Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Waste Plastics in Asphalt Concrete A Review
Waste Plastics in Asphalt Concrete A Review
Waste Plastics in Asphalt Concrete A Review
DOI: 10.1002/pls2.10034
REVIEW
Brian P. Grady
KEYWORDS
asphalt, bitumen, plastic, recycle
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. SPE Polymers published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society of Plastics Engineers.
TABLE 1 Tests for asphalt concrete depends primarily on the temperature at which the com-
paction is done. The asphalt concrete is then left to solid-
Performance
Test Description property ify and is considered complete and ready for use when
the temperature reaches ambient temperature.
Stiffness Modulus is measured Deformation due
The composition of a hot-mix asphalt concrete
in compression or in to
deflection instantaneous (HMA) is as described above. HMAs may also
load include small amounts of additives; most commonly
Indirect A cylindrical specimen Failure due to interfacial agents to reduce viscosity via reduction in
tensile is stood on edge and instantaneous particle-particle friction as well as improving wetting
strength broken and the force load between rock and asphalt. The temperature of mixing is
(ITS) required to break is 150–180 C while compaction typically occurs 40 C less
measured than application temperature. Over the last 20 years or
Tensile ITS done after Failure due to so, warm-mix asphalt concretes (WMAs) have been
strength exposure to water instantaneous gaining significantly in market share. Mixing tempera-
ratio (TSR) and/or freeze/thaw load after tures used are lower, typically from 110–150 C. Formula-
cycles. The tensile absorption of
tions are more complicated because additives are needed
strength ratio is the water
so that the viscosity is low enough to apply the asphalt
ratio of the value
from the exposed concrete. Typical additives include waxes and interfacial
sample to the value agents. WMA also refers to foams, which involve
from the injecting water to make steam which also lowers the
measurement on the viscosity. The driving force for WMA processes are
sample prior to environmental because lower temperatures mean less
exposure emissions of organic materials to the atmosphere as well
Rutting A wheel runs over a Deformation due as less energy consumption to heat the asphalt binder
sample many times to cyclic load and aggregate. In addition, worker safety is improved
and rut depth after a
because of the lower exposure to emissions during appli-
certain number of
cation. From a plastics recycling perspective, the temper-
cycles is measured
ature at which the asphalt is mixed is critical because
Fatigue Load varies Weakening of the
this temperature will determine whether a specific plastic
sinusoidally on a ability to
sample, typically in withstand
melts during mixing.
on a beam in deformation
compression, until after
some modulus drop application of a 1.2 | Plastic waste composition
is reached, typically cyclic load
a drop of 50% The most important thermoplastic polymers are low-
density polyethylene (LDPE), linear-low-density polyeth-
ylene (LLDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE),
Regarding waste plastic that is a liquid at mixing temper- polypropylene (PP), polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride
ature; the introduction of the plastic can be done by (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide,
mixing with the binder (wet process) or the solid plastic polyurethane and acrylics (most commonly polymethyl
can be added with the aggregate (dry process). The for- methacrylate). Depending on the temperature at which
mer typically requires some process modification while asphalt is mixed and the composition of the polymer, the
the latter does not. Application has two steps, the first is polymer can become a high viscosity liquid or may
augering of the asphalt concrete onto the roadway at remain a solid. This difference is critically important in
some specified rate and the second is compaction, typi- studies of plastic waste in asphalt concrete for a variety of
cally with a steel roller, to remove trapped air from the reasons, including the importance of the polymer surface
asphalt concrete. The actual application temperature will and effect on binder viscosity. As can be concluded from
depend on the outside air temperature while, by chang- Figure 2, for an HMA about 70% of all plastic waste
ing the time between application and compaction, some would be a liquid, while for a WMA the percentage drops
control of compaction temperature is possible, although to 25%. Not surprisingly, 70% corresponds roughly to
typically compaction occurs immediately after applica- the fraction of papers that describe studies of plastics in
tion. The compaction step is extremely important for pro- asphalt concrete that involve plastics that melt during
ducing a long-lived asphalt concrete, which in turn mixing of binder with aggregate. The key failure of
4 GRADY
polymer. Another consequence of extensive swelling is above the melting temperature of each material after
that the interfacial tension is small which also favors mixing, with the results reproduced in Figure 3. Each
droplet breakup; in one study with LDPE a value of particle grew substantially, to the point where the area
10−6 N/m was found at 180 C.[17] In fact, one study spe- fraction of the particles was much larger than the volume
cifically noted that a particular LLDPE had significantly fraction consistent with the 5 wt% added polymer. The
smaller drops during mixing versus HDPE and LDPE. authors concluded that swelling of the particles was
Because of the very small change in Hansen solubility occurring. Surprisingly, LLDPE showed a much smaller
parameters with branching, the authors attributed the growth in particle size than the other materials which
smaller drops in LLDPE due to a reduced melt elasticity could not be explained by the viscosity of the polymer
of the LLDPE versus the other PEs.[18] Another study since the melt flow index (MFI) was in the middle of the
noted that higher molecular weight LDPE (e.g. higher four polymers studied. Although crystallinities were not
melt elasticity) yielded larger drop sizes than its lower given, in general HDPE has the highest crystallinity so
molecular weight counterpart.[19] This result suggests crystallinity is likely not the cause of this difference even
that one way to improve properties of recycled plastics though crystalline regions will not swell. LDPE did have
that melt in asphalt is to reduce melt elasticity. Another the fastest increase in particle size; in this study this
way is suggested by increasing the elongational flow com- LDPE also had the highest MFI.[24] Another study, with
ponent of mixing; a study showed that rotor-stator mixers storage at 180 C, showed that LDPE also had more coa-
produce much better dispersions of various polymers in lescence than HDPE in binder.[25] As expected, func-
binder versus a stirred tank and the former have much tionalization of a non-reactive polymer with groups that
larger elongational flow components.[20] react with asphalt will slow coalescence.[26]
Coalescence is one reason restricting polymer loading
in binder because large inclusions will form if coales-
cence occurs. In fact, waste plastic bags (usually a mix- 2.2 | High temperature rheology of
ture of LDPE and LLDPE) have been shown to phase binder
separate from the binder into a separate layer at HMA
mix temperatures with no agitation.[21] Plastics com- The effect on the rheological properties of the asphalt with
monly found in post-consumer waste do not have any the addition of melted polymer is to increase the viscosity,
affinity for the aggregate and are not preferentially although at very high shear rates this difference is either
adsorbed on the aggregate surface. As stated previously, small or nonexistent. For example, the addition of only
the interface between the polymer particles and the 1 wt% of recycled HDPE to an asphalt binder raised the
highly viscous asphalt is weak and is considered the complex viscosity at low frequencies by more than an
source of the generally poor properties in measurements order of magnitude, while at a frequency of 103 s−1 the
sensitive to the interface as will be described below. viscosities were identical.[27] The shear rate during mixing
A smaller starting particle size prior to melting should is estimated to be 104–105 s−1 depending on equipment[28]
lead to smaller final particle size after melting. A dissipa- while that during compaction is 5 × 102 s−1.[29] The vis-
tive energy comparison using sinusoidal strains above the cosity during application is much lower. The conclusion
linear viscoelastic limit at room temperature was used to that mixing and compaction temperatures, and hence the
compare HDPE, LDPE and PP as fillers for asphalt binder viscosities at the shear rates relevant for these processes,
+ aggregate (at binder volume fractions much larger than are not affected by the addition of melted polymer has
typical) after high temperature high speed mixing, melting been made elsewhere as well.[30] However, another study
and cooling. LDPE had the best performance which was with recycled LDPE at a very large percentage (2:1 wt ratio
attributed to the particle size of the dispersed polymer of LDPE:binder) showed a 70% increase in torque at a
phase being significantly smaller.[22] Another approach to shear rate that was presumably quite high.[31] Weight per-
reduce coalescence is to reduce the temperature. WMA centages of HDPE between 2 and 6% showed that the elas-
allows lower mixing temperature, and in fact the polymer tic response increased more than the viscous response.[32]
might emulsify along with the binder if water is used. This The addition of agents or chemical modification of the
approach was used at low LDPE concentrations (4%) and polymer to promote bonding between a waste polymer
phase separation during storage at higher temperatures and the binder have been found to increase the viscosity
was reduced although this material was not used to make as expected.[33,34] Also, as measured by storage stability
an asphalt concrete.[23] Finally, the addition of reactive (which is related to drop coalescence), a study found that
groups can yield to smaller particle sizes.[19] there was an optimal mixing time between waste polyeth-
An interesting study examined the growth of various ylene packaging bags (typically a mixture of LDPE and
PE particles in asphalt binder at a temperature well LLDPE) and asphalt binder.[35]
6 GRADY
F I G U R E 3 Growth of polymer particle diameter with time in an asphalt binder at 163 C after mixing and cooling. MDPE is medium
density polyethylene. The y-axis in all plots is the percentage of particles with the mean diameter on the y-axis. Modified from
Reference [24]
135 C is a testing temperature for a viscosity test that concentration on viscosity at low shear.[39] Increasing the
is contained in a commonly used list of guidelines for temperature from below the melting temperature to
asphalt binder.[36] This temperature is near the solid– above the melting temperature at 2–5 wt% of filler for
liquid transition of many waste plastics; because of the HDPE and PP caused a reduction in viscosity difference
adsorption of low molecular weight binder components between filled and unfilled binder at low shear rates;
into the amorphous sections of the semicrystalline poly- however, the viscosity reduction was close to LDPE over
mers as well as possibly smaller crystallites that form the same concentration range which presumably did not
after mixing, the actual melting temperature has been go through that transition.[15]
measured to be 10 C less than the melting temperature
of the pure polymer when the polymer is melted and
then encapsulated in binder.[37,38] Not surprisingly, 2.3 | Mechanical properties of concrete
HDPE added to binder evaluated at a temperature
slightly above its melting point, for example, a WMA Overall, the addition of a polymer to a binder causes an
mixing temperature, shows a very strong effect of increase in binder stiffness, and related properties such
GRADY 7
as an increase in softening point and decrease in penetra- dry mixing.[41] A study comparing waste HDPE and PP
tion, which is not surprising since at the temperature of found that the former had 10% ITS improvement and
testing (typically between 25 and 80 C) the polymer will 17% TSR improvement at 4 wt% addition with none and
be a solid in the binder. There are many papers that have 8% for the latter with 3 wt% addition, respectively.[42] In
these or similar conclusions with respect to binder, and another case, ITS improved by 15% with 6% waste
the interested reader is referred to the review papers LDPE film addition while the TSR dropped from slightly
mentioned earlier. Since the increase in binder properties over 100% to 85%.[43] In another case, ITS did not
is of interest only in an indirect sense, this section will improve at 2 wt% for both HDPE and PP and improved
focus on properties of the concrete. Indirect tensile by 20% at 5 wt% polymer content.[44]
strength (ITS), tensile strength ratio (TSR), rutting tests Usually, the addition of plastic causes a rise in ITS up
and fatigue tests are tests used more-or-less universally to a certain amount, at which point the ITS begins to
on concretes and will be described below. Because the decrease. For example, adding LDPE increased the ITS
exact specifics of the test varies from state to state in by 20% up to 1 wt% LDPE; at 3% LDPE the ITS was 10%
the United States, and from country to country and the lower than the concrete with no LDPE.[31] Another study
values of the non-polymer containing concrete depend with waste LDPE found a maximum 20% improvement
on formulation, percentages rather than absolute values in ITS at 5 wt%; at 10 wt% the ITS was lower than the
will be used for most results below. Note that all percent- concrete without any plastic.[45] The addition of polypro-
ages of plastic added, unless otherwise noted, are weight pylene caused an increase in ITS by 15% at 2 wt% con-
percentages on a binder basis. tent; at 3 wt% the value dropped.[46] A study with very
high percentages (2, 4 and 6 wt% based on the mixture
weight, which corresponds to 30, 45 and 60 wt% on a
2.3.1 | ITSTSR binder basis) using both an HDPE/LDPE mix as well as
just PP showed 10–20% drops in ITS except for two data
The addition of a small amount of polymer causes an sets.[47] A study with 2 wt% waste polyethylene showed a
increase in both ITS and TSR typically. For example, a 50% increase in ITS while only a 20% increase was found
very small particle size (less than 100 nm average size) for 6 wt% virgin LDPE.[48] Figure 4 shows the type of
HDPE showed a 15% increase in ITS and an increase behavior that is common; an increase of ITS and TSR at
in TSR from 81 to 88% with 3 wt% HDPE addition.[30] low added fractions followed by a decrease above some
The value of the ITS was five times larger with 3 wt% fraction. This figure also confirms that the amount of
PP in one study without any change in the TSR.[40] A plastic required to show a decrease varies with formula-
comparison of HDPE and LDPE with four different rock tion and processing specifics.[49] Overall, TSR tends to
types consistently showed higher TSR for HDPE than qualitatively mirror the trends in ITS. These results are
LDPE at 9 wt% plastic with wet mixing outperforming consistent with the fact that the larger the inclusion, the
F I G U R E 4 Change in indirect tensile strength (ITS) (solid lines) and tensile strength ratio (dashed lines) with waste plastic
incorporation. Dark lines are dry mixed while light lines are wet mixed. Adapted from Reference [49]
8 GRADY
2.3.2 | Rutting
Interfacial weakness between the polymer and the binder Dry mixing, that is, mixing of the polymer with the aggre-
will manifest itself in temperature variations that gate, versus wet mixing, that is, mixing with the binder
10 GRADY
interaction between these non-reactive polymers and the Surprisingly, very little has been done on chemically
rubber has been found. modifying the surface of a solid plastic to enhance com-
In one unique idea, layering polyethylene sheets patibility with asphalt, unlike the case of melts where
made from waste polymer between layers of asphalt will chemical modification has been studied. Alternatively, as
reduce crack propagation through the concrete.[113] noted in the manuscript, only one group has tried to
replace enough asphalt binder with a low viscosity degra-
dation product to allow for WMA conditions to be used;
5 | O V E R A LL SU M M A R Y one would expect that this might be a way to both replace
asphalt binder as noted above as well as improve the
Addition of plastic, whether they melt or not, increase environmental footprint of the laying of concrete in road
properties related to stiffness. For plastics that melt, construction.
oftentimes the amount of asphalt can be reduced which
causes a higher solids content at use temperature. Tensile DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
strengths also typically increase, but in most cases, there No data are available as this is a review article
is an optimal amount of plastic to add which is on the
order of 10% of the binder content or 1% of the total mix. ORCID
The fact that an optimal amount exists is due to poor Brian P. Grady https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4975-8029
interfacial adhesion between the plastic and the binder.
The same reason accounts for the sometimes-reduced RE FER EN CES
performance of fatigue tests since those tests are most [1] R. Geyer, J. R. Jambeck, K. L. Law, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3,
sensitive to interfacial adhesion. e1700782.
[2] D. Y. Kwok, A. W. Neumann, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 1999,
81, 167.
[3] E. Chibowski, R. Perea-Carpio, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.
6 | FUTURE POSSIBLE AREAS OF
2002, 98, 245.
INTEREST [4] M. S. Kamal, I. A. Hussien, A. S. Sultan, M. Han, J. Chem.
2013, 2013, 801570.
Most asphalt comes from the bottoms of a distillation col- [5] A. Alghunaim, S. Kirdponpattara, B. M. Z. Newby, Powder
umn that is used to refine crude oil and produce fuel. The Technol. 2016, 287, 201.
economics of this operation is in the value of fuel pro- [6] H. Y. Erbil, Surf. Sci. Rep. 2014, 69, 325.
duced; the asphalt is entirely an afterthought. If the [7] T. T. Chau, Miner. Eng. 2009, 22, 213.
world's consumption of oil decreases, which is expected [8] L. Brasileiro, F. Moreno-Navarro, R. Tauste-Martinez, J.
Matos, M. D. Rubio-Gamez, Sustainability 2019, 11, 646.
due to the emergence of electric cars as well as environ-
[9] Z. F. Zhao, F. P. Xiao, S. Amirkhanian, Waste Manage. 2020,
mental pressures on oil, asphalt available for road con- 108, 78.
struction will decrease. Although a few papers in this [10] A. Jamshidi, G. White, Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 226.
review have examined the degradation of waste plastics [11] M. T. Rahman, A. Mohajerani, F. Giustozzi, Materials 2020,
into liquids, the molecular weight of those components are 13, 1495.
much lower than the molecular weights that would be use- [12] M. R. Pouranian, M. Shishehbor, Environments 2019, 6, 73.
ful as asphalt replacements, i.e. degradation is too com- [13] K. K. Syrmanova, E. T. Botashev, D. B. Tleuov, M. T.
Suleimenova, A. A. Eshankulov, Z. B. Kaldybekova, Orient.
plete. One would expect to see more work in the future
J. Chem. 2017, 33, 470.
regarding waste polymer degradation products as asphalt
[14] S. Wu, L. Montalvo, J. Cleaner Prod. 2021, 280, 124355.
replacements. In fact, this author believes that to increase [15] D. Casey, C. McNally, A. Gibney, M. D. Gilchrist, Resour.
the amount of waste plastic to more than 1% (on a con- Conserv. Recycling 2008, 52, 1167.
crete basis) will likely require some sort of molecular [16] H. A. Stone, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1994, 26, 65.
weight reduction of waste plastic. [17] C. Roman, M. Garcia-Morales, Mater. Des. 2016, 107, 353.
Another area that has clearly been understudied is [18] O. Gonzalez, M. E. Munoz, A. Santamaria, Rheol. Acta 2006,
warm mix asphalts. In fact, cases where the plastic does 45, 603.
[19] G. Polacco, S. Berlincioni, D. Biondi, J. Stastna, L. Zanzotto,
not melt has been less studied than the case where the
Eur. Polym. J. 2005, 41, 2831.
plastic does melt, by a factor of 2–3, which makes sense [20] A. Perez-Lepe, F. J. Martinez-Boza, C. Gallegos, O. Gonzalez,
currently since HMAs are much more common currently M. E. Munoz, A. Santamaria, Fuel 2003, 82, 1339.
than WMAs. However, the latter is gaining in market [21] M. Nouali, E. Ghorbel, Z. Derriche, Constr. Build. Mater.
share due to environmental concerns, so one would 2020, 239, 117872.
expect more studies on cases where the plastic is solid. [22] C. Roman, M. A. Delgado, M. Garcia-Morales, Mater. De Con-
14 GRADY
struccion 2020, 70, e217. [50] M. Attaelmanan, C. P. Feng, A. H. Al, Constr. Build. Mater.
[23] A. A. Cuadri, C. Roman, M. Garcia-Morales, F. Guisado, E. 2011, 25, 2764.
Moreno, P. Partal, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 156, 197. [51] J. P. Giri, M. Panda, U. C. Sahoo, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30,
[24] M. Liang, X. Xin, W. Y. Fan, H. Wang, H. G. Jiang, J. Z. 04018184.
Zhang, Z. Y. Yao, Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 203, 608. [52] A. Qadir, Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 12, 304.
[25] A. Perez-Lepe, F. J. Martinez-Boza, C. Gallegos, J. Appl. [53] A. M. Othman, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2010, 22, 1012.
Polym. Sci. 2007, 103, 1166. [54] M. N. Amin, M. I. Khan, M. U. Saleem, Sustainability 2016,
[26] A. Perez-Lepe, F. J. Martinez-Boza, P. Attane, C. Gallegos, 8, 949.
J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006, 100, 260. [55] L. L. Brasileiro, F. Moreno-Navarro, R. T. Martinez, M. del
[27] A. A. Yousefi, A. Ait-Kadi, C. Roy, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2000, Sol-Sanchez, J. M. E. Matos, M. D. Rubio-Gamez, Constr.
12, 113. Build. Mater. 2019, 208, 269.
[28] R. C. West, D. E. Watson, P. A. Turner, J. R. Casola, in [56] Y. M. Lin, C. C. Hu, S. Adhikari, C. H. Wu, M. Yu, Appl. Sci.
NCHRP Report 648: Mixing and Compaction Tempera- 2019, 9, 1242.
tures of Asphalt Binders in Hot-Mix Asphalt (Ed: T. R. [57] N. Bala, I. Kamaruddin, M. Napiah, J. Teknol. 2017, 79, 69.
Board), National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC [58] M. Liang, S. S. Ren, C. J. Sun, J. Z. Zhang, H. G. Jiang, Z. Y.
2010. Yao, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 1943.
[29] Y. Yildirim, T. W. Kennedy, Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci. [59] J. Z. Zhang, Z. Y. Yao, T. H. Yu, S. J. Liu, H. G. Jiang, Road
2003, 27, 375. Mater. Pavement Des. 2019, 20, 1413.
[30] A. H. Abed, H. U. Bahia, Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 236, [60] M. Liang, C. J. Sun, Z. Y. Yao, H. G. Jiang, J. Z. Zhang, S. S.
117604. Ren, Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 116966.
[31] J. E. Martin-Alfonso, A. A. Cuadri, J. Torres, M. E. Hidalgo, [61] S. J. Liu, S. B. Zhou, A. H. Peng, W. A. Xuan, W. Li, J. Appl.
P. Partal, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2019, 20, S265. Polym. Sci. 2019, 136, 48194.
[32] Q. S. Ye, S. N. Amirkhanian, J. Li, Z. X. Chen, J. Test. Eval. [62] Retrieved 6/22/2020 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
2020, 48, 1893. pavement/materials/pubs/hif11038/hif11038.pdf.
[33] R. K. Padhan, A. Sreeram, A. Gupta, Road Mater. Pavement [63] M. D. I. Domingos, A. L. Faxina, L. L. B. Bernucci, Road
Des. 2020, 21, 1170. Mater. Pavement Des. 2020, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/
[34] P. Ahmedzade, A. Fainleib, T. Gunay, O. Grygoryeva, Constr. 14680629.2020.1732446.
Build. Mater. 2014, 69, 1. [64] M. G. Delgado-Jojoa, J. A. Sanchez-Gilede, H. A. Rondon-
[35] C. Q. Fang, P. Liu, R. E. Yu, X. L. Liu, Constr. Build. Mater. Quintana, W. D. Fernandez-Gomez, F. A. Reyes-Lizcano,
2014, 54, 320. Ingenieria E Investigacion 2018, 38, 18.
[36] Harrigan, E. T.; Leahy, R. B.; Youtcheff, J. S., SHRP-A-379: [65] S. Fernandes, L. Costa, H. Silva, J. Oliveira, Ciencia
The SUPERPAVE Mix Design System Manual of Specifica- Tecnologia Dos Materiais 2017, 29, e204.
tions, Test Methods and Practices, Strategic Highway [66] F. M. Nejad, M. Gholami, K. Naderi, M. Rahi, Mater. Struct.
Research Program (1994) 2015, 48, 3295.
[37] C. Fuentes-Auden, J. A. Sandoval, A. Jerez, F. J. Navarro, [67] M. D. I. Domingos, A. L. Faxina, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2015,
F. J. Martinez-Boza, P. Partal, C. Gallegos, Polym. Test. 2008, 16, 771.
27, 1005. [68] C. Brovelli, M. Crispino, J. Pais, P. Pereira, Constr. Build.
[38] A. H. Fawcett, T. McNally, Polymer 2000, 41, 5315. Mater. 2015, 77, 117.
[39] E. S. Okhotnikova, I. N. Frolov, Y. M. Ganeeva, A. A. Firsin, [69] G. White, Sustainability 2020, 12, 8594.
T. N. Yusupova, Pet. Sci. Technol. 2019, 37, 1136. [70] D. C. Ma, D. J. Zhao, J. Z. Zhao, S. J. Du, J. Y. Pang, W.
[40] A. I. Al-Hadidy, Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 191, 187. Wang, C. X. Fan, Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 113, 596.
[41] S. Haider, I. Hafeez, Jamal, R. Ullah, Constr. Build. Mater. [71] M. R. M. Hasan, B. Colbert, Z. P. You, A. Jamshidi, P. A.
2020, 235, 117496. Heiden, M. O. Hamzah, Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 110, 79.
[42] A. M. Azam, S. M. El-Badawy, R. M. Alabasse, Innovative [72] V. S. Punith, A. Veeraragavan, J. Test. Eval. 2010, 38, 541.
Infrastructure Solutions 2019, 4, 43. [73] J. Z. Zhang, H. Y. Li, P. Liu, M. Liang, H. G. Jiang, Z. Y. Yao,
[43] A. Almeida, S. Capitao, R. Bandeira, M. Fonseca, L. Picado- G. Airey, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020129.
Santos, Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117253. [74] M. Panda, M. Mazumdar, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2002, 14, 527.
[44] A. Diab, M. Enieb, D. Singh, Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, [75] L. P. P. Abreu, J. R. M. Oliveira, H. Silva, P. V. Fonseca, Con-
196, 54. str. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 230.
[45] V. S. Punith, A. Veeraragavan, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007, [76] V. S. Punith, S. Raju, K. K. Kumar, S. Bose, A. Veeraragavan,
19, 500. J. Test. Eval. 2011, 39, 191.
[46] H. S. Otuoze, S. P. Ejeh, Y. D. Amartey, M. Joel, A. A. [77] I. Abo El-Naga, M. Ragab, Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 219, 81.
Shuaibu, K. O. Yusuf, J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 12, 35. [78] M. Ameri, R. Mohammadi, M. Mousavinezhad, A. Ameri, H.
[47] S. Angelone, M. C. Casaux, M. Borghi, F. O. Martinez, Mater. Shaker, A. Fasihpour, Frattura Ed Integrita Strutturale 2020,
Struct. 2016, 49, 1655. 14(53), 177.
[48] K. D. Jeong, S. J. Lee, K. W. Kim, Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, [79] M. Ameri, D. Nasr, Pet. Sci. Technol. 2016, 34, 1424.
25, 1890. [80] M. A. H. Abdel-Goad, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006, 101, 1501.
[49] A. V. Tiwari, Y. R. M. Rao, Rom. J. Transp. Infrastruct. 2018, [81] A. Modarres, H. Hamedi, Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 259.
7, 93. [82] M. Ameri, D. Nasr, Pet. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35, 99.
GRADY 15
[83] M. Ameri, H. Shaker, B. Badarloo, F. Jafari, Tehnicki Vjesnik- [101] Z. Dehghan, A. Modarres, Constr. Build. Mater. 2017,
Technical Gazette 2020, 27, 1186. 139, 384.
[84] D. S. Mabui, M. W. Tjaronge, S. A. Adisasmita, M. Pasra, Int. [102] H. Taherkhani, Civ. Eng. Infrastruct. J. 2016, 49, 235.
J. Geomate 2020, 18, 118. [103] D. Movilla-Quesada, A. C. Raposeiras, L. T. Silva-Klein, P.
[85] H. Taherkhani, M. R. Arshadi, Road Mater. Pavement Des. Lastra-Gonzalez, D. Castro-Fresno, Waste Manage. 2019,
2019, 20, 381. 87, 751.
[86] K. Li, M. Huang, H. B. Zhong, B. L. Li, Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, [104] M. A. Dalhat, H. I. A. Wahhab, K. Al-Adham, J. Mater. Civ.
1850. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019134.
[87] H. Ziari, E. Nasiri, A. Amini, O. Ferdosian, Constr. Build. [105] Z. Leng, R. K. Padhan, A. Sreeram, J. Cleaner Prod. 2018,
Mater. 2019, 203, 188. 180, 682.
[88] N. M. Asmael, Cogent Eng. 2019, 6, 1678555. [106] R. K. Padhan, C. Mohanta, A. Sreeram, A. Gupta, Int.
[89] M. J. Kim, S. Kim, D. Y. Yoo, H. O. Shin, Constr. Build. Mater. J. Pavement Eng. 2020, 21, 1083.
2018, 178, 233. [107] M. Guru, M. K. Cubuk, D. Arslan, S. A. Farzanian, I. Bilici,
[90] J. Yin, W. Wu, Waste Manage. 2018, 78, 948. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 279, 302.
[91] S. J. Lee, J. P. Rust, H. Hamouda, Y. R. Kim, R. H. Borden, [108] R. K. Padhan, A. A. Gupta, Constr. Build. Mater. 2018,
Text. Res. J. 2005, 75, 123. 158, 337.
[92] A. Ameli, J. Maher, A. Mosavi, N. Nabipour, R. Babagoli, N. [109] H. A. A. Gibreil, C. P. Feng, Constr. Build. Mater. 2017,
Norouzi, Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 118932. 142, 101.
[93] M. Arabani, M. Y. Taleghani, Pet. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35, 1621. [110] F. Zhang, C. B. Hu, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2016, 124, 729.
[94] R. Maharaj, C. Maharaj, Prog. Rubber Plast. Recycling [111] S. Hassanpour-Kasanagh, P. Ahmedzade, A. M. Fainleib, A.
Technol. 2015, 31, 173. Behnood, Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 117047.
[95] H. Ziari, A. G. Kaliji, R. Babagoli, Pet. Sci. Technol. 2016, [112] D. Nasr, A. H. Pakshir, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2019,
34, 819. 20, 773.
[96] E. Ahmadinia, M. Zargar, M. R. Karim, M. Abdelaziz, E. [113] M. Sol-Sanchez, R. Meca-Piernas, F. Moreno-Navarro, M. C.
Ahmadinia, Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 984. Rubio-Gamez, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 04015165.
[97] A. M. Mosa, I. T. Jawad, L. A. Salem, Int. J. Eng. 2018, 31,
1514.
[98] J. Silva, J. K. G. Rodrigues, M. W. de Carvalho, L. Lucena,
E. H. Cavalcante, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2018, 19, 1001.
[99] T. B. Moghaddam, M. R. Karim, T. Syammaun, Constr. Build. How to cite this article: Grady BP. Waste plastics
Mater. 2012, 34, 236. in asphalt concrete: A review. SPE Polymers. 2021;
[100] M. Soltani, T. B. Moghaddam, M. R. Karim, H. Baaj, Eng. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/pls2.10034
Fail. Anal. 2015, 58, 238.