumens. Constr. Build. Mater.
1997, 11, 23–32. [CrossRef]
20. Awwad, M.T.; Shbeeb, L. The use of polyethylene in hot asphalt mixtures. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2007, 4, 390–396. [CrossRef]
21. Hassan, N.A.; Airey, G.D.; Yusoff, N.I.M.; Hainin, M.R.; Putrajaya, R.; Abdullah, M.E.; Aziz, M.M.A. Microstructural characterisa-
tion of dry mixed rubberised asphalt mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 82, 173–183. [CrossRef]
22. ASTM D6927-15; Standard Test Method for Marshall Stability and Flow of Asphalt Mixtures. ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
23. Akinpelu, M.; Dahunsi, B.I.; Olafusi, O.; Awogboro, O.; Quadri, A. Effect of polythene modified bitumen on properties of hot mix
asphalt. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2013, 8, 290–295.
24. Köfteci, S. Effect of HDPE based wastes on the performance of modified asphalt mixtures. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 1268–1274.
[CrossRef]
Resources 2023, 12, 10 29 of 29
25. Hinislioğlu, S.; Aras, H.N.; Bayrak, O.Ü. Effects of high density polyethylene on the permanent deformation of asphalt concrete.
Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2005, 12, 456–460.
26. Moghaddam, T.B.; Karim, M.R. Properties of SMA mixtures containing waste Polyethylene Terephthalate. World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol. 2012, 6, 612–622.
27. Jassim, H.M.; Mahmood, O.T.; Ahmed, S.A. Optimum use of plastic waste to enhance the Marshall properties and moisture
resistance of hot mix asphalt. Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 2014, 7, 18–25. [CrossRef]
28. Al-shalout, I.; Miro, O.; Stas, R. Effects of moisture, compaction temperature and gradation types on durability of asphalt.
Damascus Univ. J. 2007, 23, 7–35.
29. Ameri, M.; Nasr, D. Performance properties of devulcanized waste PET modified asphalt mixtures. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35,
99–104. [CrossRef]
30. Moghaddam, T.B.; Karim, M.R.; Soltani, M. Utilization of waste plastic bottles in asphalt mixture. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2013, 8,
264–271.
31. Modarres, A.; Hamedi, H. Developing laboratory fatigue and resilient modulus models for modified asphalt mixes with waste
plastic bottles (PET). Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 259–267. [CrossRef]
32. Modarres, A.; Hamedi, H. Effect of waste plastic bottles on the stiffness and fatigue properties of modified asphalt mixes. Mater.
Des. 2014, 61, 8–15. [CrossRef]
33. Jan, H.; Aman, M.Y.; Karim, F. Plastic Bottles Waste Utilization as Modifier for Asphalt Mixture Production. MATEC Web Conf.
2017, 103, 09007. [CrossRef]
34. Moghaddam, T.B.; Soltani, M.; Karim, M.R. Evaluation of permanent deformation characteristics of unmodified and Polyethylene
Terephthalate modified asphalt mixtures using dynamic creep test. Mater. Des. 2014, 53, 317–324. [CrossRef]
35. Ahmadinia, E.; Zargar, M.; Karim, M.R.; Abdelaziz, M.; Ahmadinia, E. Performance evaluation of utilization of waste Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) in stone mastic asphalt. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 984–989. [CrossRef]
36. Badejo, A.A.; Adekunle, A.A.; Adekoya, O.O.; Ndambuki, J.M.; Kupolati, K.W.; Bada, B.S.; Omole, D.O. Plastic waste as strength
modifiers in asphalt for a sustainable environment. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2017, 9, 173–177. [CrossRef]
37. Yeole, C.; Khanapure, V.; Joshi, V.; Shelake, A. Utilization of industrial polypropylene (PP) waste in asphalt binder for flexible
pavements. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 4, 2011–2016.
38. Mosa, A.M. Modification of hot mix asphalt using polyethylene therephthalate (pet) waste bottles. J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 18, 62–73.
39. Hassani, A.; Ganjidoust, H.; Maghanaki, A.A. Use of plastic waste (poly-ethylene terephthalate) in asphalt concrete mixture as
aggregate replacement. Waste Manag. Res. 2005, 23, 322–327. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Resources 12 00010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resources 12 00010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

resources

Resources 2023, 12, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12010010 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/resources

2.1. Methods of Mixing

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 31

Figure 2. Article Types Published.

3. Tests for PET Asphalt

3.1. Marshall Stability

Marshall Stability (kN)

Plastic Content (%) 7%

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7o

Figure 6. Marshall Stability vs. Plastic Content.

Figure Figure 6. Marshall

Figure 8. Marshall Stability vs. Plastic Content.

Marshall Stability (kN)

3.2. Marshall Flow

Plastic Content vs Marshall Flow

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 31

Plastic Content vs Marshall Flow

Figure 10. Marshall Flow vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 10. Marshall Flow vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 11. Marshall Flow vs. Plastic Content.

Plastic Content vs Marshall Quotient

Plastic Content vs Bulk Specific Gravity

2.32 2.28 0.40% 2%

Figure 14. Bulk Specific Gravity vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 16. Stiffness vs. Plastic Content.

3.6. Aggregate Impact Value

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 31

Figure 17. Aggregate Impact Value vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 31

Figure 18. Aggregate Crushing Value vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 19. Specific Gravity vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 20. Stripping Value vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 21. Water Absorption vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 22. Los Angeles Abrasion Value vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 24. Air Voids vs. Plastic Content.

3.13. ITS Test

Plastic Content vs ITS

FigureFigure 27. ITS vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 31

Figure 28. ITS vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 29. Rut Depth vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 30. Rut Depth vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 31. Resilient Modulus vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, 10 21 of 29

Figure 31. Resilient Modulus vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 32. Resilient Modulus vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 33. Resilient Modulus vs. Plastic Content.

3.16. Drain Down

Figure 33. Resilient Modulus vs. Plastic Content.

3.16. Drain Down

Figure 34. DDT vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2

Figure 35. DDT vs. Plastic Content.

Figure 36. Density vs. Plastic Content.

3.17.2. Voids in Total Mix

3.17.2. Voids in Total Mix

Figure 37. VTM vs. Plastic Content.

Resources 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 31

Figure 40. Creep vs. Plastic Content.

Table 1. Summary of Usage of Different Percentages of Plastics by Various Authors.

Author % Replacement of Plastics Optimum Value Attained At Replacement

Table 2. Summary of Tests Performed after Using Waste Plastics.