AGPT04E-22 Guide To Pavement Technology Part 4E Recycled Materials

© Austroads Ltd 2022 | This material is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads
Sydney 2022
Recycled Materials
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4E:
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4E: Recycled Materials
Publisher
Edition 2.0 prepared by: Brody Clark, Matthew Johnson, Jeremy Wu, Phil
Herrington, Brad Parker, and Zac Clift Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 570 George Street
Edition 2.0 project manager: Grant Bosma and Mike Pickering Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
Abstract
austroads@austroads.com.au
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4E: Recycled Materials presents the www.austroads.com.au
latest information about products manufactured from recycling various waste
materials accepted through registered recycling and reprocessing facilities.
This includes the specification, manufacture and application of products About Austroads
derived from the recovery of construction and demolition waste (C&D waste) Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian
from the building industry; reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) from road transport and traffic agencies.
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation activities; recycled rubber from
end-of-life tyres (crumb rubber); industrial slag from manufacturing Austroads’ purpose is to support our member
processes; fly ash from power generation; recycled plastics; and recycled organisations to deliver an improved Australasian
glass. road transport network. To succeed in this task, we
undertake leading-edge road and transport
Recycled materials are continually finding broader application within industry, research which underpins our input to policy
and it is important that these materials are scrutinised prior to utilisation. An development and published guidance on the
assessment tool has been developed to provide administrative agencies with design, construction and management of the road
a framework to rigorously scrutinise emerging materials for potential impacts network and its associated infrastructure.
to economic, environmental, societal and performance outcomes. This
framework improves confidence in the uptake of recyclables through Austroads provides a collective approach that
mitigation of risk and uncertainty to deliver higher quality assets. delivers value for money, encourages shared
knowledge and drives consistency for road users.
Keywords Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of
Crumb rubber, fly ash, reclaimed asphalt pavement, recycled crushed senior executive representatives from each of its
concrete, recycled glass, recycled plastic, recycled waste, slag. eleven member organisations:
• Transport for NSW

Edition 2.0 published July 2022
• Department of Transport Victoria
Edition 1.0 published July 2009
• Queensland Department of Transport and
Major technical and structure amendments to entire Guide Main Roads
• Main Roads Western Australia
ISBN 978-1-922700-47-6 • Department for Infrastructure and Transport
South Australia
Austroads Project No. APT6249
Pages 87
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
Austroads Publication No. AGPT04E-22
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Logistics Northern Territory
© Austroads Ltd 2022 • Transport Canberra and City Services
Directorate, Australian Capital Territory
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without • Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
the prior written permission of Austroads. Regional Development, Communications and
the Arts
• Australian Local Government Association
• Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.
Acknowledgements
Second Edition prepared by Brody Clark, Matthew Johnson, Jeremy Wu, Phill Herrington, Brad Parker, Zac Clift and project
managed by Grant Bosma (NZTA) and Mike Pickering (TMR). Stakeholder input provided at project workshops attended by TMR,
NZTA, DoT, TfNSW, DIT, NSW EPA, SA EPA, MFE, Kainga Ora, Town of Gawler Council, City of Adelaide, Upper Hutt City
Council, Civil Contractors NZ, Green Vision Recycling, WMRR, Auckland Transport, AfPA, Alex Fraser, Downer, Boral, Bitumen
Solutions, Colas, Fulton Hogan, Hanson, AustStab, Bingo Industries.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide only. Austroads has taken care to ensure that this publication is correct at
the time of publication. Austroads does not make any representations or warrant that the Guide is free from error, is current, or,
where used, will ensure compliance with any legislative, regulatory or general law requirements. Austroads expressly disclaims all
and any guarantees, undertakings and warranties, expressed or implied, and is not liable, including for negligence, for any loss
(incidental or consequential), injury, damage or any other consequences arising directly or indirectly from the use of this Guide.
Where third party information is contained in this Guide, it is included with the consent of the third party and in good faith. It does
not necessarily reflect the considered views of Austroads Readers should rely on their own skill, care and judgement to apply the
information contained in this Guide and seek professional advice regarding their particular issues.
Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Insitu Recycling .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Guide to Pavement Technology ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Policy Environment ................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Changes to International Waste Policies .................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Domestic Changes in Waste and Recycling Legislation and Policy: Australia .......................... 4
1.3.3 Domestic Changes in Waste and Recycling Legislation and Policy: Aotearoa New
Zealand ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.4 Responses in Transport and Infrastructure: Australia ................................................................ 7
1.3.5 Responses in Transport and Infrastructure: Aotearoa New Zealand ......................................... 8
2. Aspects of Recycling ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Circular Economy ..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Composition of Waste ............................................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Recycled Waste Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Waste Hierarchy for Pavement Materials ............................................................................................... 12
2.5 Contaminants ......................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Framework for Determining Recycled Materials Suitability ............................................................ 15

3.1 Framework Description .......................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Initial Assessment Framework ............................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Engineering Performance Framework.................................................................................................... 19
3.4 Environmental Performance Framework ................................................................................................ 20
3.5 Health & Safety Performance Framework .............................................................................................. 24
3.6 Project Performance Framework ............................................................................................................ 26
4. Recycled Crushed Glass ..................................................................................................................... 28

4.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Engineering Risk and Performance........................................................................................................ 29
4.3 Health, Safety and Environmental Risks ................................................................................................ 30
4.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 31
5. Recycled Plastic Waste ....................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 32
5.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 37
6. Industrial Slag ....................................................................................................................................... 38

6.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 38
6.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 42
7. Recycled Tyres ..................................................................................................................................... 44

7.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 44
7.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 49
8. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement ............................................................................................................. 50

8.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 50
Austroads 2022 | page i


8.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 55
9. Coal Combustion Products ................................................................................................................. 56

9.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 56
9.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 60
10. Recycled Crushed Concrete and Masonry ........................................................................................ 61

10.1 General ................................................................................................................................................... 61
10.4 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 64
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 65
Protocol for assessing RM in asphalt mix and sprayed seal road surfacings .................73
Tables
Table 2.1: Typical Waste Stream Composition ........................................................................................ 11
Table 2.2: 2020 Waste Generation Estimates by Materials Source ........................................................12

Table 4.1: Available Transport Agency Specifications for the Use of RCG in Unbound
Granular Material .................................................................................................................... 29
Table 4.2: Available Transport Agency Specifications for the Use of RCG in Asphalt ............................30
Table 5.1: Plastic Classifications, Properties and Original Use ............................................................... 33
Table 5.2: Proposed Recycled Plastic Assessable Criteria ..................................................................... 34
Table 6.1: Production and use of industrial slag over time ...................................................................... 38
Table 6.2: Industrial Slag Types .............................................................................................................. 39
Table 6.3: Physical Properties of Iron and Steel Slags ............................................................................ 40
Table 6.4: Specifications and Guidelines for the Use of Slags across Australia and New
Zealand Transport Agencies in Pavement and Earthworks Applications ...............................40
Table 7.1: Composition and Tonnage for End-of-Life Tyres in Australia, 2018–19 .................................44
Table 7.2: Crumb Rubber Specification and Guidelines by Transport Agency and
Organisation ............................................................................................................................ 46
Table 7.3: CRM Asphalt Construction Cost Comparison ......................................................................... 49
Table 8.1: Current Permissible RAP Content Limits in Asphalt for New Zealand and
Australian Transport Agencies ................................................................................................ 52
Table 10.1: Unbound and Bound RCC and RCB Specifications ............................................................... 62
Figures
Figure 1.1: New Zealand Waste Strategy: Legislative Framework ............................................................. 6
Figure 2.1: Recyclable Supply Chain (WSP 2021) ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.2: Circular Economy Diagram (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018) ...........................................10
Figure 2.3: Waste Hierarchy for Pavement Materials ............................................................................... 13
Figure 2.4: Diagram of Interactions Between Water Mechanisms and Road Pavement
Cross-Section.......................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.1: Assessment Framework Overview ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.2: Chart A – Initial Assessment Framework for Recycled Materials ...........................................17
Figure 3.3: Chart B – Engineering Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled
Materials .................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.4: Chart C – Environmental Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled
Materials .................................................................................................................................. 20
Austroads 2022 | page ii

Figure 3.5: Chart D – Health and Safety Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled
Materials .................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 3.6: Chart E – Project Management Performance Assessment Framework for
Recycled Materials .................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.1: Life Cycle Stages of Recycled Glass Materials ...................................................................... 28
Figure 5.1: Lifecycle Stages of Recycled Plastic Waste in Roading Applications ....................................32
Figure 6.1: Various Industrial Slag Materials ............................................................................................ 38
Figure 7.1: Recycling Stages for End-of-Life Tyre and Crumb Rubber Production for Roads .................44
Figure 7.2: City of Gold Coast Gap-Graded Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt Trial Location ..................47
Figure 7.3: Example of Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt in Place, City of Gold Coast ............................47
Figure 8.1: Recycling Stages for Existing Pavement to Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement ...........................50
Figure 8.2: AC14 Mix with RAP (Excluding Binder) .................................................................................. 51
Figure 9.1: Material Stages of Fly Ash Production .................................................................................... 56
Figure 9.2: Fly Ash Generation and Collection in a Pulverised Coal-Fired Power Station .......................57
Figure 9.3: Slag Cement, Class C Fly Ash and Class F Fly Ash .............................................................. 57
Figure 9.4: Various Sizes of Furnace Bottom Ash .................................................................................... 58
Figure 10.1: Recycling Stages for Concrete and Masonry Products to Aggregate Substitutes .................61
Austroads 2022 | page iii

Summary
Australian and New Zealand governments, transport agencies, and industries have identified the need to
reduce waste going to landfill and improve the use of recycled materials to achieve more sustainable
development and improve communities’ outcomes.
National and local transport agencies, together with the road construction industry, have a long history of
incorporating recycled materials into road infrastructure. Concrete and masonry, fly ash, reclaimed asphalt,
and rubber have been successfully incorporated in road infrastructure, alongside and complementary to
virgin materials. Some road agencies are now seeking to increase their use of recyclable materials such as
glass, various types of plastics, and used tyres as a result of the recent export ban.
There is wide concern around the misuse of recycled materials in road construction, and it is generally
agreed that roads should not be viewed as alternative avenues for waste disposal. To determine a material’s
suitability for reuse as a pavement ingredient, research and a holistic assessment are needed to confirm that
value will be added and existing performance is maintained or enhanced. A life cycle assessment should
consider potential environmental and health impacts during asset construction, operation and
decommissioning.
Products that include recycled materials should have equivalent or better performance characteristics
compared with conventional materials and should pose no unacceptable risk to the environment, safety, or
human health. Importantly, given that large quantities of road construction materials are already reused over
time, road surfaces and pavements which include recycled materials should also be reusable/'re-recyclable'
wherever possible. Increasing the use of recycled materials in road pavement construction has the potential
to significantly reduce quantities of materials sent to landfill, although further work is still needed to capitalise
on many of these new opportunities. It is critical that care is taken to ensure that a due diligence approach is
followed when trialling new materials.
All materials, whether new or recycled, must deliver required levels of serviceability, functionality, durability
and resilience, and must meet long-term transport outcomes without premature degradation and the need for
costly remediation. Road pavements that include materials of inappropriate quality or which deliver poor
levels of performance can lead to premature failures, in turn increasing lifecycle costs and potentially
offsetting the environmental benefits of using recycled materials. To avoid these risks, materials need to be
of reliably consistent and appropriate quality. Further work is needed to ensure potential new and emerging
materials meet serviceability, functionality, durability, and resilience performance requirements, including
research to develop appropriate standards and specifications.
This Guide explores the current use of reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP), industrial slag, recycled crushed
glass (RCG), construction and demolition (C&D) waste, concrete and masonry, fly ash, plastics and crumb
rubber in pavement construction. The guidance provided highlights performance impacts, national and
international standards and specifications, potential environmental and health and safety risks, and
economic and societal impacts.
It is evident that improved understanding of recycled materials and advancement in technology/process-

control to produce better quality (or higher consistency) recycled materials will result in more opportunities to
incorporate recycled materials in pavement construction. As materials evolve and are increasingly
considered for use in roads, industry bodies need the ability to assess and use new emerging recycled
materials and technologies. A holistic framework has been developed to scrutinise the use of recycled
materials in the context of suitable applications, constraints, and their impact on economics, performance,
sustainability, and society. An improved understanding of potential risks and benefits will enable road and
transport jurisdictions, in consultation with suitably qualified professional (SQPs), to improve the uptake of
recycled materials for use in pavement construction.
Austroads 2022 | page 1

1. Introduction
1.1 Scope
This Guide was developed concurrently with the Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 4E: Recycled Materials (Austroads 2021b), and should be read in conjunction with this
document.
Part 4E of the Guide to Pavement Technology presents:

• The latest information on recycled materials as pertains to products manufactured from recycling various
wastes accepted through registered recycling and reprocessing facilities.
• A holistic assessment framework, which can be used to assess the potential to use recycled materials in
road pavements.
• An assessment protocol for the consideration of recycled materials used in asphalt and sprayed seal
applications.
A high-level overview is presented for the general topic of recycled materials in pavements, including
potential risks, economics, and performance aspects with respect to particular recycled materials. A whole-
of-life protocol has been developed to aid stakeholders in evaluating the suitability of recycled waste
materials for various roading applications, supported by a high-level framework in the following key
disciplines:
• Initial general assessment of materials
• Engineering performance assessment
• Environmental performance assessment
• Health and safety performance assessment
• Project performance assessment.
This Guide considers the specification, manufacture and application of recycled materials into products
commonly used, or under development for use, in road pavement construction. The most commonly recycled
waste streams across Australia and New Zealand with potential or established pavement construction
applications have been grouped under the following waste streams:
• Glass: Includes all clear and coloured glass generated from packaging, building materials and
household objects.
• Plastics: Plastics are classified under a set of seven standard Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI)
identification codes, encompassing 'hard' plastics, 'soft' plastics, and polystyrene, among others.
• Industrial Slag: A by-product material generated from iron and steel manufacturing.
• Tyres: Includes passenger vehicle tyres, heavy-duty mining equipment, and truck tyres used throughout
industrial operations.
• Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP): Produced by milling old asphalt surfaces/pavements.
• Coal Combustion Products (CCPs): A conglomerate material that contains fly ash and bottom ash
produced as a by-product of thermal power plant coal combustion processes.
• Concrete and Masonry Materials: Materials generally used in construction works, typically laid in and
bound together by mortar. Includes asphalt, bricks, concrete, and sheeting.
These recycled materials may be processed into products of their own or incorporated in part into traditional
products such as unbound granular materials, asphalt and bituminous binders.

While this Guide discusses using recycled materials, including industrial slags as a by-product of metal
production, it does not include guidance about other products derived from metal, timber or oil recycling. The
assessment framework may; however, be used to assess the potential use of these materials in roads.
1.1.1 Insitu Recycling
Insitu recycling of existing pavements is a form of pavement recycling; however, as it is addressed by other
parts of the Guide to Pavement Technology, it is not specifically addressed in this Part. For information on
insitu recycling of pavements, reference should be made to the following parts of the Guide to Pavement
Technology:
• Part 4B: Asphalt
• Part 4D: Stabilised Materials
• Part 4L: Stabilising Binders
• Part 8: Pavement Construction
• Part 9: Pavement Work Practices.
1.2 Guide to Pavement Technology
This Part should be read in conjunction with the other parts of the Guide to Pavement Technology:
• Part 1: Introduction to Pavement Technology

• Part 2: Pavement Structural Design
• Part 3: Pavement Surfacings
• Part 4: Pavement Materials
– Part 4A: Granular Base and Subbase Materials
– Part 4B: Asphalt
– Part 4C: Materials for Concrete Road Pavements
– Part 4D: Stabilised Materials
– Part 4F: Bituminous Binders
– Part 4G: Geotextiles and Geogrids
– Part 4H: Test Methods
– Part 4I: Earthworks Materials
– Part 4J: Aggregates/Source Rock
– Part 4K: Seals
– Part 4L: Stabilising Binders
• Part 5: Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Design
• Part 6: Unsealed Pavements
• Part 7: Pavement Maintenance
• Part 8: Pavement Construction and Construction Assurance
• Part 9: Pavement Work Practices
• Part 10: Subsurface Drainage.

1.3 Policy Environment
Transport and infrastructure ministers have been requested to respond to significant shifts in domestic and
international waste policy changes within their portfolios. Agencies across all government levels have since
increasingly updated their policies and guidance documents for the use and procurement of recycled
materials to respond to these challenges.
1.3.1 Changes to International Waste Policies
Impacts of Changes to China’s Waste Import Policy
In 2002, the Chinese government legislated a circular economy as a national endeavour. Since then, China
has introduced numerous policies to enhance this endeavour’s efficacy.
In 2013, China implemented Operation Green Fence to enforce existing regulations limiting the amount of
non-recyclable material it could import (Powell, 2013). In 2017, China announced Operation National Sword,
which progressively sought to tighten waste-import regulation compliance and reduce smuggling, effectively
banning waste imports. (EPA NSW, 2018).
Following China’s National Sword announcement, Australian waste exporters noted dramatic increases in
import fees and freight costs while material prices decreased dramatically due to market oversupply. As a
result, significant amounts of waste were redirected to existing and new recycling facilities across South East
Asia (Tran et al., 2021).
Over 2018 and 2019, in response to dramatically increased recyclable imports, the major recyclable and
waste destinations of Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and India announced bans, restrictions, and increased
tax increases on imported recyclables. (Pickin and Donovan, 2020).
1.3.2 Domestic Changes in Waste and Recycling Legislation and Policy: Australia
Australia’s National Waste Action Plan
Australia’s 2018 National Waste Policy identified avoidance of waste, improved resource recovery, and
increased use of recycled material and products as critical to Australia’s shift toward a circular economy
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2018).
The Australian 2019 National Waste Policy Action Plan was developed to present targets and actions for
implementing the Australia's National Waste Policy. It sets national targets to ban the export of waste, to
reach 80% average resource recovery rate from all waste streams by 2030, and to significantly increase
government and industry use of recycled content (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019).
Australia's National Waste Action Plan outlines actions to:

• Prioritise development of national standards and specifications or adopt appropriate international
standards and specifications for using recycled content in a broad range of capital works projects,
prioritising road and rail.
• Determine use of recycled content in road construction to establish a baseline and allow reporting on
actions to significantly increase recycled content use.
A number of actions have been undertaken as a result of the Plan, including establishing the Australian
Recycling Modernisation Fund and releasing the Australian Recycling Investment Plan (Australian
Government, 2020).

Council of Australian Governments Waste Export Ban
In August 2019, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed that Australia should establish a
timeline to ban export of waste plastic, paper, glass, and tyres (Department of Agriculture, Water and the
Environment, 2019). This response strategy was ratified at the March 2020 COAG meeting of Australian,
State and Territory governments, and by the Australian Local Government Association (as members of the
former COAG) (Australian Government, n.d.).
A phased approach is being implemented to regulate the export of waste materials and involves banning
exports of:
• Waste glass by January 2021
• Mixed waste plastics by July 2021
• Whole tyres by December 2021
• Plastics by July 2022.
Rules for each type of waste material will come into effect in stages, starting in 2021 and fully implemented
by July 2024. Commitments from all Australian governments will support the 2019 National Waste Policy
Action Plan and ensure a nationally coordinated response.
Australian Federal Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020
The Recycling Waste Reduction Bill was introduced in 2020 to effectively prohibit the export of specific raw
materials collected for recycling. It established a framework to:

• Regulate the export of waste materials, in line with the agreement to ban the export of waste plastic,
paper, glass and tyres by the COAG in 2020.
• Manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, in particular those impacts associated
with the disposal of products.
• Provide for voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship schemes.
The Recycling Waste Reduction Act 2020 is supported by the commitments from governments to help
address key issues with onshore processing, for example, through the COAG Waste Export Ban, and
provides an impetus to drive local demand and use of recycled materials such as in infrastructure to support
the move towards a circular economy.
1.3.3 Domestic Changes in Waste and Recycling Legislation and Policy: Aotearoa New Zealand
Aotearoa New Zealand’s National Waste Strategy
Figure 1.1 provides a diagrammatic representation of the primary legislative framework for managing and
minimising waste in New Zealand. “The New Zealand Waste Strategy” (Ministry for the Environment, 2010)
is the latest version of the waste strategy and establishes two strategy goals: reducing the harmful effects of
waste, and improving the efficiency of resource use.
A new waste strategy is under development by the Ministry for the Environment with an anticipated release
date of mid-2022, in response to the changing global environment and New Zealander expectations.

Figure 1.1: New Zealand Waste Strategy: Legislative Framework

Source: The New Zealand Waste Strategy, 2010 (Ministry for the Environment, 2010)
Waste Disposal Levy Increase & Expansion
From July 1, 2021, the New Zealand government enacted a plan to progressively increase and expand the
levy applied to disposal of material to landfill. By 2024, the municipal landfill levy is set to triple from $20 to
$60 per tonne. A levy will also be introduced for both construction and demolition, and contaminated (non-
hazardous) landfilled material at a rate of $30 and $10 per tonne respectively.
The increased levies are part of a national drive to reduce the quantity of waste disposed to landfill, with
funds raised from the levy utilised for further waste reduction programs, including infrastructure and
education investments.
Waste Reduction Work Programme
The New Zealand Waste Reduction Work Programme was authored by the Ministry for the Environment
(2021). It identifies a series of future strategies and policies to support waste reduction in New Zealand. The
programme identifies a number of future initiatives which may impact the use of recycled materials, including:
• 2021 – Improved data systems to improve monitoring and create a stronger evidence base for the new
waste strategies.
• 2021 – Plastics innovation fund for plastics research, innovation and waste minimisation.
• 2022 – A new waste strategy to guide transformation to a low-carbon, circular economy.
• 2022 – Long-term waste infrastructure plan.
• 2023 – New waste legislation to supersede the Waste Minimisation Action 2008 and Litter Act 1979.

National Plastics Action Plan
Released in September 2021, the National Plastics Action Plan (Ministry for the Environment, 2021)
“provides the broad scope of the Government’s actions on plastics and highlights the next steps…”. The
document identifies a desire for movement toward a circular economy approach for plastics, identifying six
key actions taking place:
• Regulated product stewardship to introduce legislation and incentives to place the responsibility on
producers with respect to end-of-life.
• Potential introduction of a container return scheme which provides a refund when consumers return
qualifying empty containers.
• Improved kerbside recycling standardisation to improve waste stream quality and reduce consumer
confusion.
• Investigation regarding establishing a standard for the implementation and disposal of compostable
packaging.
• Phase-out of ‘single-use, hard-to-recycle’ plastics such as PVC, polystyrene, and degradable
plastics products.
• Investment in a plastics innovation fund and further infrastructure investment.
1.3.4 Responses in Transport and Infrastructure: Australia

Transport and Infrastructure Council Response
The Transport and Infrastructure Council discussed how governments and industry can better harness the
use of recycled materials and return them to productive use, supporting the economy and achieving
sustainable outcomes for communities. According to the communiqué from the November 2019 meeting
(Transport and Infrastructure Council, 2019):
‘To support the COAG Waste Export Ban and the National Waste Action Plan, Ministers asked officials to:
• Identify any significant procurement opportunities over coming months such as major road projects that
could use recycled material.
• Prioritise the development of standards to support the use of recycled materials in road construction.
Procurement Policy Responses
In recent years, several policy changes and initiatives have been designed to enhance the uptake of
recycled materials across all levels of government in Australia. These range from updated guidelines and
specifications allowing increased levels of recycled content to whole-of-government procurement guidelines
requiring increased consideration of sustainable and recycled materials. A selection of recent procurement
policy updates and initiatives is outlined below.
The Australian Government released the Sustainable Procurement Guide in 2020 to enable Commonwealth
agencies to better consider sustainable and recyclable materials in their procurement practices (Australian
Government, 2020). The Australian Government also published updated Commonwealth Procurement Rules
(CPRs) in 2020. The update requires officials to consider non-financial benefits and costs of the
procurement, including environmental sustainability and whole-of-life costs. The CPRs require consideration
of the Sustainable Procurement Guide where ‘there is opportunity for sustainability or the use of recycled
content’ (Department of Finance, 2020).

In early 2020, the Victorian Government announced the roll out of the Recycled First policy, which aims to
increase the use of recycled and reused material in construction projects conducted under the Major
Transport Infrastructure Authority. The policy aims to shift recycled material procurement to a more uniform
approach and requires that bidders demonstrate optimisation of their use of sustainable materials (Major
Road Projects Victoria, n.d.).
In November 2019, eleven member councils of the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils
(SSROC) signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Procure Recycled, designed to prioritise the
procurement of recycled materials. In April 2020, under the MoU, the SSROC initiated the Paving the Way
program for regional procurement of recycled crushed glass for use in asphalt, non-structural concrete, and
pipe bedding, creating a closed-loop market for one-third of council domestic glass collections.
1.3.5 Responses in Transport and Infrastructure: Aotearoa New Zealand
New Zealand Infrastructure Commission
In March 2021, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission released a discussion paper titled Sector State
of Play: Resource Recovery and Waste to outline existing resource recovery and waste disposal practice
and infrastructure within New Zealand. While the document’s primary focus is to identify infrastructure gaps
within the resource recovery network, the paper also highlights the requirement to prioritise waste
minimisation through the reuse of materials with a view to achieving a circular economy waste management
approach.
Government Procurement Rules
The New Zealand Government Procurement Rules under Rule 20: Transitioning to a net zero emissions
economy and design waste out of the system state:
1. Agencies should:
a. Support the procurement of low-emissions and low-waste goods, services and works
b. Encourage innovation to significantly reduce emissions and waste impacts from goods and services.
2. For designated contracts, agencies must support the procurement of low-waste and low-emissions goods
and services and encourage innovation to significantly reduce emissions and waste impacts from goods
and services.
3. Agencies must have regard to guidance published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment (MBIE) on the procurement of low-waste and low-emissions goods and services.
4. Agencies must conduct sufficient monitoring of designated contracts to ensure that commitments made in
contracts are delivered and reported on.

2. Aspects of Recycling
Figure 2.1: Recyclable Supply Chain (WSP 2021)
2.1 Circular Economy
A global trend has developed in recent years for the adoption of circular economy principles to reduce the
consumption of finite resources, retain consumed resources at their highest value for as long as possible,
and effectively utilise waste materials in value added applications. Figure 2.1 illustrates a typical recyclable
material supply chain and Figure 2.2 illustrates the circular economy concept. The concept is multi-layered,
prioritising avoidance of virgin materials, designing for repair, reuse, and remanufacture, and where virgin
materials are to be used, creating products which can be efficiently processed and remanufactured to retain
the highest value of the material for the longest possible period.
According to CSIRO, the circular economy concept contains the following phases:
• Avoidance: Avoid using a material with low recyclability or that is potentially harmful during disposal.
Design for modularity and design for material optimisation (i.e. material efficiency).
• Design: Apply cradle-to-cradle design principles that consider disassembly of a material and potential
economic and technical constraints for reuse. Design for longevity and adaptability, and consider
opportunities for product as a service (e.g. renting public lighting) and/or supplier take-back schemes
(i.e. returning materials at end of life).
• Consumption: Extend operational life of materials or assets to reduce frequency of material
consumption. Material is considered more valuable as an operating asset than it is as a recovered
material.
• Collection: Well-organised material collection and stockpiling of recycled construction and demolition
(C&D) waste or reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) to reduce sorting costs and improve material
quality. A digital material database provides a significant advantage for materials management.
• Sorting: Effectively sort materials such as C&D waste and RAP with impurities in the recycled materials
to improve consistency and performance.
• Recycling: Conversion of primary material into a secondary material ready for remanufacture. Various
methods are available for recycling, including mechanical, chemical, biological, and pyrotechnical
options.
• Remanufacture: Production of commodity items from recycled material for value added applications.
• Disposal: Elimination of a material from the circular economy process, resulting in waste disposal either
to landfill or energy recovery.

Current design practices allow for the use of accepted recycled materials such as crushed concrete and
crumb rubber, however effort should be made during design phases to ensure that no recycled material is
unnecessarily precluded, and/or mitigate potentially undesirable recycling outcomes (e.g. to avoid recycled
concrete within an equipotential zone). For example, RAP is the largest recycled material by weight in the
road construction / maintenance industry. Properly designed recycled asphalt mixes can achieve required
performance targets, but due diligence is needed to ensure that RAP does not degrade during reclaiming,
processing and stockpiling phases. Compliance with a good RAP management plan will ensure a
homogenous RAP product.
Figure 2.2: Circular Economy Diagram (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018)

2.2 Composition of Waste
Of the 61.5 million tonnes (Mt) of core solid waste (excluding ash) generated in Australia in 2018–19, the
Productivity Commission estimated that approximately 20% was municipal solid waste (MSW), 36% was
commercial and industrial (C&I) waste, and 44% was construction and demolition (C&D) waste. These
estimates do not include waste generated and dealt with on-site by the waste generator and exclude illegally
disposed waste (Pickin et al. 2020). The reported figures for core solid waste generation comprise the
following material categories:
• Ash
• Glass
• Hazardous
• Masonry materials
• Metals
• Organics
• Paper and cardboard
• Plastics
• Textiles
• Other.

Waste generation figures exclude data for primary production waste materials associated with mining,
agriculture and forestry, and for mineral processing secondary waste due to poor reporting within the
industries (Pickin et al. 2020). Hazardous materials cover a range of commercial and industrial chemicals;
tyres; asbestos; clinic, pharmaceutical and biological waste; and other unclassified hazardous materials.
Organics covers other non-hazardous biological materials such as biosolids, timber, garden organics and
food.
2.3 Recycled Waste Volumes
Due to the limited availability of New Zealand data, this section identifies and discusses recycled waste
trends and volumes available within Australia only.
During 2020, waste in Australia was generated through the following three primary sources:
• Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): This is waste generated through standard residential and local
government operations. MSW is generally managed through the standard 120L/240L wheelie bins
typically provided to each household and is collected by local government collection services.
• Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Waste: This is waste generated throughout commercial and
industrial operations, including power generation. C&I waste is generally managed through larger skip
bins and compactors, and is collected by private collection contractors.
• Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste: This is waste generated during construction and
demolition processes. C&D waste is generally managed in bulk or through large skip bins at the
responsibility of the nominated building contractor.
Organic waste is generated at a higher rate within MSW due to residential consumption. Paper and
cardboard are generated at a higher rate within C&I waste (compared with MSW and C&D streams) through
typical commercial packaging practices. Masonry materials are generated at a higher rate through C&D
waste. Table 2.1 provides a high-level overview of each waste source’s composition.
Note: Values shown in Table 2.1 in blue italics are not discussed in this document, but are provided for
reference purposes only.
Table 2.1: Typical Waste Stream Composition
Waste Stream Estimated % of Total Stream by Mass
MSW C&I C&D
Glass 7% 2% <1%
Plastics 10% 9% <1%
Tyres - 3% -
Textiles 2% 3% <1%
Masonry materials 3% 6% 90%
Metals* 10% 21% 6%
Organics* 50% 32% 3%
Paper & cardboard* 18% 24% <1%
Other* 2% 2% -
*Stream not part of this review

Source: Blue Environment, 2020, further analysis conducted by WSP

A high-level summary of estimated total waste tonnages generated across Australia in 2020 by source is
provided in Table 2.2. All values are derived from values listed in the National Waste Report 2020, prepared
by the Department of the Environment and Energy. Values are high-level estimates only, intended for
discussion purposes.
Table 2.2: 2020 Waste Generation Estimates by Materials Source
Waste Stream Estimated 2020 Waste Generation (‘000 tonnes)

MSW C&I C&D Total
Glass 868 321 13 1,202
Plastics 1,192 1,262 85 2,539
Tyres - 449 - 449
Textiles 226 466 18 710
Masonry materials 346 1,023 20,552 21,921
Industrial slag Not Available Not Available Not Available -
RAP - - 1,036 1,036
Fly ash (2018 data) - 11,189 - 11,189
Total Coal Combustion Products - 12,595 - 12,595
(CCP) incl. fly ash (2018 data)
Source: All streams excluding fly ash, (Blue Environment, 2020), further analysis conducted by WSP
Fly ash: (HBM Group Pty Ltd, 2018)
2.4 Waste Hierarchy for Pavement Materials
Waste reduction, reuse and recycling strategies have been developed in both Australia and New Zealand;
for example, Towards Zero Waste (Department of Sustainability, Victoria, 2005). The typical objectives of
waste management strategies and Acts are to:
• Encourage the most efficient use of resources and reduce environmental harm in accordance with the
principles of ecologically sustainable development.
• Ensure that resource management options are considered against a hierarchy of the following order:
– Avoidance of unnecessary natural resource consumption
– Resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery)
– Disposal.
• Provide for continuing waste generation reduction to minimise natural resource consumption and waste
disposal by encouraging waste avoidance, recycling and reuse.
International environmental protection laws enshrine a waste hierarchy as a core management principle for
waste streams generated from all sources. This has been modified for pavement materials (PIARC, 2008) as
shown in Figure 2.3, where the least preferred strategy is towards the apex of the triangle.

Figure 2.3: Waste Hierarchy for Pavement Materials

Source: National Waste Policy: 2018 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018)
The following examples for each level in Figure 2.3 illustrate their application to pavements:
• Avoid Waste: This is not only about reducing the initial use of materials during construction. Waste
avoidance can also be achieved with innovative pavement design to maximise pavement life and
minimise maintenance.
• Reduce Waste: Waste can be reduced by extending materials’ life through improved quality of
construction and the use of existing assets. Existing pavements are commonly reused by overlaying or
resurfacing. This takes advantage of the existing material’s residual strength without incurring costs for
removal.
• Recycle Waste: The highest quality and most expensive materials are generally located in upper
pavements layers. Recycling the uppermost layer typically makes best use of a recycled pavement
material’s residual properties and results in the greatest savings. Using this approach, recycling surface
asphalt into new surfacings is seen as preferable to recycling it into an unbound basecourse. In-place
recycling and cold recycling processes are examples of techniques with energy conservation
advantages. An examination of lifecycle costs and total energy use in recycling is recommended to
identify optimum waste recycling process.
• Recover & Treat: The recover and treatment option is preferred over disposal of waste to landfill as it
typically removes and reuses a material’s inherent value. A waste-to-energy facility is an example in this
category.
• Dispose of Waste: Dumping pavement materials to landfill is the least preferred waste management
option as it takes least advantage of pavement materials’ residual properties. In addition, replacement
of existing materials with new alternatives is also generally needed.
Wherever possible, waste materials should be used for their highest and best end use. In the context of
recycling, this will often involve recycling a material back into the same type of material from which it came
rather than adding it into a different type of material. For example, the highest and best use for RAP would
typically be in new asphalt, although RAP which is unsuitable for use in new asphalt may instead be recycled
for use in an unbound granular pavement material.

2.5 Contaminants
Throughout this Guide, contaminants are foreign materials which may reasonably be expected to accompany
a particular recycled material and which result in undesirable performance, environmental or health and
safety outcomes.
Historically, Australia has accepted material recovery facilities (MRFs) sorting to 5% contamination, aligning
with the former allowable contamination rate for exports. Recyclers and processors vary in their maturity and
capabilities; however, the technology exists to effectively sort material to a 97% recovery rate. Some
recyclers and processors have relied heavily on an export market that previously accepted material to this
contamination level. Beyond sorting facilities, the domestic supply chain is under-developed for most
recycled waste. Process immaturity significantly impacts on effort and time required to grow re-use markets,
but with the right incentives and guidance in place, more developed supply chains present opportunities for
more rapid growth.
Environmental authorities place restrictions on the spread of harmful contaminants (e.g. heavy metals,
pesticides and carcinogens) through the environment. Unless appropriate controls are in place, recycling
waste materials and industrial by-products provides a potential path for the spread of undesirable
contaminants. The presence of asbestos – either in fragment (non-friable) or fibre (friable) form – is also
strictly controlled by the Environmental Health Commission and numerous legislations and regulations
depending on jurisdiction (Environmental Health Commission, 2005).
Figure 2.4 illustrates a typical road section, showing water-related mechanisms that may allow contaminates
to leach into the surrounding environment. Each recycled material should be assessed for its likelihood to
leach undesirable, regulated or prohibited contaminates into the environment, and the impact associated
with any such leaching. Further, the potential long-term impacts of contaminants being within the pavement
need to be considered, including end of life treatment and handling of pavements/pavement materials.
Figure 2.4: Diagram of Interactions Between Water Mechanisms and Road Pavement Cross-Section

3. Framework for Determining Recycled Materials Suitability
This framework outlines a high-level approach to help determine the suitability of recycled materials (RM) for
construction and maintenance of road pavements and surfacings.
A key principle is that the use of RM in road construction should not worsen overall environmental, health
and safety, engineering performance or road user outcomes relative to the performance of conventional
materials. The general approach for permitting RM use should be thorough and well-considered, particularly
for novel RM applications, with an aim to evaluate and understand the risk of potential environmental, health,
safety or engineering performance issues, possibly decades into the future.
To support this framework, a protocol for assessing RM incorporation specifically within asphalt and sprayed
seals has been provided in Appendix A.
3.1 Framework Description
The framework is presented as a series of flowcharts aimed at highlighting potential issues to consider if
RMs are to be used, including engineering, project-related, health and safety, and environmental factors. An
overview is shown below.
Figure 3.1: Assessment Framework Overview

Framework assessments are most likely to be undertaken by road asset owners, e.g. municipal, local, state
or national transport agencies, but could also be undertaken by suppliers, designers or other proponents to
support RM use. It is important to stress that use of the framework to evaluate an RMs potential does not
lessen any applicable local, state or national legal liabilities and obligations in relation to a material’s use.

Detailed procedures for assessing environmental and other effects are not covered here as these will differ in
their details depending on specific circumstances (e.g. regulations relevant to the jurisdiction in question).
Assessments must be made by a suitably qualified, credible and competent professional in each case. It is
highly unlikely that a single person has sufficient knowledge of each discipline (assessment area), meaning
that several specialists may be needed.
Specialists must hold appropriate qualifications and, where possible, professional registration in a relevant
discipline. For example, a person with a tertiary qualification in civil engineering, materials engineering or
materials science (relevant to road materials) plus at least 5 years’ experience in road asset management,
design, construction or research may be suitable for assessing engineering aspects. Similarly,
environmental, health and safety assessments should be undertaken by specialists in each field.
When undertaking environmental assessments, it is usually highly beneficial to consult with state or national
environmental protection agencies or equivalent government departments at the start of the process.
The framework can apply to RM use at a project level or in a more generic sense. However, RMs are often
not well defined or characterised and their composition and properties can be variable. The greater the
specificity possible in terms of defining RM source, properties and applications, the greater the confidence in
an assessment. This is particularly the case when assessing environmental effects. For example,
substitution of virgin materials with RM may provide greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits if done locally, but not if
the material must be transported over large distances. Similarly, types and levels of potentially harmful
contaminants may vary depending on RM source, and the significance of any effects may depend on the
environmental sensitivity of the location in which it will be used.
For RM assessments, using the properties of existing conventional materials may be beneficial to provide
benchmark values. For example, the engineering properties of asphalt which contains recycled plastic as a
binder modifier (e.g. modulus, rutting, fatigue life performance) could be compared to properties for an
established PMB asphalt. Care must be taken to select conventional materials of the same type as the RM
where possible, and to ensure that applications are equivalent for both material or product types. For
instance, in the asphalt mix example above, aggregate grading and source, base bitumen grade and overall
binder content for the benchmark PMB asphalt should be the same as for the replacement material
containing the recycled plastic.
Benchmarking may be applied to the assessment of an RM alone or when incorporated at intended

concentrations in the final surfacing or pavement product. In the latter case the RM would be benchmarked
against conventional materials (e.g. natural aggregate of the same grading), and in the former against
asphalt mix, spray seal surfacings, etc. Leachate from recycled crushed concrete compared to natural
aggregates, for example, is of interest when assessing the potential effects of stockpiling materials.
Additional testing would be needed to assess in-service risks in the pavement where RM content is present
and when moisture conditions are different. Similarly, the presence of contaminants in RM used as a bitumen
additive may not be an issue if testing of the product when applied may confirm that RM is bound in the
bitumen matrix and is unlikely to be released to the environment.

3.2 Initial Assessment Framework

Figure 3.2: Chart A – Initial Assessment Framework for Recycled Materials
It is important to clearly identify the specific RM and define as far as practicable its source, project
location, and intended application. This helps construct accurate assessments about potential costs,
logistics and environmental effects. Consider, for example, crushed glass from post-consumer glass
recycling, processed by supplier ‘X’ at location ‘Y’, for use in an unbound granular basecourse located
at ‘Z’. If a high level of specificity is not appropriate and a more generic evaluation approach is used
for the RM, this needs to be considered in any assessment testing or analysis, and conclusions need
to be suitably qualified. For example, it would be unwise to draw general conclusions concerning a
given type of RM based on sampling from just a single stockpile.

Importation of waste materials into Australia and New Zealand is generally restricted by legislation,
although exemptions may exist where waste materials have been reprocessed into new products.
Reuse of imported waste materials should generally be avoided because although they may have
global environmental benefits they may also adversely impact on recycling and reuse efforts for locally
generated materials.
New applications for RMs with long-term viability, consistent quality and quantity of supply, and
applicability across a wide variety of projects are more beneficial than applications focused on a
specific RM with limited and variable, potentially location-specific supply in small quantities. RMs
should be readily available and consistent in quality and quantity.
The use of RMs in roading applications can involve considerable additional effort and risk, particularly
with respect to pavement durability. These factors need to be weighed against reliability and the scale
of anticipated benefits in comparison with RM management, non-renewable material substitution (i.e.
aggregates, bitumen) and predicted pavement performance improvements.
There may be factors such as government policy which support a transport agency’s use of RMs and
which may override minor disbenefits or project-level risks, but these need to be fully understood,
accepted by all parties involved, and allowed for contractually.
There may also be additional environmentally beneficial uses of the RM in question (refer to Section
2.3). In this situation, RM use in a road pavement application is less favoured and may adversely
affect the economics of the alternative application. Consultation with the relevant state or national
environmental protection agency or government department for the environment may assist in suitable
decision-making.
The benefits are reduced when an RM pavement material cannot be recycled at the end of its life.
Where recycled materials are considered as a replacement for conventional materials that can readily
be recycled at the end of their life, the use of an RM should be assessed through a complete lifecycle
assessment. If the material cannot be reused or recycled or, less ideally, be used as clean fill, then
significant costs may be associated with its disposal, which will fall to the road owner.
In most cases, potential cultural issues specifically related to the use of RM, as opposed to those that
may arise from the wider project, are highly unlikely but need to be considered early.
If the intended application will likely result in no clear benefits for managing the RM, substituting virgin
non-renewable road construction materials, or improving the road pavement’s engineering
performance, then the application should be reconsidered.
Consider whether the RMs use in road construction has been previously established and
accepted/approved with properties and specifications developed under local, state or national
government regulations, or well-covered in material and construction specifications. Note that
technical specifications, health, safety and environmental requirements will vary across jurisdictions.
Examples include reclaimed asphalt pavement, recycled crushed concrete and crumb tyre rubber,
which have been widely used for decades. It may then be reasonable to assume that in standard
applications, any environmental or health and safety concerns have already been addressed,
accepted or satisfactorily managed. Note though that consideration needs to be given to the relevant
requirements in each jurisdiction, as environmental or other approvals are not necessarily transferable.
The application for an RM may be located in an area of high environmental sensitivity (for example,
adjacent to the habitat of a rare or endangered species) or susceptible to flooding, an area with a high-
water table or with acidic or saline groundwater. Although the RM may be widely used and normally
free of significant contamination, in some cases the source may suggest that contaminants may be
present (for example, glass from fluorescent light bulbs or industrial processes, asbestos, or heavy
metal contamination in demolition waste).

3.3 Engineering Performance Framework

Figure 3.3: Chart B – Engineering Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled Materials
The RM supplier/s should demonstrate that quality control processes are in place and provide data for
assessment to determine the degree of consistency between batches and within stockpiles over time.
During assessment, likely effects on engineering performance can be determined and understood.
This information must cover key properties that may affect performance for the specific application, for
example, grading for crushed concrete, melt-flow index, or similar for waste plastics.
Significant variations in material properties pose risks to overall performance. In these instances, use
of an RM should be reconsidered, or alternative, more reliable sources found.
Testing should be performed using standard test procedures relevant to the application and product,
with results compared to the relevant specifications and benchmarked against test results from
standard materials/products. Testing needs to use the RM in the form (e.g. grading) and concentration
to be used in practice. Some RMs may require additional testing or assessment focused on key
properties that are known or believed to be potentially problematic. Referring to previous projects/case
studies using the same type of RM may highlight potential problem areas.
Failure to meet required specification requirements poses a risk to overall performance and in this
case an RMs use should be reconsidered. Failure may be due to source material issues such as
inconsistent/variable grading of materials pre-delivery, high levels of contamination, or below-expected
material properties.
For some RM materials, standard test methods may not be suitable or may give erroneous results. For
example, the viscosity of binders containing particulates should not be measured by capillary
viscometry, and fibrous additives may give inaccurate gradings for basecourse aggregates. Use of
alternative methods or adaptations of standard methods may be necessary to properly characterise
the materials.

Standard pavement material tests are designed for use with conventional materials. The procedures
have been developed over many years for use with these materials. As a result, some properties are
taken for granted, for example water insolubility (over decades in the field) and relative inertness to
reaction with water. Bitumen is also assumed to be effectively inert to biodegradation. In contrast, the
durability properties of RMs may be unknown. It may be useful to develop new testing procedures to
assess a RMs durability (benchmarked against standard materials), but without correlation to long-
term field tests the conclusions must be treated cautiously. It may also not be practical to realistically
measure these properties, but some assessment must be attempted based on the RMs chemical
composition and properties.
3.4 Environmental Performance Framework

Figure 3.4: Chart C – Environmental Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled Materials
For a proper assessment of potential risk to the environment, it is essential to know an RMs chemical
composition and any susceptibility to leaching of chemicals due to environmental factors or
interactions with other materials.
It may be possible to deduce the probable composition (or at least absence of harmful contaminants)
from supplier-provided knowledge of source materials and materials processing. This is likely to be the
case for RMs from industrial processes, where raw materials and processing steps are well-defined.
For RMs sold as proprietary products, the supplier should be able to provide safety data sheets and
information on the composition of constituent materials and adherence to any relevant material
standards.

Poorly defined or variable RMs from a wide variety of sources, such as those from post-consumer or
C&D waste streams, are more complex to assess. A detailed determination of their composition is
unlikely to be feasible, and the focus should be on identifying contaminants. Contaminants in this
sense includes compounds deliberately added to materials which may be harmful to the environment if
released (for example, antioxidants and plasticisers in plastics). Some conclusions can be drawn from
a material’s source. For example, waste concrete from a galvanising factory is more likely to contain
heavy metal contamination than an equivalent material from a school, but all such materials should be
treated with caution. However, in reality these types of waste streams are unlikely to be practical to
separate from the general waste stream, except on a project-specific and source-specific basis.
Contaminants which may be harmful if not appropriately managed include:

• Dioxins (for example, generated from PVC plastics at high temperatures)
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (for example, transformer oils)
• Heavy metals, lead, cadmium, chromium, arsenic etc. (for example, glass from fluorescent light
bulbs)
• Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (for example, waste motor oils)
• Volatile hydrocarbons
• BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene- common industrial solvents)
• Phenols (for example, foundry sands)
• Asbestos (for example, demolition waste)

• Coal tar (for example, asphalt or sprayed seal binders pre-1970s)
• Pesticides
• Radioactive substances
• Phthalates (plasticisers for plastics)
• Materials that raise or lower the PH of ground or surface water
• Microplastics.
Standard test procedures exist for these compounds but require specialist laboratory facilities. Test
sample extraction procedures may be complex depending on the type of RM. Testing should be
conducted to determine any reactivity between the recycled material and the substituted or
surrounding material, as this may result in generation of unidentified hazards. An important
consideration is obtaining representative samples of the RM. Pre-treatment (e.g. crushing, extraction)
to obtain samples for analysis may also require developing laboratory procedures specific to the RM in
question. When undertaking testing to determine chemical composition, sufficient sampling and
testing needs to be completed to ensure that results are statistically representative. Sampling and
testing over time may also be required to assess variability of the materials.
An RM may be classified as a hazardous substance and its use (including ultimate disposal) may be
controlled by local, state or national regulations to limit environmental contamination. These
regulations may also apply to RMs that have regulated material as a minor component. For example,
the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment’s Waste List presents wastes defined as hazardous.
Within Australia, waste classifications vary from state to state, so specific information must be sought
in each case from state EPAs. In Victoria, for example, classifications are provided in publication
1828.2: Waste disposal categories - characteristics and thresholds.
Controls on an RMs use in specific applications may already exist, even if it is not classified as
hazardous. This is particularly the case for demolition wastes or materials used as fill, as they are
widely generated in large volumes.

An RM may have an existing Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) or equivalent certification,

covering its specific mode of use in the road pavement being considered. It is important to note that
EPDs do not certify that a material will not harm the environment. Rather, they provide information on
the overall environmental impacts of materials in much that same way that Safety Data Sheets (SDSs)
are used.
If an RM is regulated with respect to environmental exposure limits or other controls, then it must be
determined whether the regulations can be adhered to in the intended application, and which entity,
contractor or transport agency, bears this responsibility. Adherence to regulations includes all project
phases, including storage and handling during construction (including cleaning of plant and
equipment), pavement life (including maintenance activities and necessary sediment control
requirements), and the RMs ultimate disposal or recycling.
Do not proceed with the RMs intended application unless adherence to regulations can be assured.
Where use of a certain waste material is new or it is used in a new application, consultation with
relevant EPAs may be needed to address use of the material within the relevant regulation. For
example, in Queensland (QLD) an ‘End of Waste' code may need to be developed and published for
new uses or for use of some recycled waste materials.
It may be possible to compare compositional information on an RM against existing benchmark

materials used in the same application and already accepted for use. Alternatively, existing standards
such as those in Australia and New Zealand governing contaminant levels in waste that can be
disposed of in ‘uncontrolled’ or ‘inert waste’, landfills, could be consulted. These landfills typically only
accept the least contaminated waste because rainwater ingress and leachate runoff are not well
controlled. This crudely models the situation in the road pavement. For example, in New Zealand the
Ministry for the Environment defines Class B landfills as those that have ‘limited or no engineered
systems designed to collect landfill leachate or gases and may be in areas that pose a risk to the
environment (for example, sited over highly permeable sands and/or gravels, active faults, or
floodplains)’. Materials placed in such landfills must meet limits for various contaminants including
metals, pesticides and phthalates (Ministry for the Environment, 2004).
A more stringent option would be to only accept the RM if it was suitable for reuse as clean fill (clean
fill criteria and contamination limits provided by many – but not all – jurisdictions). The NSW EPA, for
example, provides guidelines on assessing waste materials for this purpose, with limits for various
contaminants (Guidelines on resource recovery Orders and Exemptions for the land application of
waste materials as fill, EPA NSW, 2014a & EPA NSW 2014b). Similarly, in Victoria, permissible limits
are specified for a range of contaminants in clean fill (EPA, Victoria, 2021).
Even when compositional analysis indicates that significant levels of potentially harmful components
are present, this does not necessarily mean that these components are bio-available (i.e. are not
easily incorporated into living organisms). To assess this possibility, ecotoxicity testing and
environmental impact assessments may be required. The extent of the investigation, which may be
time consuming and costly, should reflect the scale of the project and the potential for harm. In some
cases, sufficient data may be available in the published literature. Use of RMs in particularly sensitive
receiving environments may need more extensive investigation. Potentially harmful RM components
could be dispersed in the environment through three main mechanisms:
• Leaching of water-soluble compounds by rain and groundwater (including during construction).
Leaching may impact both aqueous and terrestrial environments. Leaching may also result in
highly acidic or alkaline water entering the environment.
• Mechanical abrasion to form a dust or larger particulates (from traffic or during construction,
maintenance or ultimate disposal). Dust may settle on road-adjacent agricultural land with
possible consequences for livestock or crops. Plastics used in road surfacings could also be
abraded by traffic resulting in release of microplastic particles to the environment.
• Evaporation into the atmosphere (during construction or over a pavement’s life).

Each mechanism’s likelihood to disperse contaminants must be considered and a testing regime
developed that accurately reflects how the RM will be used, the expected road pavement life and, as
far as possible, accounts for environmental factors such as UV-induced oxidation. The rate of
contaminant losses to the environment will usually be relatively slow, which may mitigate likely
impacts. More extensive investigations may include field trial experiments with collection and analysis
of run-off and volatile emissions (during construction, for example). Such aspects may be satisfied by
benchmarking recycled materials performance against substitute materials or similar equivalents.
When an RM contains a potential contaminant that may have environmental or human health impacts,
or if the acceptable limits of a contaminant are unknown, the user should undertake an appropriate
assessment to determine the likelihood of potential harm from that substance. These works must be
undertaken by a suitably qualified contamination consultant in accordance with jurisdiction
requirements.
Avoid using RMs that result in a significant increase in CO2 (equivalent) emissions compared with the
alternative conventional materials for the specific intended application. Undertaking a full Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) is a specialist activity, requiring reliable energy consumption data associated with
processing and constructing with the RM. There is a considerable body of LCA information available
relating to road construction processes using standard bitumen and aggregate materials. Data for
specific RMs may be hard to find and may need to be developed from first principles. Unless the RMs
use results in a major change to product lifetime, maintenance or manufacturing and construction
practice (for example, use of higher mixing temperatures for asphalt mix using waste plastic), carbon
footprint differences may mainly be related to emissions specific to RM collection and processing.
It may not be possible to quantify CO2 (equivalent) emissions in some cases. A qualitative assessment
should be made based on a good understanding of the materials and processes involved. For
complex mixture RMs, emissions associated with the major component could be used as an
approximation. A suitability qualified person, in consultation with relevant governing bodies, should be
engaged to assess the need to undertake an LCA and the criteria used for assessment. The potential
effect of RMs on pavement life is also important. Transport agencies in Australia and New Zealand
have formed the Transport Authorities Greenhouse Group (TAGG) and have developed a workbook to
guide assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from road projects.
In addition to CO2 emissions, the end-of-life stage of the RM-containing pavement material should also
be considered. When a material cannot be recycled, small amounts of RM may have effectively
contaminated a much larger volume of pavement material, which would then potentially be waste.

3.5 Health & Safety Performance Framework

Figure 3.5: Chart D – Health and Safety Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled Materials
The most common exposure routes to harmful substances are:

• Inhalation (volatiles, aerosols or dust)
• Skin or eye contact
• Ingestion.
The most likely routes for workers or the public to be exposed to harmful substances are by inhalation
of dust or mists (inhalable and respirable particulates) or of fumes during construction, maintenance or
disposal. The application of an RM will determine the most likely areas of concern. For some RMs,
biohazards will need to be considered (i.e. infectious materials). This may be because of an RMs
source or due to handling and storage of RMs contaminated with organic material (for example,
bacterial growth on recycled glass due to the presence of sugar from beverage residues).
Some RMs may pose unexpected fire or explosion hazards when exposed to high temperatures (e.g.
during asphalt mix or sprayed sealing operations). The flashpoint of bitumen used in road surfacings is
controlled, but may change when modified with an RM. Similarly, volatile contaminants in RMs used
as aggregate modifiers or substitutes may pose risks when heated in asphalt plants or in tankers or
sprayers.

Many materials have safe workplace exposure limits in Australia and New Zealand set by state and
national governments. Workplace exposure standards (WES) are defined as ‘…values that refer to the
airborne concentration of substances at which it is believed that nearly all workers can be repeatedly
exposed day after day without coming to harm. The values are normally calculated on work schedules
of five shifts of eight-hour duration over a 40-hour work week.’ Note, however, that even if dust or fume
emissions are below WES, they may still be perceived as a nuisance (for example, offensive odours).
Compliance with regulatory WES is a legal obligation. This applies to workers handling and using an
RM at stockpile sites, asphalt plants, on paving machines or bitumen sprayers, and the like.
Consideration must also be given to road users (for example, cyclists), pedestrians and the public in
adjacent homes and workplaces. If the nature of an RM and/or the application is such that no
significant, new or higher levels of dust or volatile emissions are expected (for example, recycled
crushed concrete in basecourse), it is reasonable to assume existing handling and construction
protocols will suffice to control the risk. Data may also be available from previous projects/case studies
or the research literature, but in many cases, especially if the RM is a complex mixture, this will not be
the case.
Assessing potential worker or public exposure requires measurements to be made during handling
and construction. Specialist equipment and expertise is needed to collect data and interpret results in
terms of regulatory WES. Data can be benchmarked against similar measurements using standard
materials. Initial assessments of likely harmful emissions may be able to be made using laboratory
simulations of the processes involved (for example, asphalt mixing).
Exposure risks may be able to be mitigated to an acceptable level. There are various ways to reduce
and/or manage risks, including through use of personal protective equipment (PPE), as is the case
when using some conventional materials. Further controls may be necessary to ensure public health
and safety, for example exclusion zones or night works when exposure to fumes or dust will be
lowered due to a reduced public presence.

3.6 Project Performance Framework

Figure 3.6: Chart E – Project Management Performance Assessment Framework for Recycled Materials
In some jurisdictions, additional procurement considerations may exist related to the prequalification or
registration of suppliers and/or materials. The use of recycled materials would need to be considered
with these requirements. Further, if a project renegotiates the use of a product which includes a
recycled material that doesn’t comply with the base contract, then a project-specific specification
would need to be developed and agreed, along with any changes to the relevant performance
mechanism (e.g. defect liability period).
The use of some RMs in specific applications (particularly those that are well-defined or from specific
industrial processes) may be legally protected by patent or other forms of intellectual property
protection. In this case, there may be a cost implication associated with use of the RM. In novel
applications, the ownership of potential new intellectual property generated during the project should
be considered before the project begins. This may include a patent search of relevant materials or
technologies as a preliminary check.
Sufficient RM of the correct quality and consistency must be available over the desired timeframe to
complete the project or part of the project in question. The potential for long-term sustainable supply of
the RM for use in subsequent projects could also be considered, and may help justify the investment
made in the RMs assessment.

It is important to establish whether the material supplier/proponent/contractor offers performance,

quality or consistency warranties for an RM. For many RMs, long- or short-term performance
warranties for roading applications are unlikely, unless the RM is sold as a proprietary product for the
intended purpose and/or the proponent controls and is responsible for the pavement selection and
design.
Users must assess the implications to the project if the RM is used, including:
• Material cost compared to the equivalent conventional material
• Additional costs likely to be incurred through special handling requirements, transport costs,
and required health and safety or environmental controls
• Potential for damage or significant increase in plant or machinery wear and maintenance
• Storage/disposal costs for surplus RM at project completion, including switchover costs (if
necessary) when restoring plant and machinery to use with conventional materials
Consider undertaking a whole-of-life cost analysis if reliable data is available concerning the expected
lifetime or maintenance cost differences associated with using the RM, and where project scale
warrants it. Also consider the potential for increased road user costs (for example, delays due to
increased maintenance frequency).
With RMs that lack a long-term track record, the risk of early failure or increased maintenance costs
must be considered. A risk assessment of long-term performance can be made based on testing done
during the engineering performance assessment or by comparing with similar projects or available
case studies. If the risk is considered acceptable, consider a plan to allocate responsibilities and
potential future costs among the stakeholders.

4. Recycled Crushed Glass
Figure 4.1: Life Cycle Stages of Recycled Glass Materials
Recycled Glass Recycled Crushed Recycled Glass Recycled Glass

Bottles Glass Sand Powder
Source: News Atlas (2017); acs.org (2019); Alex Fraser (2014); Ali et al. (2012)
4.1 General
This guide was developed concurrently with the “Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 4E: Recycled Materials” (Austroads, 2021b) and should be read in conjunction with this
document.
Approximately 1.16 million tonnes of glass were consumed in Australia during 2018–19, with 684,000 tonnes
recovered for recycling. That is equivalent to roughly three billion bottles being diverted away from landfill. In
New Zealand, approximately 250,000 tonnes of glass are consumed each year, with over 90,000 tonnes
recycled. Glass continues to maintain a relatively high recycling rate, although production of virgin glass
consumables has slowly decreased as it is replaced by polymer counterparts, which may lead to a reduction
in recycled glass availability in future.
Recycled crushed glass (RCG) is a broad term for recycled glass used in engineering applications. Formerly,
RCG referenced only recycled container glass (i.e. glass previously used for bottles, jars and other similar
vessels) before processing, but has evolved to encompass many complex hybrid and engineered products.
Common processing phases can be seen in Figure 4.1, where recycled waste (e.g. glass bottles) are
processed into various materials including crushed glass (i.e. cullet), sand and powder.
The aim of processing recycled glass is to return a high-grade material to the glass-making process to again
manufacture glass containers or other products, but this requires very pure/uncontaminated waste glass
streams. Lower-quality materials/sources, such as glass co-mingled and collected in municipal waste bins or
from industries, may be too contaminated or poorly graded to suit repurposing as new food grade containers.
In this case, alternate applications for the recycled products are required.
When looking to incorporate recycled glass into pavement applications, reference should be made to the
recent Austroads technical report “Crushing, Processing and Cleaning of Recycled Crushed Glass for
Transport Infrastructure” (Austroads, 2022a). Material should comply with Austroads Technical Specification
3050 – Supply of Recycled Crushed Glass, noting however that local jurisdictional requirements may differ to
that specified in ATS 3050.

4.2 Engineering Risk and Performance
In terms of its physical and mechanical properties, crushed and processed glass is very similar to natural or
manufactured sand, having a similar particle density. Generally, crushed glass used as a fine material
substitution is required to adhere to the following limits:
• Particle size distribution
• Particle density and shape
• Water absorption
• Concentration of chemical and other contaminants.
Recycled glass powder (RGP) is pozzolanic, meaning it will react with lime to form stabilised materials
(Kazmi et al., 2020). As with all pozzolans, the contribution to strength development is less than that of
Portland cement, such that cement combinations comprising these two materials will produce lower
compressive strengths than Portland cement alone (Mohajerani et al., 2017).
Unbound Granular Material Applications
Currently, RCG is most frequently used and permitted as fines material in unbound granular applications.
Particle size plays an important role in RCG’s effectiveness as an unbound granular aggregate, with
applicable specifications often detailing upper size limits. Previous pavement applications have used up to
15% without negatively impacting performance when a < 10 mm particle size is used. This is in line with New
Zealand’s NZTA M/4 specification for RCG, which requires grading of 100% passing 9.5 mm sieve when
used in basecourse layers. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) permits the use of
20% RCG in material classes applicable for use in subbase applications, while an allowance is made for use
in basecourse applications provided traffic loading requirements are met. Furthermore, in a review by ARRB
(2003) of United States of America specifications for RCG, it was found that up to 30% RCG is acceptable in
New York City.
Table 4.1: Available Transport Agency Specifications for the Use of RCG in Unbound Granular Material
Transport Agency (state) Specification Applications

TMR (Qld) MRTS05, MRTS36 Type 2 subbase material
TfNSW (NSW) QA Specification 3051 Base and subbase material
DoT (Vic) Sections 702, 801, 813, RC 500.02 Base, subbase and filter material
Asphalt
Asphalt mixes made using RCG have been reported as being more susceptible to water-induced stripping
than equivalent mixes made with natural aggregates alone (Khandal, 1992), as it has been found to lower
the optimal binder content (Jamshidi & White, 2019). However, research has found that additional hydrated
lime can significantly reduce the stripping propensity in asphalt layers. To this end, inclusion of AGPT:T232
Stripping Potential of Asphalt – Tensile Strength Ratio or an equivalent test should be included in the mix
design stage (ARRB, 2003).
Glass particles have been found to reduce skid resistance, increase tyre wear, and increase asphalt
surfacing glare (TDOT, 2008; Su & Chen, 2002). Limiting particle sizes to < 5 mm has been found to mitigate
such effects. Particle size should therefore be assessed and factored in when considering operational
performance and driver safety for wearing-course layers.
Numerous specifications exist for the use of recycled crushed glass in asphalt applications for jurisdictions
across Australia and New Zealand, as seen in Table 4.2 below. The use of RCG is generally limited to
certain asphalt types. For example, RCG is allowable in heavy and light duty dense-graded asphalt, crumb
rubber modified asphalt, and stone mastic asphalt within NSW, while it is only permissible in dense-graded
asphalt by TMR.

Table 4.2: Available Transport Agency Specifications for the Use of RCG in Asphalt
Transport Specification Applications

Agency (state)
TMR (Qld) MRTS30, MRTS101 Dense graded asphalt
QA Specification 3154 Dense graded asphalt, crumb rubber asphalt, stone mastic asphalt
TfNSW (NSW) R116 Heavy duty dense graded asphalt
R118 Crumb rubber asphalt
DoT (Vic) Section 407 Various asphalt types
It should be noted that reclaimed pavement containing RCG possesses no additional processing
requirements to that of conventional reclaimed pavement.
Concrete and Cementitious Stabilisation Applications
Ground and fine-grained glass particles contain pozzolanic properties able to provide a stabilising effect
(Mohajerani et al., 2017), and may therefore be suitable for stabilised applications in combination with
traditional cementitious products such as Portland cement.
Recycled glass has been found to chemically react with cement products through alkali-silica reactions. This
leads to swelling (expansion) of the glass particles, which can result in cracking of the stabilised layer. This
can potentially be mitigated by limiting the volume of glass particles in the mix, thus controlling the volume of
expansion. Alternatively, it has been found that the addition of fly ash can potentially reduce the silica-
alkaline reaction (Nagrockienė & Rutkauskas, 2019) and reduce swelling of glass particles.
As RCG is predominately derived from crushed beverage bottles, if it is not suitably washed and cleaned
there is potential for residual sugars to remain among the source material. Sugar contamination in Portland
cement concrete has been found to reduce ultimate strength, leading to a random increase in hardening
times (Fulton, 2008). Where sugar contamination of RCG is suspected, sampling and testing can be
conducted in accordance with AS 1141.35 – 2007.
NSW and Victorian transport agencies currently allow for the use of RCG within non-structural concrete,
concrete paving, and stabilised layers, with TfNSW allowing up to 15%. TMR currently do not allow for the
use of RCG within concrete pavement or structural concrete, with only partial aggregate replacement allowed
for within non-structural concrete and stabilised materials.
4.3 Health, Safety and Environmental Risks
Most RCG for road use is sourced from municipal solid waste (MSW) streams. By the time the glass has
been recovered for recycling, it is typically broken into smaller fragments and may contain other materials
that have been introduced and carried with it during its use and disposal (Sustainability Victoria, 2014), such
as:
• Ceramics, which may include dishware, porcelain caps, pottery, heat-resistant cookware (for example,
Pyrex), mirror glass, laboratory glass, light bulbs, crystal, and window glass
• Metals, generally in the form of container lids and seals
• Organics, including paper labels, wood, plants, and food residue, which are removed through washing
and screening operations
• Plastics.

Each transport agency will specify the acceptable limit of contaminants allowable within RCG within their
permit systems. Austroads ATS 3050 – Supply of Recycled Crushed Glass Sand requires compliance testing
for particle size distribution (AS 1141.11.1), the maximum permissible concentration of chemicals and heavy
metals (EPA SW 846 Method 3051A), and particle size < 75 µm (AS 1141.12). This is essential to determine
levels of contamination that may cause ecological harm, contaminate groundwater or cause human health
effects. While the environmental impacts of heavy metal leaching are within permissible limits, further
mitigation strategies are centred around eliminating contact between RCG and water (Maqsood et al., 2019).
This includes placement of RCG below sealed road surfaces or for use in projects with elevated pavements
free from ponding water or elevated water-tables.
As with natural and manufactured sand, respiratory concerns surround the use of fine RCG, where fine
particles of size ≤ 2.5 µm may become airborne if not handled appropriately, with the potential risk of
inhalation into the lungs. Further concerns relate to the carcinogenic potential of crystalline silica, but studies
have determined that crushed glass contains predominately amorphous silica and is therefore generally
safer than natural and manufactured sand (LGNSW, 2020). Nonetheless, appropriate PPE should be used
when handling natural sand, manufactured sand or RCG.
Refer to the “Concrete and Cementitious Stabilisation Applications” section above for inherent risks specific
to cementitious materials integrated with RCG.
4.4 Economics
Recycled crushed glass has the potential to be significantly cheaper to purchase compared with substituted
virgin materials (Sustainability Victoria, 2014). This will, however, vary across projects and will heavily rely on
proximity of the RCG manufacturer to the project site and the availability/quality of the stockpile. In
comparison to virgin materials, recycled glass is generally lighter, which may lead to reduced haulage costs
and improved handling efficiency, although this is likely to be outweighed by increased haulage distances, as
sand is more readily available over a greater number of sites. Haulage issues will likely improve with greater
uptake of RCG, which in turn will lead to increased numbers of processing and manufacturing sites.

5. Recycled Plastic Waste
Figure 5.1: Lifecycle Stages of Recycled Plastic Waste in Roading Applications
Waste Plastic Baled Plastic Shredded Plastic Granulated Plastic

Waste Waste Waste
Source: Live Science (2021); Coda Plastics (2017); Plastic Soup Foundation (2020); PLASgran (2017)
5.1 General
Technology Part 4E: Recycled Materials” (Austroads, 2021b) and should be read in conjunction with that
document.
Virgin plastics have for many years been used as a component in manufacturing modified bitumen for
asphalt and spray seals. As reported in Austroads publication AP-R648-21, eight potential polymer groups
have been identified as potentially suitable for use in small quantities as a bitumen modifier in asphalt
applications.
To assess their recyclability, waste plastics can be sorted into two categories – thermoset and thermoplastic.
Thermoset plastics undergo a chemical change when heated and cannot be reformed or remelted, hence
are considered more difficult to recycle. Examples of thermoset plastics include polyurethane (PU), epoxy
resins, acrylic resins, vinyl esters, silicone rubbers and polyesters.
Thermoplastics, however, can be reheated and reshaped into different products and are considered
recyclable. Examples of thermoplastics include acrylonitrile butadiene-styrene (ABS), acrylics, nylons,
polylactic acid (PLA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), and Teflon (PTFE). Table 5.1 details the various plastic types and their potential uses.
The use of recycled plastics has generally steered away from post-consumer waste streams to focus on
commercial and industrial (C&I) streams. Generally, C&I waste plastic is of a lower contamination due to
recycling methods currently in place and produce a less heterogenous stream as a result of consistent
material consumption (Austroads, 2021d). All of which requires less cleaning, sorting and processing to
produce a commercially viable product that meets purity and contamination standards for binder modification
among other applications. As part of the current APT6305 project, Austroads is further investigating the
feasibility and performance of some sources of post-consumer plastics.

Recycled plastics can be utilised via three primary mixing processes: dry method, wet method, and the
mixed method. The wet method introduces recycled plastic to bitumen, pre-processing to create a plastic
modified binder prior to combining with aggregate for asphalt or sprayed sealing applications (Austroads
2021a). Plastics can be introduced to bitumen in various forms (pellet, shredded, flaked or powder) and
should have a melting point below that of common asphalt mixing temperatures of 160°C to produce a
homogenous modified binder (Austroads, 2021d).
The dry method is achieved by adding solid dry recycled plastics in pellet or powder forms only and directly
to the mixing chamber at an asphalt plant (Austroads, 2021a). The use of plastic flakes or other elongated
particles are generally unsuitable as they tend to reduce workability and bearing capacity of the mix.
Fundamentally, this process aims to substitute quarried aggregates with recycled plastic material without
providing any additional performance outcomes. Suitable plastics should have a melting point above 200°C
to avoid softening, retain shape and bulk density during mixing operations (Austroads, 2021d).
The mixed method utilises aspects of both the wet and dry methods by introducing low melting point plastics
suitable for wet processing to hot aggregates at the asphalt plant and mixing prior to the addition of bitumen
binder. Plastics are intended to coat heated aggregates and improve the binding properties between binder
and aggregates (Austroads, 2021d).
See Table 5.1 for melting range temperatures for plastics commonly encountered.
Table 5.1: Plastic Classifications, Properties and Original Use
Code Plastic Type Properties Virgin Uses

Polyethylene terephthalate Clear, tough, lightweight, flexible, Food and beverage packaging,
(PET) chemical resistant, non- single use packaging
1 biodegradable, non-toxic
Melting point ~ 260°C
High density polyethylene Thermal properties, strong, Plastic bags (reusable), hard hats,
(HDPE) lightweight, workable, chemical fuel tanks, piping, insulation, food
2 resistant, durable, non-toxic and beverage containers
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Dense, cheap, rigid, brittle, strong, Piping, vinyl flooring, car interiors,
3 toxic. cling wrap, inflatables, clothing
Melting point ~ 100-260°C
Low density polyethylene Flexible, strong, cheap, clear, tear Plastic bags (single use)
4 (LDPE) and stress crack resistant, non-toxic
Polypropylene (PP) Chemical resistant, elastic, tough, Packaging, parts, bottle caps,
fatigue resistant, insulation plastic cups, baby bottles,
5
properties, transmissive, potentially kitchenware, plant pots, straws
toxic. Melting point ~ 160°C
Polystyrene (PS) Insulation, lightweight, non-reactive, Single use food containers and
cheap, white, toxic cups, protective packaging,
6
Melting point ~ 210-249°C insulation, surfboards, residential
building slabs
Other – all plastics other than Various properties, generally non- Car parts, bottles, sippy cups,
1–6: Resins, acrylic, recyclable medical parts
laminates, bioplastics, nylon,
7 polyurethane (PU),
polycarbonates (PC),
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
(ABS), and phenolics
Note: The melting point data is indictive only, with actual melting and ignition temperature ranging from manufacturer,
processing technique and additives such as fire retardants.

Polymers may be generalised into a respective class (e.g. LPDE), although various additives are introduced
during the manufacturing processes to produce desired plastic product characteristics. For example, two
companies may manufacture plastic cutlery from the same polymer, but may use different dyes, modifiers or
processing techniques which create chemical variations in the end product. The key point to note is that due
to the huge variability of available plastic materials, generalisations about the performance of plastic-modified
asphalt mixes are unlikely to be reliable, and each product will need to be separately evaluated.
Further information relating to polymer modified binders (PMB) can be found in Austroads Technical
Specification ATS3110: Supply of Polymer Modified Binders, and Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology
Park 4F: Bituminous Binders, which cover natural rubbers, synthetic polymers, and crumb rubber as binder
modification agents.
Mechanical properties of recycled polymers can vary greatly depending on polymer type, reprocessing
method and degree of degradation. Plastic recycling is commonly classified as either mechanical or
chemical, with mechanical processing being the predominant method used in Australia and New Zealand.
The mechanical shearing of polymer in this process, dependant on plastic type, results in either chain
scission or crosslinking of the molecular structure that respectively reduces or increases molecular weight.
This ultimately impacts the rheological and mechanical properties of the plastic (Ragaert etal. , 2017).
Materials can only undergo a limited number of mechanical recycling cycles before they are unsuitable for
further use. However, chemical recycling reverts polymers back into their monomer compounds, and these
can then be repolymerised into a new product without negatively impacting physical and mechanical
properties. The long-term durability (resistance to oxidation or chemical degradation) of waste plastic
materials in surfacing or pavement environments is unknown. Compared to commonly used styrene-
butadiene-styrene (SBS) polymers, most post-consumer waste plastics such as LDPE, HDPE, PP and PET
are relatively inert, especially to oxidation.
Recycled polymers have various comparable performance characteristics which can be used as effective
criteria for decision-making for reusability applications. Austroads (2021d) proposes eight separate polymer
ranking criteria as described in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Proposed Recycled Plastic Assessable Criteria
Criteria Experimental Techniques Bitumen/Asphalt Relevance

Recycling Fourier-Transform Infrared Bitumen and asphalt performance can be impacted by the
contamination (FTIR) spectroscopy presence of organic contaminants (e.g. paper, timber)
Blendability Differential Scanning The test investigates the melting point of the polymer and
Calorimetry (DSC) compares it to the processing temperature of bitumen and
asphalt
Purity Thermogravimetric Analysis High purity with minimal contaminants ensures a better
(TGA) reproducibility between plastic batches
Processability Melt Flow Index (MFI) Plastics with high MFI show low viscosity and better
processability in bitumen at high temperature
Storage Stability Density analysis Processability in bitumen at high temperature storage stability.
Density analysis storage at high temperature is facilitated by
similarities in density between plastics and bitumen
Solubility Hansen Solubility Plastics that are ‘soluble’ in bitumen ensure better dispersion
Parameters (HSP) of the sample in the bitumen during blending
Polarity Water Contact Angle (WCA) More polar plastics (low WCA) can better interact with
bitumen’s polar fractions and enhance compatibility
Presence of Gas Chromatography/Mass The presence of brominated flame retardants in recycled
hazardous additives Spectrometry (GC/MS) plastics is an environmental concern
Source: (extract from AP-R663-21)

Aggregates Substitution
Subbase and lower subbase pavement layers have been investigated internationally, and inclusions of
polymer granules at less than 5% and with a particle size no greater than 10 mm do not significantly impact
bearing capacity (Arulrajah et al., 2017). This however has only been investigated at a research level, has
not yet been trialled, and therefore requires further development to be considered a viable use.
When considering the inclusion of polymer granules in unbound pavement layers, it is important to note that
polymers generally have a far lower strength than natural aggregates. Only low volumes of natural aggregate
should therefore be substituted for polymer granules, as large quantities may change deformation
characteristics in granular aggregate pavements. This application may have a high potential for release of
polymer particles from the pavement into the environment. Such pavements may also be unsuitable for re-
recycling due to the considerable processing efforts required to separate polymer and conventional
aggregates. Furthermore, granulated polymer may be unsuitable for asphalt wearing course and sprayed
seal applications due to deterioration and polishing of the material and a lack of cohesion associated with
phase separation of the two materials.
Further assessment is currently underway to evaluate cost, performance and environmental concerns
associated with the dry method processing of recycled plastic as an aggregate substitute. This will be further
reported on during the Austroads project APT6305 Use of Road-grade Recycled Plastics for Sustainable
Asphalt Pavements.
Binder Modification
Polymer modified bitumens (PMBs) are commonly used throughout Australia, and there are a range of
specifications available, including Austroads Technical Specification ATS3110 - Supply of Polymer Modified
Binders that may be referred to for guidance, however further testing may be required by a SQP. New
Zealand currently utilise the Superpave Performance Grading System developed in the US covering both
neat and polymer modified binders which sets performance standards to be met for a given temperature and
application. Therefore, it is the responsibility of designers and contractors to determine a PMB that satisfies
the required binder grade for a given application and traffic loading scenario. Adding waste plastic to the
bitumen – while also adding other waste materials such as glass to the aggregate fraction or printer toner to
the binder – would mean that binder testing with the plastic alone would not truly reflect the product’s overall
performance (i.e. testing each unique mix would be required).
Some reports indicate that waste-plastic-modified mixes (wet or dry methods) have increased moisture
sensitivity compared with equivalent mixes made from natural aggregates alone (White & Magee, 2019;
Jafar, 2016). To this end, AGPT:T232 Stripping Potential of Asphalt–Tensile Strength Ratio (or an equivalent
test) should be incorporated into the mix design stage.
Bitumen-plastic blends may be prone to phase separation (as with crumb-rubber-modified binders). It is
especially important to consider assessing their stability (using AGPT/T108) if the modified binder is to be
stored or transported to the asphalt plant or sealing works. When considering whether to use polymers in
asphalt or binder applications, factors such as particle size, polymer concentration (% of binder volume),
melting point and melt flow index (viscosity) will determine how well polymers disperse and blend with the
bitumen medium and their susceptibility to phase separation. These aspects will subsequently impact the
modified binder’s performance.
Ultimately, an established class of polymer modified binder should be selected to act as a benchmark for
performance when considering recycled plastic for binder modification. Such properties should be assessed
in accordance with ATS3110 and achieved prior to acceptance. Austroads Guideline AP-G96-21 – Appendix
A contains forms to assist in the performance assessment of recycled plastic binders against established
PMBs for sprayed seals and asphalt applications (Austroads, 2021a).

Other
Recycled plastic has been remanufactured and used as discrete fibre or continuous fibre mesh with similar
qualities to that of virgin polymer products. Continuous fibre mesh can be referred to as geotextile
reinforcement and is commonly used for material separation of unbound granular layers and interlayer
tensile reinforcement of asphalt. Proprietary products exist for recycled plastic geotextiles, with mechanical
properties lab tested and confirmed to meet various Australian and New Zealand specifications for
geotextiles (separation and filtration).
Discrete fibre can be categorised into micro or macro fibres relating to size and shape. This material has
been considered either as a secondary reinforcement to steel mesh in concrete pavements or in some cases
as a full replacement for the primary steel mesh. Such applications have been limited to concrete pathways.
While no specifications currently exist in New Zealand, DoT Specification Section 703 allows full the
replacement of SL82 and SL72 steel reinforcing mesh with recycled polypropylene macro fibres. The
polypropylene fibres must conform to various ASTM performance standards such as tensile strength (ASTM
D3822), modulus of elasticity (ASTM D3822, specific gravity (ASTM D792), average residual strength (ASTM
C1399), flexural toughness and flexural toughness factor (both ASTM C1609).
Consistency
To ensure consistency, a comprehensive testing regime should be implemented to determine the level of
contaminants present in a source material. Current methods rely on manual, optical, infrared, and sink-float
density separation techniques to process polymers into respective groups. However, manufacturing
additives, similarities in material density and copolymers can result in one polymer group being contaminated
with another.
Contamination
Contaminant type will be further determined by the source/s of recycled plastic, such as MSW, C&D and C&I.
MSW may contain biological contaminants such as foods and oils, and trace amounts of various other
household materials, while C&D waste may contain paints, solvents, adhesives, dirt, and other construction
debris. The level of sorting and cleaning required will vary according to the source/s of waste stream
materials, although these recycled materials are usually separated, cleaned and processed by specialised
organisations as a reputable product. Regardless, quality assurance processes should be implemented, and
FTIR analysis conducted to assess source material before use.
Health and Safety
Plastics are made up of hydrocarbon molecules with the potential to release volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) under thermal degradation. Released materials can
include aromatic hydrocarbons, ketones, ethers, aliphatic aldehydes and acids, among others (Austroads,
2021c). Release of VOCs is enhanced by elevated working temperatures. Therefore, it may be suitable to
consider the use of recycled plastics in lower temperature applications as a mitigating strategy. It is
recommended that test trials be conducted in accordance with the framework presented in Austroads AP-
R633-21 and by SQPs to measure the release of VOCs and determine safe works methods and exposure
times. Generally, PVC is excluded from consideration due to its low melting point and its potential to release
chlorinated furans which are hazardous to both human and environmental health.

Environmental
Incorporating recycled plastics into road pavement sub-layers using dry methods may potentially lead to
chemical leaching or dispersion of the plastic aggregate into groundwater or surrounding aqueous
environments. Similarly, when dry method recycled plastic is considered for wearing surface applications,
there is considerable risk for micro- and nano-plastic particles to be produced through wear and weathering
(Austroads, 2021c).
Re-recyclability
Reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) are the highest consumed recycled material in the global road
construction market to date. The presence of recycled plastic granules in asphalt may make it unsuitable for
further use as a reclaimed pavement. Therefore, a whole-of-life approach must be undertaken when
considering the sustainability of roads including recycled plastic aggregates. It may be more beneficial to
exclude RAP use to ensure a pavement will in future be suitable for reclamation and reuse.
5.4 Economics
The cost of recycled plastic material will vary according to the type of polymer being considered, logistics,
contamination and various other factors. A comprehensive analysis of recycle plastic economics has been
covered in Austroads’ report AP-R648-21 and can be referred for further information.
Generally, the price of recycled plastics remains consistent as much of the cost is associated with transport,
cleaning and processing to produce a commercial product for remanufacturing. The price comparison to
virgin polymers is inconsistent as virgin plastic prices correspond to the rise and fall in petroleum prices.
In Australia, HDPE and PET are commonly recycled and sold as single streams while the remaining plastics
are baled and landfilled, or sold as mixed plastic at a significantly lower price. However, a number of
recyclers will sort and produce other polymer types. Sorted plastics are often available in baled, flaked, pellet
or powder forms, which will vary in price, associated with the level of processing required.
The price of each form has also been found to vary across jurisdictions, driven by additives, supply and
demand, quality, purity, shape, transport, processing requirements and type (Austroads, AP-R648-21).
Supply and demand are considered significant barriers to the uptake of recycled plastic waste for the wet
method due to the high-quality material required.
The price of recycled plastics can be expected to fall with the investment in recycling technologies by
reducing processing costs and improving output and quality. Although, this will largely rely on the supply and
demand of recycled plastics and competing interests from potentially better use applications.
Processing requirements and associated production costs will vary depending on product and intended
application. The wet method may require less processing than the dry method, which requires more stringent
material grading and PSD conformance. It is suggested that for recycled plastics to be economically viable
for dry method applications, they must be comparable to quarried aggregates (Austroads, AP-R648-21).

6. Industrial Slag
Figure 6.1: Various Industrial Slag Materials
Blast Furnace Slag Granulated Blast Electric Arc Basic Oxygen

Furnace Slag Furnace Slag Furnace Slag
Sources: Rizhaosteel (2021); Indiamart (2021); Terrones-Saeta (2021); Kang et al. (2019)
6.1 General
This guide was developed concurrently with “Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology
Part 4E: Recycled Materials” (Austroads, 2021b) and should be read in conjunction with that document.
Slag is a by-product of the iron and steel-making processes, and has proven an acceptable alternative to the
natural aggregate resource over a wide range of applications. Approximately 2.854 million tonnes of iron and
steel slag products were produced in or imported to Australia and New Zealand between January and
December 2019 (Australasian Slag Association, 2020).
Annual survey reporting by the Australasian Slag Association (ASA) suggests that Australia’s annual slag
production is decreasing, while the demand for materials in granular roading applications is growing, as
detailed in Table 6.1. Consideration should be given to project requirements and volumes of materials
available on the market, as future supply may vary depending on Australian and New Zealand steel
manufacturing industry levels of production. Currently, most Australian steel manufacturing occurs in NSW
and Victoria.
Table 6.1: Production and use of industrial slag over time
Year Production (tonnes) Effective Utilisation (%)

1990 ~4.5 million 30-35
2000 3.1 million 75
2010 2.67 million 88
2019 2.31 million 81
Source: ASA, 2002; ASA, 2013; ASA Membership Annual Survey Report. 2019
There are five slags commonly referred to, namely:

• GBFS – granulated blast furnace slag
• GGBFS – ground granulated blast furnace slag (used for stabilisation)

• BFS – blast furnace slag (rock slag)

• BOS – basic oxygen steel slag
• EAF – electric arc furnace slag.
Table 6.2 details manufacturing processes and industry-related terminology for commonly referred-to slag
types.
Table 6.2: Industrial Slag Types
Type Manufacturing process Also known as

Blast Furnace Slag Iron process BFS, GBFS, GGBFS, BFS, or Rock
Slag
Basic Oxygen Steel Slag Steel process BOS Slag or BOS
Electric Arc Furnace Slag Steel process EAF Slag or EAFS
BFS is generally lighter than most quarried aggregates, and is usually recovered at 300 mm sizing before
undergoing crushing and screening, making it suitable for nominal aggregate sizes.
GBFS is a fine granular material typically no larger than 6mm nominal when produced, with a density
approximately 60–70% that of natural sand. Due to its pozzolanic properties, GBFS tends to solidify when
used as backfill without adding other materials, and should be avoided as drainage backfill due to low
permeability. It is suitable as a fines component in base and subbase course, and select fill.
GGBFS is formed from further processing of GBFS into a fine material. It is typically used as a cementitious
material substitute in concrete production, or combined with lime as an activating agent for stabilising
granular pavements. GGBFS is particularly beneficial for resisting aggressive environmental conditions
(Australasian Slag Association, 2021a).
EAFS is a by-product of steel manufacturing and is reported to be approximately 20–25% heavier than
quarried aggregate and BFS, as well as being characteristically harder. While it is suitable as an unbound
granular material, it is best suited as a sealing aggregate.
BOS or steel furnace slag (SFS) has similar characteristics to EAFS, being generally heavier than
aggregates by approximately 20–25% and having excellent skid and rutting resistance (Australasian Slag
Association, 2021b).
In comparison to other recycled materials, industrial slag has been extensively used in roading applications
throughout Australia and New Zealand, including as engineering fill, unbound granular aggregates in base
and subbase layers, asphalt and sprayed seals, and stabilised bound and cementitious applications.
There is already abundant information available on using industrial slag in roads, such as those specified in
Table 6.2 above. The Australasian Slag Association (ASA) has published the following comprehensive
guidance documents:
• A Guide to the Use of Iron and Steel Slag in Roads (2002)
• A Guide to the Use of Iron Blast Furnace Slag in Cement and Concrete (1997)
• A Guide to the Use of Steel Furnace Slag in Asphalt and Thin Bituminous Surfacings (1999)
• Quick Reference Guide 1 (2013) – Roads Guide Supplement on General Applications
• Quick Reference Guide 3 (2014) – Steel Furnace Slag

• Quick Reference Guide 4 (2015) – Electric Arc Furnace Slag.
Table 6.3 illustrates the physical properties of various slag forms relating to granular aggregates and the
respective test methods required for their determination.
Table 6.3: Physical Properties of Iron and Steel Slags
Blast Furnace Steel Slag Test Method

Slag
Rock Slag BOS Slag EAF Slag

Physical Property – Aggregate
Particle density dry (kg/m3) 2450–2550 3300–3400 3300
AS 1141.5 & 6
SSD 2550–2650 3350–3450 3400
Dry strength (kN) 85–100 275 250 AS 1141.22
Wet strength (kN) 65–90 230–300 240–300
Wet/dry strength variation (%) 10–20 5–20 5– 5
1–2 (coarse) 1–2 (coarse)
Water absorption (%) 4–7 AS 1141.5 & 6
2–4 (fine) 2–4 (fine)
LA abrasion 37–43 12–18 16 AS 1141.23
Polished aggregate friction value
NA 58–63 58–63 AS 1141.41/42
(PAFV)
Sodium sulphate soundness (%) <4 <4 AS 1141.24

Physical Property – Roadbase
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)
2050–2150 2300–2400 2300–2400 AS 1141.5.1.1
(20 mm GMB standard compaction)
Optimum moisture content (%) 8–12 8–12 8–12 AS 1289.2.1.1
Note: OMC depends on the components of the mix

Source: Australasian Slag Association (2002)
Generally, specifications relate to the use of granulated ground blast furnace slag (GGBFS) as a
cementitious binder additive in conjunction with other additives such as cement, hydrated lime, and fly ash
where the material is usually specified in accordance with AS 3582.2.
However, various specifications exist for the use of various slag materials in a range of roading applications
throughout Australian and New Zealand as detailed in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Specifications and Guidelines for the Use of Slags across Australia and New Zealand Transport
Agencies in Pavement and Earthworks Applications
Transport Earthworks Subbase Base Asphalt Seal

Agency (state)
R44 R71 and QA R71, QA 3051 3152 (QA), M250 3151
3051 (unbound), (unbound), R73,
TfNSW (NSW) R75, M290
R73, R75, M290
(bound) (bound)
204, 290 801 (unbound), 801 801, 407 801
DoT (Vic) 801, 815
(bound),
- MRTS05, 07B, MRTS05, 07B, MRTS101 -
TMR (Qld)
08, 10, 39 08, 10, 40

Specification: Specification: Specification: Specification: Specification:

DPTI (SA)
Part R15 Part R15 Part R15 Part R15 Part R15
Department of See Victoria DoT See Victoria DoT See Victoria DoT See Victoria DoT See Victoria DoT
State Growth
(Tas)
Waka Kotahi - - M4 M10 M6
NZTA (NZ)
Note: Where no exact specification is set for slag as a coarse aggregate, it does not exclude it’s use given aggregate
specifications are met.
Aggregate Applications
Numerous specifications and guidelines for incorporating slag aggregates in unbound applications such as
fill, subbase and base-course layers are published throughout Australia and New Zealand. Use of slag
aggregates should comply with the applicable state specifications for an intended purpose, for example, BOS
slag as a subbase aggregate.
Slag aggregates can potentially improve constructability in wet climates, as the material is generally less
sensitive to moisture than traditional quarried aggregates. Moisture contents approaching near full saturation
are reported to improve compaction, although substrate softening should be prevented (Australasian Slag
Association, 2002).
Asphalts and Sprayed Seals
Steel slag aggregates have been used throughout Australia and New Zealand as course and fine material in
asphalt and sprayed sealed applications. Steel slag is reported to possess better performance characteristics
than conventional aggregates, providing enhanced skid and abrasion resistance and crushing strength (DoT
TN09). Such properties make the material suitable for use in heavily trafficked areas, on roads subject to
heavy loads, and at high-stress areas such as roundabouts and bends.
Cementitious Stabilisation and Concrete
Of the various slag types available, GGBFS is the one most utilised for cementitious stabilisation of
aggregates and as a substitute to Portland cement in concrete production. Queensland Department of
Transport and Mains Roads Technical Note TN193 provides guidance on the use of GGBFS in stabilised
applications, with reference to numerous state specifications. Ground granulated blast furnace slag has been
specified where it is desirable to reduce the silica-alkali reactions that occur during concrete curing, while its
use in concrete is widely accepted, with a range of specifications existing.
Slag aggregates have been used in bound subbase applications, with varying development of unconfined
compressive strength depending on the slag being considered. The Australasian Slag Association (2002)
discusses the ability for large blast furnace slag aggregates to display self-cementing characteristics when
crushed insitu. Fine reactive glass-like material is produced during the crushing process, reportedly
producing a compacted layer with a stiffness similar to that for a heavily bound pavement layer over a
twelve-month period.
Similarly, GBFS has been found to develop self-cementing characteristics, although at a much more rapid
rate, producing an unconfined compressive strength of approximately 5 MPa after three months. For rapid-
set cementitious subbase, BOS has been used in combination with GBFS and fly ash. Lime may also be
added to help activate slag materials. Care needs to be taken to ensure that suitable binders/binder blends
are chosen to meet specification and design requirements, including mix design requirements with minimum
and maximum limits for strength (e.g. UCS).

BOS and EAF slags have been reported to contain low percentages of free lime, which is a flux requirement
throughout the manufacturing process. Un-hydrated free lime has been known to react with water to form
calcium hydroxide and induce aggregate swelling. It is recommended that a hydration program be developed
and implemented 1–3 months before using aggregate in unbound granular applications, to facilitate
conditioning and avoid future expansion (VicRoads, 2011). While weathering of slag aggregates is often
performed by a manufacturer prior to delivery, it is recommended that further testing be conducted to confirm
that a material has been sufficiently weathered. Failure to adequately weather slag aggregates may result in
deformation and cracking of pavement surfaces. TfNSW has issued a technical direction (QA50) suspending
the use of BOS and EAF steel slag use in earth works, sprayed seals, and a variety of cementitious
applications. The materials have been reported to expand, causing longitudinal heaving and leading to
increased maintenance and reduced road safety (Transport for New South Wales, 2014).
Heavy metal leaching can occur with industrial slags, which are a by-product of heavy-metal manufacturing.
Generally, only trace amounts are found, and these are typically below trigger thresholds for environmental
assessment. Slags such as steel slag have the potential to create alkaline leachate which may impact
surrounding environments. A potential mitigation strategy is to weather steel slag aggregates at a controlled
site prior to use. This will allow activation of the free-lime content which results in aggregate swelling and
alkaline leachate control.
It may be necessary to conduct project-specific environmental risk assessments when considering the use of
slag materials close to water sources. This may be applicable for projects that are:
• Close to natural or constructed waterways

• In areas with an elevated water table
• Subject to flooding of adjacent lands.
Strategies may be implemented to reduce the risk of alkaline leachate run-off, for example establishing a
buffer zone either side of a waterway, installing an appropriate drainage system, or selecting an appropriate
slag material.
Alkaline leachate has been found to corrode galvanised and aluminium materials. A designer may therefore
need to consider ways to suitably manage utilities, services, and other project-specific items which could
chemically react with alkaline leachate.
6.4 Economics
Material haulage costs are a key consideration for industrial slag use, as there are only a few slag production
centres. Limited locations and their proximity to construction sites impact on transport costs. Blast furnace
and steel furnace slags are produced at Port Kembla in New South Wales, Whyalla in South Australia, and
Glenbrook in New Zealand. EAF slags are produced in smaller quantities around Melbourne, Sydney, and
Newcastle in Australia.
As slags are derived from heavy metals, some may have a higher density than conventional natural
aggregates, requiring a higher tonnage than the same volume of natural aggregates. This can impact
logistics costs, requiring more vehicles to cart a required volume. The plant and equipment needed to load
and place slag aggregates requires further consideration, as a higher density slag may require larger
equipment to manoeuvre the material, or may require higher repetition, impacting construction time or
resourcing.

Furthermore, the higher porosity of slag aggregates has resulted in asphalt applications being found to
generally need a higher volume of binder to satisfy performance requirements in asphalt applications. BOS
is, however, reported to have a finer particle-size distribution than conventional materials, which improves
workability and placement ease, generally requires less compaction effort, and thus reduces constructability
costs (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2015).

7. Recycled Tyres
Figure 7.1: Recycling Stages for End-of-Life Tyre and Crumb Rubber Production for Roads
End of Life Tyres Shredded Rubber Rubber Granules Crumb Rubber
Sources: Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers' Association (2020); Exporters India (2021); Alibaba (2021); Stock in Italy (2021)
7.1 General
This Guide was developed concurrently with the “Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement
document.
During 2018–19, 465,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres (EOLTs) was produced in Australia, comprising
approximately 41% passenger vehicle tyres, 34% truck tyres, and 25% off-the-road tyres (OTR), while New
Zealand generated an estimated 74,000 tonnes annually (Envisage Works, 2019). Crumb rubber feedstock
is generally separated into three categories: passenger vehicle tyres, truck tyres, and OTR tyres, due to the
composition of natural and synthetic rubbers, textile and metallic fibres, and carbon black (Harrison et al.,
2008).
Table 7.1 illustrates the composition and tonnage of EOLT constituents produced in Australia during 2018–
19. It should be noted that manufacturers determine the composition of natural and synthetic rubbers, which
are expected to vary over time and regions.
Table 7.1: Composition and Tonnage for End-of-Life Tyres in Australia, 2018–19
Passenger Truck OTR Total

Material
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
Rubber – Natural 27,000 42,000 31,000 100,000
Rubber Synthetic 51,000 18,000 13,000 82,000
Metal – Steel Wire 7,000 0 0 7,000
Plastic Fibre/Fabric - Nylon 7,000 0 0 7,000
Plastic Fibre/Fabric – Polyester 20,000 17,000 13,000 50,000
Rubber Additive – Carbon Black 20,000 17,000 13,000 50,000
Rubber Additive – Zinc Oxide 2,000 3,000 2,000 7,000
Rubber Additive – Sulphur 2,000 1,000 1,000 4,000
Rubber Additive – Other 14,000 9,000 6,000 29,000
Total 190,000 158,000 118,000 465,000
Source: Envisage Works (2019)

Crumb rubber is frequently used for sprayed sealing applications in Australia, with Austroads Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 4F: Bituminous Binders providing guidance on their use, alongside specification
for PMB binders which include various rubberised binder grades in AST 3110. In comparison to sprayed seal
applications, CRM binders for asphalt pavements are somewhat limited, with TMR, MRWA and AfPA having
previously undertaken research to provide further specification for CRM binders in this field (Choi et al.,
2015). The results and findings can be found under Austroads National Specification for Crumb Rubber
Binders in Asphalt and Seals (AP-T359-21). Further guidance and specifications can be sought from state
transport agencies as detailed in Table 7.2. While there have been a handful of trials conducted since the
1980s, crumb rubber is not a commonly used bitumen modifier in New Zealand.
Crumb rubber is the most utilised recycled material in Australia for spray-seal applications. It is used as a
bitumen modifier, with the end-product classed as a polymer modified binder (PMB). In Australia, bitumen
binders are currently combined with up to 20% crumbed rubber for sprayed sealing works (Austroads,
2019c).
Crumb rubber can be introduced through dry processing (asphalt applications only), where the rubber is
combined as part of the aggregate fraction prior to introduction of bitumen binder. This process allows
manufacturing efficiency, although it gives only minimal control over binder blend properties, only partial use
of the rubber is achieved, and the full potential of the rubber modification is underutilised (Choi et al., 2015).
Crumb rubber can be further incorporated using the wet process and is frequently used for sprayed seal
binder applications throughout Australia. The wet process modifies the binder and is applicable for asphalt
and spray seal applications. Wet processing involves the addition of crumb rubber to a bitumen binder
medium either on-site in specialised plant or at a bitumen terminal or refinery (Choi et al., 2015). This
process maximises the potential benefit of the crumb rubber modification by allowing greater control of the
mix.
The incorporation of crumb rubber into the bitumen medium during the wet process is reported to be heavily
dependent on the mixing time and mixing process temperature. When crumb rubber is introduced to bitumen
at elevated mixing temperatures, the rubber particle begins to swell and undergo a phase change from solid
to a gel, then to an oil (Choi et al., 2015). The degree of phase change is highly time dependant and will
ultimately impact the viscoelastic properties of the mix. Modified binder can therefore be introduced to the
aggregate at various times to achieve desired binder properties (Choi et al., 2015). Note that agitation will be
required during storage and transportation, once combined, to maintain desired properties and mitigate
phase separation between the crumb rubber and bitumen binder.
All Australian states currently have some form of specification covering the use of recycled crumb rubber in
binder for sprayed sealing and asphalt applications, as detailed in Table 7.2. The requirements for using
crumb rubber may vary across jurisdictions, although no state agencies currently specify the types or
composition of rubber to be used. However, Austroads’ Technical Specification ATS3110 – Supply of
Polymer Modified Binders states that crumb rubber must be processed from waste tyres generated in
Australia, must be processed by a supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship Australia or another
organisation approved by the Principle, must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious material, and
must hold binder manufacturers and suppliers responsible for supplying suitable quality material.
ATS3110 provides further information for ‘field produced crumb rubber binders’ being a simple composition
of bitumen and rubber blended at a site no more than two hours’ travel from the project site. Details include
rubber modified property specifications, crumb rubber property specifications and testing frequencies, and
associated Austroads test methods.
The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)
and the Australian Flexible Pavement Association (AfPA) have recently developed specifications for crumb
rubber modified binders for use in asphalt based on recent test trials as documented in AP-T359-21.

Table 7.2: Crumb Rubber Specification and Guidelines by Transport Agency and Organisation
Transport Agency / Organisation Document Specification

Australian Flexible Pavement Crumb Rubber Modified Open Graded and Gap Graded Asphalt
Association (AfPA)
Department of Infrastructure and Master Specification RD-BP-S1 Supply of Bituminous Materials
Transport (DIT) South Australia
Section 408 Sprayed Bituminous Surfacings
Section 421 High Binder Crumb Rubber Asphalt
Department of Transport Victoria (DoT)
Section 422 Light Traffic Crumb Rubber Asphalt
TN107 Use of Recycled Materials in Road Pavements
Scrap Rubber Bitumen Guide
Transport for New South Wales QA specification R118 Crumb Rubber Asphalt
(TfNSW) QA specification 3252 Polymer Modified Binder for Pavements
QA specification 3256 Crumb Rubber
Specification 503 Bituminous Surfacing
Specification 511 Materials for Bituminous Treatments
Main Roads Western Australia
(MRWA) Specification 516 Crumb Rubber Open Graded Asphalt)
Transfer of Appropriate Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen Technology to
WA. Stage 2: Gap Graded Asphalt
MRTS11 Sprayed Bituminous Treatments (Excluding Emulsion)
Queensland Department of Transport
MRTS18 Polymer Modified Binder (Including Crumb Rubber)
and Main Roads (TMR)
PSTS112 Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt
Adding crumb rubber into hot mix asphalts involves use of either a crumb-rubber-modified binder (wet
process) or rubber-derived aggregate (dry process). Crumb rubber in asphalt can improve rutting resistance
and fatigue cracking due to the modified binder’s high viscosity and elasticity, although this is dependent on
a number of variables including modification type (e.g. wet or dry processing), crumb rubber characteristics
and asphalt type. Temperature susceptibility is also reduced due to the higher softening point, while the
inclusion of carbon black in the crumb acts as an antioxidant. COLAS (2021) suggests that crumb rubber
modified (CRM) binder is most suitable for use in dense graded (DGA), gap graded (GGA), and open graded
asphalt (OGA) mixes. Such benefits have been observed in a Mitcham Council trial for a AC14, DGA
containing a crumb rubber modified C320 binder.
Higher percentages of rubber (>18% of binder) have been used in GGA to effectively mitigate reflective
cracking of failed pavements (COLAS, 2021). Furthermore, DoT Technical Note TN020 – Reducing
Reflective Cracking Over Jointed Concrete Pavement (1997) assessed various bandage restraint options
overlayed with a 14mm DGA pavement, and found a CRM (8% bitumen and 2.7% crumb rubber) binder
minimised reflective cracking over a 10-year period (Geopave Material Technology, 1997). This is generally
in line with reports from the USA, where CRM asphalt and sprayed seals are frequently used for crack
resistance of damaged pavements (Choi et al., 2015).
In 2018, the City of Gold Coast, QLD began trials of crumb rubber modified gap graded asphalt over existing
cracked CTB pavement, to monitor reflective cracking resistance of the modified wearing course. Figure 7.2
shows the trial site prior to surfacing, and Figure 7.3 shows the finished surface using crumb rubber modified
asphalt mix. To date, trials have not shown any noticeable reflective cracking through the site (Petho, 2020).

Figure 7.2: City of Gold Coast Gap-Graded Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt Trial Location
Source: Fulton Hogan
Figure 7.3: Example of Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt in Place, City of Gold Coast

Technical Report 216 (Harrison et al., 2008) stipulates crumb rubber performance and its successful
implementation, as a binder modifier, will require compatibility between rubber and bitumen, which is
influenced by:
• Mixing process adopted (wet or dry)
• Processing variables, e.g. temperature, time, and mixing techniques (induced shear stresses)
• Base binder types considered for modification, as binder properties vary depending on bitumen source,
use of oil extenders, bitumen grade, molecular weight distribution, and chemical composition
• Recycled rubber type considered (i.e. natural/synthetic/composition, particle size and processing
techniques used)
• Choice of handling and storages methods, such as agitated and heated storage tanks, to mitigate phase
separation of the rubber and bitumen binder.
Recycling and reusing end-of-life tyres (EOLTs) may pose environmental and human health challenges if not
appropriately managed. When considering rubber for roading applications, it is important to understand how
rubber responds to oxidation, as hardening and softening present different environmental and health risks.
For example, polybutadiene and polyisoprene are both commonly found in tyre rubber. When oxidised,
polybutadiene hardens, becomes brittle and breaks apart into fine particles, whereas polyisoprene softens.
Other barriers to the uptake of crumb rubber include supply quality and consistency of tyre rubber, odour and
emissions, and the segregation of bitumen and rubber stored for excessive periods of time (Austroads,
2021).
Aside from their leaching potential, rubbers can emit carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and volatile inorganic compounds (VOCs), leading to health concerns if not appropriately managed
(Crockford et al., 1995).
Tyre Stewardship Australia released a report summarising the available literature of crumb rubber risks (Tyre
Stewardship Australia, 2022) and found in comparison to conventional asphalt mixes, there is a potential
minor increase of risk to the surrounding environment and a minor/moderate fuming risk towards
construction workers during asphalt construction. The study found the fumes and airborne particles are not
above SafeWork Australia standards, are not carcinogenic and the inclusion of crumb rubber does not
appear to increase negative symptoms for asphalt construction workers. Nevertheless, appropriate PPE is
recommended.
Emissions may be reduced by lowering the mixing temperature of crumb rubber asphalt as warm mix asphalt
emissions were found to decrease when compared with hot mix and were further reduced when using
surfactant additives. Warm mix asphalt (WMA) technologies with reduced production temperatures are
recommended when using crumb rubber in asphalt. Appropriate personal protective equipment and
ventilation can also be utilised to mitigate potential risks.
Operational wear and leaching of rubber-modified surfacings can release hazardous substances, most
commonly zinc, into the surrounding environment. Research does, however, suggest that when recycled tyre
rubber is combined with bitumen emulsion, such as for spray-seal pavements, leaching of metals is
drastically reduced by up to 50%, well below environmental thresholds (Gheni et al., 2018). Regardless, it
may be necessary to conduct an environmental risk assessment to assess potential physical and chemical
stressors on waterways.

7.4 Economics
Trials were conducted at the City of Mitcham in South Australia to compare the use of conventional and CRM
binders in highly reactive soils. Conventional asphalt, polymer modified asphalt and crumb rubber modified
asphalt were assessed and compared to determine financial viability for the use of rubber modified asphalt.
Comparative construction costs are presented in Table 7.3 below (King et al., 2019). Note however that the
presented prices are indicative only, project specific, and expected to vary depending on the project
considered.
Table 7.3: CRM Asphalt Construction Cost Comparison
Asphalt Mix Price per Tonne ($AUD)

AC10 C320 $166.42
AC14 C320 $161.87
AC10 CRB 15% $172.77
AC14 CRB 15% $174.77
AC10 A15E $191.00
Source: King et al., 2019
The construction cost was reported to be higher for CRM asphalt (AC10 CRB15%) than for conventional
asphalt (AC14 C320), but cheaper than PMB asphalt (AC10 A15E). Note that both CRM and PMB mixes
have improved performance properties compared with the conventional mix. It should also be noted that
rubber was sourced from Victoria and transported to South Australia, which had a significant impact on cost
(King et al., 2019).
Material costs can vary greatly, with crumb rubber alone being approximately $600 (AUD) per tonne prior to
mixing, and bitumen binder being approximately $900 (AUD) per tonne. Compared to conventional mixes,
CRM asphalt typically requires longer mixing time and more energy inputs to achieve synergy in the mixed
binder, increased binder content, additives to control temperature and odours, and dedicated plant and
storage. A trade-off occurs between reduced price of rubber and increased processing costs. It is anticipated
that the use of crumb rubber will become more affordable as crude oil prices rise and recycled rubber
processing costs fall. (King et al., 2019).
Material costs associated with sprayed seals can be reduced by using crumb rubber modified binders as an
alternative to other polymer modified binders manufactured using commercial polymers, such as SBS, which
has a relatively higher availability and lower price compared with crumbed rubber. Further whole-of-life cost
savings may be also realised as crumb rubber improves early stone retention of newly constructed sprayed
seals (provided initial adhesion is satisfactorily achieved).
Operational cost savings have been achieved by enhancing asphalt performance, such as improving rutting
and fatigue resistance, which reduces road maintenance needs and extends service life.

8. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
Figure 8.1: Recycling Stages for Existing Pavement to Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
Existing Pavement Rubble RAP Processed RAP Asphalt made with

RAP
Source: 2nd: Adams (2021); 3rd: Colorado Aggregate Recycling (2021); 4th: World Highways (2021)
8.1 General
document.
Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) can be classified as First Class RAP, consisting solely of asphalt, or as
a combination of pavement materials to produce Second Class RAP (e.g. including asphalt and unbound or
bound granular materials). First Class RAP can be processed, graded and reused to manufacture 'new'
asphalt, reducing the use of virgin aggregates and bitumen. Due to the oxidised nature of the RAP binder,
adjustment needs to be made to the manufacturing process (e.g. use of a softer grade of bitumen and/or use
of bitumen rejuvenating oils that do not compromise performance requirements).
Generally, the use of RAP in asphalt is considered the highest and best use for First Class RAP. Reclaimed
asphalt pavement is termed Second Class when contaminated with other materials such as unbound or
cement stabilised granular material or fill. Second Class RAP can be used for less-demanding engineering
applications, but is unsuitable for reuse in new asphalt pavements.
Reclaimed asphalt pavements are most suitably processed into hot-mix asphalt, with the remaining material
used as base or subbase materials and a small amount used in cold recycling or as fill. Other processes for
the recycling of asphalt include:
• Insitu, using hot processes
• Insitu, using cold processes
• Cold plant mixing of rap material.
Using processed RAP to create conventional hot-mix asphalt is the most common form of asphalt recycling,
and most road agencies now consider this standard practice. Technical data suggests that when
appropriately designed and manufactured, significant proportions of First Class RAP can be recycled into
hot-mix asphalt with an equivalent quality and structural performance to conventional non-RAP asphalt.
Figure 8.2 shows an example asphalt mix (excluding binder) which includes RAP.

Figure 8.2: AC14 Mix with RAP (Excluding Binder)

For mixes containing > 15% RAP, it is common practice to use a softer binder grade in the mix to
compensate for stiffness of the aged RAP binder. Further information on the use and design of RAP in hot-
mix asphalt pavements can be found in AP-T286-15. Specifications and technical documents for relevant
jurisdictions are also key references.
Modified (or new) asphalt plants which provide improved heat transfer, reduced emissions and effective
mixing of recycled materials are generally desirable for higher proportions of RAP addition (Austroads,
2014). Higher proportions of RAP also require greater control over uniformity of RAP materials, as well as
specific/additional testing. Consequently, crushing and screening into separate size fractions is generally
recommended for higher proportions (e.g. above 15%). Consideration should be given to the source of RAP
material and the desired application. An existing pavement may contain a size 14mm wearing course and/or
intermediate course dense graded asphalt with a size 20mm asphalt base. Material variations may lead to
increased crushing and screening requirements to achieve the desired material grading.
RAP may require higher temperatures and time to suitably process and combine material with new binder
and/ or rejuvenating agents. Such requirements will be exacerbated should the reclaimed asphalt be crumb
rubber modified. Constructing asphalt pavement with greater than 30% crumb rubber modified RAP
generally may require higher production temperatures compared with conventional asphalt, while inclusions
of < 30% generally require temperatures similar to conventional hot-mix asphalt.
When using RAP, it is necessary to stockpile between material recovery and its reuse in new pavements.
Road transport and traffic agencies have applicable standards which vary across jurisdictions. Generally,
stockpiles will be limited to no larger than 500–1000 tonnes, and meet quality controls such as aggregate
size, grading, residual binder content, and contamination, as well as being in a flowable state.

Climate and stockpiling conditions need to be considered for RAP stockpiles. Oversized RAP stockpiles that
are exposed to high temperatures can become tacky, with bearing pressure leading to material
consolidation. Stockpiles should be established in a cool dry environment when practicable, ideally with
some form of cover or protection from moisture. As RAP tends to retain moisture, exposure to rain may
require excessive heating/energy consumption to dry materials sufficiently for production. Referral can be
made to jurisdictional road agencies specifications or AfPA’s RAP Management Plan for guidance on RAP
testing, stockpiling and use (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, 2019).
Notwithstanding the use of modified or purpose-built plants to produce asphalt using First Class RAP, the
practical limit for RAP content in hot-mix asphalt is widely considered to be 40 - 50%. This is due to heat
capacity, gaseous hydrocarbon emissions, and the extra cost of processing and testing RAP mixes. Special
plants using microwave technology and other indirect heating methods limit gaseous emissions from asphalt
production with very high RAP proportions (up to 100%). Such plants have only seen limited use due to
increased energy consumption and the need for intensive material testing.
Asphalt
Incorporating RAP within new asphalt pavement is considered the best use of the recycled material due to
the sustainability and economic benefits. The percentage of RAP incorporation permissible in each asphalt
type varies between jurisdictions, with proportions of up to 15% being accepted as having minimal additional
requirements. Apart from the RAP specific elements, asphalt mixes made with First Class RAP must
otherwise conform to the same specification and performance requirements as mixes using virgin materials.
Details of the specification, design and manufacture of hot mix asphalt containing RAP are addressed in
Austroads publications (Austroads, 2014; Austroads, 2015a). A summary of the allowable RAP proportions
currently permitted within asphalt in Australia and New Zealand are given in Table 8.1. Note these values are
subject to change and reference should be made to the appropriate transport agency prior to
adopting/specifying RAP content.
Table 8.1: Current Permissible RAP Content Limits in Asphalt for New Zealand and Australian Transport
Agencies
Transport RAP Content Limit Comment

Agency
(state)
Surface Up to 25% RAP content is allowed for Refer to documents for further
surface layers, depending on traffic information:
volume and binder. Code of Practice 500.01 Registration of
Base Up to 40% RAP content can be used, Bituminous Mix Designs
DoT (Vic) Section 407 Dense Graded Asphalt
depending on base mix type (for
example Type SF)
Mix type RAP is not allowed in SMA, OGA or
PMB mixes
Surface Up to 20% RAP is allowed, provided The RAP content may only be increased
that the RAP source material meets the to 20% for surface layers and 50% for
relevant specification criteria (for other courses, subject to additional tests
example, grading, binder content of (for example, moisture sensitivity testing)
TfNSW1 RAP). and proven field performance. Refer to
(NSW) documents for further information:
Other than Up to 50% RAP substitution is allowed,
wearing assuming contractor has appropriate R116 Heavy Duty Dense Graded Asphalt
course RAP approval level and all necessary R117 Light Duty Dense Graded Asphalt
testing is undertaken.

Transport RAP Content Limit Comment

Agency
(state)
Mix type RAP is not allowed in SMA or OGA
mixes. For PMB mixes, up to 10% RAP
could be used.
Department Surface Refer Victoria (DoT) requirements
of State
Base
Growth
(Tas) Mix type
Surface Up to 20% RAP is allowed in dense Refer to the following documents for
graded asphalt surfacing courses. more information:
Intermediate Up to 40% RAP is allowed in dense MRTS30 Asphalt Pavements
and base graded asphalt MRTS32 High Modulus Asphalt (EME2)
layers Up to 15% RAP is allowed in high MRTS102 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
modulus (EME2) asphalt. Material
TMR (Qld)
TN148 Asphalt Mix Design Registration
Mix type RAP is not permitted in SMA or OGA
mixes. TN183 Use of High Percentages of
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
Material in Dense Graded Asphalt
TN193 Use of recycled materials in road
construction
Surface The use of RAP for surface layers is not Asphalt mixes containing RAP need to
allowed. meet the same design criteria used for
mixes excluding RAP.

Base Up to 20% RAP is allowed.
Refer to the following documents for
DPTI (SA) Mix type RAP is not allowed in SMA, OGA or further information:
PMB mixes. RD-PV-S1 Supply of Pavement Materials
DPTI Supplement to the Austroads
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2
DPTI R27
Surface The use of RAP for surface layers is not Refer to the following documents for
allowed. further information:
Base The use of up to 10% RAP in asphalt Specification 510
MRWA (WA)
intermediate course layers is allowed.
Mix type RAP is not allowed in SMA, OGA or
PMB mixes
Surface Up to 15% allowable in AC20 base Refer to the following documents for
course layers further information:
DIPL (NT) Base
Northern Territory Government
Mix type Department of Infrastructure Materials
Testing Manual
Surface Up to 15% RAP can be added to all Higher RAP content than 30% can be
dense graded mixes. allowed, providing that the contractor
Base
demonstrates suitable manufacturing
Waka Kotahi Mix type RAP is not allowed in SMA or OGA plant and quality control procedures.
NZTA (NZ) mixes. For PMB mixes, up to 15% RAP Refer to the following document for
is allowed. further information:
NZTA M10: 2020
Note: TfNSW is currently developing a technical direction increasing the permissible volume of RAP material

Studies have assessed higher RAP contents above 50%, reporting that the increased stiffness of oxidized
binders may allow for construction of thinner pavements (Izaks et al., 2020). It has been reported that such
pavements display acceptable performance but succumb to cracking failure, attributed to insufficient mixing
of new and oxidized binder with higher compaction energy required to achieve optimum density. Fatigue life
must be appropriately assessed when considering higher RAP content pavements (Austroads, 2015a).
Bituminous Seals
The use of RAP has been investigated at a research level, with spray seal, slurry seal and microsurfacing
application trials conducted in the United States with reports of acceptable performance in comparison to
virgin counterparts (Federal Highway Administration, 2020). Evaluation of case studies presented in report
number FHWA-HRT-21-007 suggests that appropriate selection, stockpiling, testing, processing, and general
management of RAP sources should be undertaken. It is recommended that material is clean, free of
deleterious materials, and graded to the specification of the material being substituted. Testing should be
conducted to develop an appropriate mix design to account for residual binder and to meet performance
requirements.
Reclaimed asphalt met the design property requirements for virgin aggregates for slurry seals and
microsurfacings. The optimum emulsion content was generally lower due to elimination of voids in the
reclaimed aggregate due to residual binder and further improved workability (Federal Highway
Administration, 2020). Incorporating high RAP volumes resulted in bleeding, which corresponds with reduced
optimum emulsion content, suggesting that the application requires mix design alterations with reduced
emulsion volumes. For spray seals, RAP was found to improve bonding over virgin aggregates and to
possess similar surface friction characteristics (Federal Highway Administration, 2020). Reclaimed asphalt
should be assessed for mineralogy to determine its suitably as a wearing surface, as mineralogy was found
to be a contributing factor for aggregate polishing. It should be noted that such trials of RAP use in sprayed
seals, slurry seals and microsurfacings have not occurred in Australia or New Zealand. Such applications
would require specific RAP material and applicable binder or emulsion testing to conform with relevant
Austroads and jurisdictional specifications and requirements.
Unbound Granular Applications
While the focus is on utilising RAP in new asphalt pavement applications as the highest and best use, lesser
quality materials (Second Class RAP) may also be used in unbound granular applications. In QLD, MRTS05
Unbound Pavements (MRTS05) currently allows for a RAP content of between 15 – 45% depending on the
type and subtype of the unbound granular material being considered. This RAP is permissible in base,
subbase and lower subbase pavement layers. In some cases, the processing of RAP materials results in an
excess to what is required for new asphalt production and is subsequently utilised as unbound base.
Generally, state transport agencies will require that RAP material meets the same specification requirements
as the unbound material it is substituting. Furthermore, some state transport agencies document the
allowance of RAP as a permissible foreign material in recycled crushed concrete (RCC) provided it meets
the specification requirements for intended use.
Insitu Recycling
Re-using end-of-life pavement within the project it is sourced from minimises cartage and stockpiling costs
and emissions, resulting in a more sustainable outcome. To achieve proper insitu blending of a retired
pavement, on site crushing and screening is required to ensure conformance. The additional site activities
and area required to undertake these works can limit use on projects where lane closures and heavy traffic
are present.
In cold stabilisation processes, mixing is achieved through addition of emulsified or foamed bitumen, with 1-
2% cement, fly ash or lime to improve early strength and moisture resistance (Xiao et al., 2018; Wang et al.,
2018). Time is required for added water to evaporate and for strength to develop. This can take days,
depending on layer thickness and ambient temperature. Cold recycled RAP mixes can have poorer
mechanical properties than hot recycled materials, and their use is usually limited to patching, shoulder
repairs, lower traffic volume applications, or as sub-surface layers in deep-lift asphalt pavements.

Austroads has further commissioned studies to improve the cost effectiveness of foamed bitumen stabilised
(FBS) pavements, with details reported in Austroads project AP-T343-19. Testing is focused on assessing
the fatigue performance of insitu FBS pavements containing 50% crushed rock and 50% RAP in base layer
applications. A size 20mm reclaimed asphalt pavement tested under laboratory conditions proved to exceed
TMR indirect tensile requirements at 25ºC for cured dry and cured wet conditions, however failed to meet the
initial three hours cured modulus (Austroads, 2019a).
The 50% RAP FBS pavement was compared with 0% RAP. It is reported that while both FBS pavement
mixes were below the required initial indirect tensile modulus requirement of 700 MPa, no clear difference in
rutting resistance was observed between the two when subject to 100 ESA/ day loading. Furthermore, 50%
RAP FBS pavement displayed no adverse effects on the deformation performance and was reported similar
or better than a size 20mm Type SI C320 asphalt pavement (Austroads, 2019a). However, further testing is
required in order to form a robust decision on whether the method is commercially viable.
With respect to environmental and human health, there is no reportable variation between RAP use and
virgin asphalt production in terms of chemical leaching or release of fumes. Additional consideration may be
required if the RAP contains an atypical composition or previously recycled materials. For example, if the
RAP contains levels of recycled rubber or plastics, then an additional risk assessment may be warranted
prior to RAP use in new applications.
RAP needs to be assessed and to meet the pavement application requirements being considered. Physical
characteristics need to be examined, for example stone angularity, since polished or rounded aggregates
may not provide sufficient interlock when compacted, and may therefore not suitable for wearing course
applications.
8.4 Economics
RAP use can provide cost savings throughout an asset’s lifecycle, and generally results in lower whole-of-life
costs. A number of key cost considerations exist at a project-to-project level. Costs may be increased if
special technologies are needed or for processing associated with stockpiling, crushing, grading, testing, and
processing of RAP materials. These may be offset by savings in virgin materials. Studies of potential cost
models suggest that a minimum RAP content may be required to achieve economic benefits (Morian &
Ramirez, 2016).
The National Centre for Asphalt Technology (2012) notes that while the compensatory inclusion of softer
binder, rejuvenating agent, or increased virgin binder content may increase upfront costs, overall
incorporation of 25% or 50% RAP can decrease overall material costs by 20 to 35%.
Material source and logistics play a major factor in cost savings for RAP materials. For example, a
realignment project requiring the decommissioning of an existing pavement for processing within or close to
the project site, incurring no logistics costs, may generate significant cost savings. For an isolated rural road,
quarried material may be sourced close to site and manufactured nearby, whereas RAP may need to be
sourced from a location that leads to the material being uneconomical with respect to logistics costs.
Alternatively, for isolated rural road projects, insitu processing and use of RAP materials may be more
economical than using quarried materials. In such situations, lower traffic volumes may allow for prolonged
construction times associated with insitu processing, whereas this process may not be feasible in heavily
trafficked areas. This option will allow the existing material to be reutilised and resurfaced, reducing material
consumption and associated cartage costs.
In summary, economic benefits will vary from project to project, based on processing methodologies, location
and material availability, intended application, required binder modifications and constructability.

9. Coal Combustion Products
Figure 9.1: Material Stages of Fly Ash Production
Coal Bottom Furnace Class C Fly Ash Class F Fly Ash

Fly Ash
Source: Clarke Energy (2021); Magaldi (2021); Ash Development Association Australia (2021)
9.1 General
document.
Coal combustion products (CCPs) can be classified generally as fly ash, being the finer material produced
from coal fire stations in energy production, and furnace bottom ash (FBA), being the larger particles
collected from the bottom of a furnace. Figure 9.2 illustrates the basic concept for the production process for
both fly ash and FBA.
Fly ash is a fine material produced as a by-product of coal combustion in thermal power plants and is
generally considered non-hazardous with regards to ignitability, reactivity, and corrosivity. Hence, it is
compatible with most commonly-used construction materials. Material properties will vary based on the coal
from which it is derived and boiler operations. It generally consists of various silica and aluminium oxides,
having an amorphous crystalline structure which attributes to the pozzolanic properties (Ash Development
Association of Australia, 2013).
Furnace bottom ash is generally suited for use as fill, and drainage layer materials (Ash Development
Association of Australia, 2013; FARC, 2015). Due to its relatively low unit cost, FBA can be utilised in large
quantities with a stable and consistent supply. However, there are currently no specifications in Australia or
New Zealand for the use of FBA in roading applications, with further research required to optimise it’s use
and determine associated HSE impacts.
It must be noted that there are toxicity risks associated with potential heavy metal leaching from both fly ash
and FBA, depending on chemical composition of the coal. Therefore, fly ash is generally treated and
disposed in dedicated ash ponds and is most commonly used in cementitious applications.
The use of black coal is more prevalent in Australia than brown coal due to its higher efficiency in energy
production. The application of BFS in pavements is thus largely derived from black coal due to an enhanced
understanding of chemical and physical properties and existing processing infrastructure (Heidrich C &
Woodhead A, 2010). It is unlikely that an adequate supply chain will be established for CCPs derived from
brown coal.

Figure 9.2: Fly Ash Generation and Collection in a Pulverised Coal-Fired Power Station
Generally, fly ash can be classified as either Class F or Class C, both of which are useful as a cementitious
material due to their pozzolanic properties. Class F is a black coal, while Class C is the fly ash from lignite
coal (brown coal) combustion and generally has a higher lime content (15-30%) than Class F (<7%). Refer to
Figure 9.3 for an illustration of each type.
Figure 9.3: Slag Cement, Class C Fly Ash and Class F Fly Ash
Source: National Precast Concrete Association

Part 1 of AS/NZS 3582 is the Australia and New Zealand standard outlining compliance requirements for fly
ash used as a supplementary cementitious material. The requirements for fly ash products as outlined in the
standard are:
• Fineness (% passing the 45-micron sieve)
• Loss on ignition
• Moisture content
• SO3 content
• Aggregate applications.
Furnace bottom ash (FBA) is a larger sized material than fly ash, generally ranging from 1 mm to 20 mm,
and sometimes reaching up to 30mm (see Figure 9.4). The material may be suitable for use as a fine to
coarse aggregate in lower pavement layers and embankment/structural fill applications. Bottom ash
aggregates have a far lower density than quarried aggregates and a high porosity, making them well-suited
for drainage applications. No technical specifications exist for furnace bottom ash use in pavements, and
further research is required prior to adoption. Mohammed et al. (2021), reported that substitution of FBA as a
fine aggregate in hot-mix asphalt (HMA) led to an increase in optimum binder content (OBC), improved
fatigue cracking resistance, and reduced wearing resistance.
If considering FBA aggregates in asphalt applications, the framework and protocol presented in Section 3
and Appendix A of this guide should be used to assess its suitability. It is important that the FBA be tested for
its chemical and physical properties to determine an appropriate mix design. It is especially important that
FBA source does not vary during construction with the specific mix design, as this can lead to notable
variations in chemical and physical properties of the bottom ash. Furthermore, FBA is usually consistently
well-graded, infrequently requiring the addition of fine particles or processing to achieved grading
requirements for pavement aggregates.
Figure 9.4: Various Sizes of Furnace Bottom Ash
Source: Klean Power (2021)

Binder Modifications
Fly ash has been extensively used in cementitious stabilisation; however, it has had limited use as a bitumen
modifier and has been limited to use as a partial substitute for conventional mineral fillers (LGNSW, 2020).
The US Department of Transport Federal Highway Administration (2016) reports that coal fly ash can
generally be added to asphalt pavements at 5% by weight of aggregate as a mineral filler substitution. At 5%
substitution, it is reported that gradation, contamination, chemical and physical properties of conventional
material specifications can readily be met. As a mineral filler fly ash can be expected to impact asphalt by:
• Stiffening asphalt and improving rutting resistance
• Acting as a bitumen extender
• Improving moisture susceptibility
• Reducing stripping potential
• Reducing workability.
The hydrophobic nature of fly ash reduces the moisture susceptibility of bitumen, thus reducing the striping
potential of asphalt (LGNSW, 2020). It has been noted, however, that fly ash use has inconsistently softened
bitumen, resulting in compaction issues (Federal Highway Administration, 2016). Furthermore, it was
discovered that Class C and Class F fly ash incorporated at 5% by weight of asphalt binder has negligible
effect on rutting resistance at temperatures ranging from 58-70oC, and could therefore be considered a
bitumen extender (Sobolev et al., 2014).
Variations in fly ash chemical composition are a major barrier to uptake of the material in bituminous
applications.
Cementitious Applications and Concrete
Fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) are commonly used in stabilised applications,
with numerous documents and specifications providing guidance on their use. These materials are often
combined with Portland cement and/or lime to form a blended cementitious binder material or cement used
in concrete.
Fly ash-rich binder is used as a cementitious additive in pavement stabilisation due to its chemical
composition. It is also frequently used as a cement additive in concrete to mitigate alkali-silica reaction in
aggregates. However, not all fly ash is suitable for cementitious applications as chemical composition will
vary depending on the coal source. Fly ash derived from black coal is high in alumina and silica, which aids
stabilisation, whereas fly ash derived from brown coal is high in calcium and magnesium sulphates and
chlorides, making it unsuitable in stabilised applications.
Generally, fly ash is combined with lime at a ratio of 1:2 to achieve maximum strength, although exact ratios
are expected to vary based on the chemical composition of the fly ash being considered. Furthermore, it is
recommended that a fly ash/lime blend not exceed 5% substitution of the replaced cementitious material.
There is a potential construction hazard when using fly ash materials associated with their low density and
particle size. This can result in dusts hazards and associated impacts, but these can be suitably managed by
ensuring the material is kept moist, is compacted as soon as practicably possible, and is covered or
contained during storage (Ash Development Association of Australia, 2012).

Depending on the type of coal and fly ash, dry compacted voids (DCV) could adversely affect the
performance of the mastic in the asphalt. Studies have shown that using fly ash with extremely high DCV at
replacement levels over 2% has a negative impact on binder properties and is detrimental to rutting
resistance (LGNSW, 2020). Hence, fly ash tends to be used only to supplement the use of crushed virgin
aggregates and RAP as fillers, with hydrated lime for adhesive properties.
Furthermore, the chemical and physical properties of CCP materials usually vary much more than for
Portland cement, and these therefore pose a risk to performance. Materials should be tested in accordance
with relevant specifications, and material sources should remain unchanged to improve control of ash and
other CCP properties.
When fly ash is used as a cementitious additive to cement in base or subbase stabilisation, it has been
reported that heightened volumes of fly ash > 60% can lead to erodibility issues (Mohammed et al., 2021).
Low toxicity risks are associated with potential leaching of heavy metals (such as cadmium, lead, arsenic,
and mercury) from CCPs. These materials are generally treated and stored in ash ponds. Leaching
contaminants will vary depending on coal type and the boiler configuration from which the ash is derived.
Furthermore, studies show that leachate contaminants were below environmental limits (Mohammed et al.,
2021) and in some cases were below detectable limits (Ash Development Associated of Australia, 2007).
Long-term future considerations for CCP material use should include future availability of the material. A
global trend in achieving sustainability targets is expected to impact the energy production industry and coal
consumption. Should green energy replace fossil fuels. it can be reasonably expected that ash by-product
volumes will decrease.
9.4 Economics
Due to the location of coal combustion power plants and blending facilities, the economic viability of fly
ash/furnace bottom ash use may be constrained for some potential users due to increasing transport costs
for work outside the ash source’s proximity. In Australia, coal power plants are generally concentrated
around coal fields, which increases the average haulage distance for fly ash to construction sites. Transport
costs and competition from locally sourced materials are barriers to commercial uptake (CRC for Low
Carbon Living, 2019). For example, QLD contains numerous ash dams whereas SA currently has none,
meaning that the cost of fly ash in SA may be greater than in QLD.
The unit cost for furnace bottom ash is usually cheaper than for virgin quarried aggregates. However, similar
logistical factors apply for which a cost benefit analysis (CBA) may be needed to determine potential trade-
offs between the reduced unit costs and associated logistics costs. In QLD, fly ash is generally cheaper than
cement, which can have significant cost savings as a material substitute. Such trade-offs are expected to
vary with jurisdictional areas as previously suggested.
Fly ash has numerous cost-benefits throughout the pavement asset lifecycle in various applications. Where
fly ash is used as a partial replacement for Portland cement, significant cost savings may be realised by
reducing the unit cost of concrete as, on average, fly ash is about 17% cheaper (ARTBA-TDF, 2011).
In applications as a supplement to or replacement for Portland cement, fly ash introduces a range of
performance benefits, including improved workability, improved strength and durability, and reduced
permeability (Federal Highway Administration, 2003; ARTBA-TFA, 2011). These benefits would additionally
contribute to improved asset lifespan and reduced agency costs.
TMR is actively pursuing increased use of fly ash as a supplementary secondary additive in foamed bitumen
(MRTS07C – Insitu stabilised pavements using foamed bitumen and MRTS09 – Plant-mixed foamed
bitumen stabilised pavements). By increasing the amount of fly ash and subsequently reducing the amount
of hydrated lime, costs are significantly reduced, and pressure on the hydrated lime supply chain is
alleviated. In addition, 50/50 hydrated lime/fly ash secondary additive blends have been found to provide
very good project outcomes.

10. Recycled Crushed Concrete and Masonry
Figure 10.1: Recycling Stages for Concrete and Masonry Products to Aggregate Substitutes
Old concrete Crushed concrete Recyclable bricks Crushed bricks
Source: Carramar Resource Industries (2021); Tobias, M (2021); Powerblanket (2021); Corkhill Bros (2021))
10.1 General
document.
The latest national waste report (Pickin et al., 2020) indicates rapid growth in C&D-derived concrete and
masonry waste, with an approximate 13.4% increase from 2016–17 (20.2 Mt) to 2018–19 (22.9 Mt), with
76% and 82% recycling rates respectively. High recycling rates are the result of strong markets for recycled
products, such as granular materials for a range of construction and civil applications.
Recycled crushed concrete (RCC) has been commonly used in roading applications as unbound or stabilised
RCC materials incorporated in basecourse and subbase course layers, fill, and drainage layer material. The
material source will determine the aggregate size available, as concrete and masonry can vary greatly
depending on the intended original application, which in turn will impact on the quality of recycled material.
For example, recycled aggregate produced from high-strength structural concrete will be composed
differently from footpath concrete. Furthermore, a high-strength specialised concrete may contain nominal 40
mm aggregates, precluding sufficient interlock for a specific application, which may lead to further crushing
and grading requirements.
RCC has been found to have equivalent or superior performance qualities to natural aggregates, while being
approximately 20% lighter (Pidwerbesky, 2015). In some jurisdictions, recycled crushed glass and RAP may
be blended with recycled crushed concrete and recycled masonry to produce unbound basecourse and
subbase course materials, and such materials which are then stabilised.
Studies have found that failure of recycled material often results from debonding of the aggregate-mortar
interface (Verian et al., 2018). The residual mortar will further contribute to a reduced aggregate density and
subsequent water absorption. Due to RCC’s higher porosity, wetting the material is recommended to improve
workability and placement during construction. While these factors are not identified in Australian or New
Zealand specifications, they are worth consideration.

Recycled concrete and masonry products are typically used as unbound and bound granular materials in a
range of roading applications, sometimes in blends – provided they meet recycled material specification
requirements. These typically differ to that for the substituted material. It is commonplace for RCC to meet
the requirements of the virgin quarried material it is substituting, with various material specifications available
across Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions.
Unbound and Bound Pavement Materials
When contemplating RCC, recycled crushed brick (RCB) or other demolition waste materials for bound and
unbound granular applications, reference should be made to a range of jurisdictional specifications currently
available as seen in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: Unbound and Bound RCC and RCB Specifications
Transport Specification & Guides

Agency (state)
MRTS05 Unbound Pavements
MRTS08 Plant Mixed Heavily Bound Pavements
MRTS09 Plant Mixed Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Pavements
TMR (Qld)
MRTS10 Plant Mixed Lightly Bound Pavements
Pavement Design Supplement to ‘Part 2: Pavement Structural Design’ of the Austroads Guide to
Pavement Technology
QA Specification 3051 Granular Pavement Base and Subbase Materials

TfNSW (NSW) Roads and Maritime Supplement to Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement
Structural Design
Part R15 Supply of Pavement Materials
Part R15 – Attachment A Pavement Material Specification
DPTI (SA)
Supplement to the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural
Design
Section 801 Material Sources for the Production of Crushed Rock and Aggregates
Section 812 Crushed Rock for Pavement Base and Subbase
Section 813 Base and Subbase for Lower Trafficked Roads
DoT (Vic)
Section 815 Cementitious Treated Crushed Rock for Pavement Subbase
Code of Practice RC 500.02 Registration of Crushed Rock Mixes
Technical Note 107 Use of Recycled Materials in Road Pavements
Specification 302 Earthworks
MRWA (WA)
Specification 501 Pavements
Project size should be measured against the volume of recycled aggregate available on the market. Larger
projects requiring high volumes of recycled aggregate may need to source materials from numerous
demolition sites, leading to increased processing and sorting, which may impact on time, resourcing and
finance considerations. Ultimately, the contractor should source RCC from an accredited facility and may
choose to blend it with quarried aggregates to achieve project requirements.
When considering RCC, a similar process is recommended to that for virgin aggregate materials to assess
strength properties, grading and Atterberg limits, with extra thought given to material source, contamination,
residual mortar content, chemical leaching and dust suppression. The designer should be aware of any
relevant specifications for RCC, which may vary between local and state road transport authorities. Similar
considerations apply for RCB excluding the residual motor content and are often specified for use in lower
percentages than RCC due to a lower crushing strength (Choi Y et al., 2015).

Stabilised Applications
Recycled concrete aggregates have been commonly used as a material source combined with cement for
use in stabilised base and subbase pavement layers and subgrade treatments (Beecroft et al., 2020).
Generally Australian state transport agencies allow for RCC use in stabilised pavements, with the allowable
material percentage dictated by the grade of material, traffic loading conditions and application within the
pavement profile. Allowable material limits vary considerably across jurisdictions and should be specified
accordingly (Beecroft et al., 2020).
While at this time RCC is not frequently utilised in the production of new concrete, TMR’s Technical Note TN
193 states that recycled crushed concrete and crushed glass are currently only being considered as partial
aggregate replacements for non-structural concrete. Recycled concrete aggregates used in concrete
applications will need particular attention to the mix design’s water volume due to increased porosity
associated with residual mortar. Aggregates may need to be saturated before adding to a concrete mix.
As RCC is derived from the C&D waste stream, it is susceptible to contamination, e.g. asbestos (often
expected by industry and suitably managed), timber, reinforcement steel, polymer pipe and fibres. Generally,
C&D processing staff are trained in asbestos identification and conduct frequently visual inspections
throughout the material recycling process in accordance with an asbestos management plan (AMP) to
identify and remove asbestos prior to client acceptance (Sustainable Aggregates South Australia, 2010).
Asbestos has been used extensively throughout the construction industry prior to its prohibition in 2003,
making it a potential contamination risk in C&D waste streams if not suitably controlled and managed.
Currently, asbestos management and control is administered by state governments and local councils, with
numerous laws and codes of practice. Recyclers typically have processes in place to manage this risk.
It is expected that screening and removal of contaminants will be undertaken by the material supplier/
manufacturer to ensure production of sound, quality material that conforms to the specifications requested.
Ideally, the material will be sourced from a reputable supplier with suitable quality control accreditation. A
procedure should be developed to manage the source material and contaminants, which may include
implementing a rigorous source management regime to:
• Inspect delivered materials
• Maintain a delivery records register
• Sort and stockpile source material
• Detect, manage and remove source contaminants.
Usually, minimum quality controls and testing schedules are detailed in state transport agency specifications.
Laboratory testing may be desirable to determine the presence of chemical admixtures within the cement
mortar, which may react with other materials or leach into the environment or ground water. This can also be
determined by searching the source demolition site’s construction records.
High porosity and water absorption that creates workability variations is a potential drawback with recycled
concrete aggregate. This characteristic may introduce risk and cost to the construction stage, particularly
where material has been sourced from multiple sites. Blending with other materials may reduce such issues.

10.4 Economics
Transport cost is a governing factor in the economic viability of recycled aggregate products (Sustainability
Victoria, 2014). Recycled concrete and masonry can provide a cost-effective alternative to natural
aggregates, though specific cost considerations vary depending on the material type and application. The
market value of these materials varies greatly depending on quality, processing, and end-product.
Recycled crushed concrete is 20–25% less dense than crushed rock. This means that transport costs will be
reduced compared to costs for a given volume and distance of natural materials.
Recycled material suppliers are often located in or close to built-up areas (i.e. in close proximity to demolition
sites) which often increases their competitiveness for road construction projects near these areas. Recycled
aggregates are also typically more cost effective to produce, as crushing processes are simpler, and material
does not need to be mined from natural deposits. In some circumstances, recycled material suppliers
charge fees for the disposal of C&D waste (or waste levies imposed by state governments) increasing the
competitiveness of RCC.

References
Adams, E 2021, Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, image, viewed 28th of April 2021,
<https://www.texasasphalt.org/blog_home.asp?display=38>.
Ali, Esraa & Al-Tersawy, Sherif. 2012, ‘Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in self-
compacting concrete’, Construction and Building Materials. 35. 785–791.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.117.
Alibaba, 2021, ‘Recycled Tyre Rubber Granules Price, image, viewed 28th of April 2021,
<https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Recycled-tyre-rubber-granules-price_62013896020.html>.
ARRB 2003, ‘Specifications for recycled crushed glass as an engineering material’, Packaging Stewardship
Forum of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.
ARTBA-TDF 2011, ‘The economic impacts of prohibiting coal fly ash use in transportation infrastructure
construction’, American Road & Transportation Builders Association Transport Development Foundation,
2011.
Arulrajah A, Yaghoubi E, Wong Y.C & Horpibulsuk S 2017, ‘Recycled Plastic Granules and Demolition
Wastes as Construction Materials: Resilient Moduli and Strength Characteristics’, Construction and
Building Materials, 147, 639-647.
Australasian Slag Association 2002, ‘A guide to the use of iron and steel in roads’, ASA, Wollongong, NSW,
viewed 10 January 2021, <http://www.asa-inc.org.au/guide_iss.htm>.
Australasian Slag Association 2013, ‘Roads guide supplement on general applications’, Quick Reference
Guide 1, Australasia Slag Association.
Australasian Slag Association 2014, ‘Steel furnace slag. quick reference guide 3’, Australasia Slag
Association, 3pp.
Australasian Slag Association 2015, ‘Electric arc furnace slag. quick reference guide 4’, Australasia Slag
Association.
Australasian Slag Association 2019, ‘Membership annual survey report – January to December 2019’, 4pp.
Australasian Slag Association 2020, ‘Membership annual survey results January to December 2019’, viewed
10 January 2021, <https://www.asa-inc.org.au/files/download/d787f72a84b5512>.
Australasian Slag Association 2021a, ‘Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)’, viewed 20
September 2021, <https://www.asa-inc.org.au/products/ground-granulated-blast-furnace-slag>.
Australasian Slag Association 2021b, ‘Steel furnace slag (SFS)’, viewed 20 September 2021,
<https://www.asa-inc.org.au/products/steel-furnace-slag>.
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, 2019, ‘Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) management plan’,
National Technology & Leadership Committee,
Australian Government (2020), ‘Sustainable procurement guide’, Department of Agriculture, Water and the
Environment, Canberra, November. CC BY 4.0.
Australian Government 2021, ‘Sustainable procurement guide: a practical guide for Commonwealth entities’,
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, November. CC BY 4.0.
Austroads 2014, Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt, AGPT04B-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015a, ‘Maximising the Re-use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement – Outcomes of Year Two: RAP
Mix Design’, AP-T286-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2019a, ‘Deformation Performance of Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Pavements Under Full-scale
Accelerated Loading, AP-T343-19, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2019c, ‘Viability of Using Recycled Plastics in Asphalt and Sprayed Sealing Applications’, AP-
T351-19, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2021a, ‘Interim Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Waste Plastic in Local Government Road
Surfacing Applications’, AP-G96-21, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads, 2021b, Technical Basis of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4E: Recycled
Materials, AP-T365-22, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021c, ‘Use of Road-grade Recycled Plastics for Sustainable Asphalt Pavements: Overview of the
Recycled Plastic Industry and Recycled Plastic Types’, AP-R648-21, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021d, ‘Use of Road-grade Recycled Plastics for Sustainable Asphalt Pavements: Towards the
Selection of Road-grade Plastics – An Evaluation Framework and Preliminary Experimental Results’, AP-
R663-21, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2022a, ‘Crushing, Processing and Cleaning of Recycled Crushed Glass for Transport
Infrastructure’, AP-G97-22, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Beecroft, Latter & Mohammadinia, 2020, ‘Annual summary report: P94 – optimising the use of recycled
materials in Queensland for unbound and stabilised products year 1 (2019/2019)’, Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads.
Blue Environment 2020, ‘National waste report 2020’, Department of Agriculture, Water and the
Environment.
Carramar Resource Industries 2021, ‘Recycled Bricks’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://www.crisands.com.au/recycled-bricks/>.
Cattermole Consulting Inc. 2021, Mechanical recycling of textiles is fairly common!, image, viewed 28 April
2021, <https://www.cattermoleconsulting.com/mechanical-recycling-of-textiles-is-fairly-common/>.
Choi Y, Denneman E, Dias M, Lee J, Khoo KY & Raymond C 2015, ‘P31 and P32 Optimising the use of
crumb rubber modified bitumen in seals and asphalt’, National Asset Centre of Excellence.
Clarke Energy 2021, ‘Coal Gas’, image, viewed 28 April 2021, <https://www.clarke-
energy.com/applications/coal-gas/>.
COLAS, 2021, ‘Rubber from QLD tyres improves asphalt performance, viewed 28 October 2021,
<https://www.colas.com.au/sustainability/brochures/>.
Colorado Aggregate Recycling, 2021, ‘Why recycled asphalt pavement matters’, image, viewed 28 April
2021, <https://www.coloradoaggregaterecycling.com/americas-most-recycled-product/>.
Corkhill Bros 2021, ‘Crushed bricks – 10mm’, image, viewed 28 of April 2021,
<https://www.corkhillbros.com.au/product/crushed-bricks-10mm/>.
CRC for Low Carbon Living 2019, ‘State of practice: high volume applications of fly ash and barriers to
commercialisation’, Research Project: RP1004-II, 2019.
Department of Sustainability, Victoria 2005, ‘Sustainability in action, towards zero waste strategy’,
Department of Sustainability, Victoria, viewed 5 May 2009,
<http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/BE725B844A060DA6CA2574D30082EBD9/$File/Tow
ardsZeroWasteStrategy.pdf>.
Design for Longevity, 2021, ‘Close the Loop’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://designforlongevity.com/articles/close-the-loop/>.
Environmental Health Committee 2005, ‘Management of asbestos in the non-occupational environment’,
Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra, ACT.
Envisage Works 2019, ‘Tyre flows and recycling analysis’, Department of the Environment and Energy,
viewed 28 April 2021, <https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4fe81607-c549-465b-
b8b0-759ec0a1a683/files/tyre-flows-recycling-analysis.pdf>.
EPA NSW 2014a, ‘The recovered glass sand exemption 2014’, EPA NSW, viewed 20 March 2021,
<https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/waste/rre14-glass-
sand.pdf?la=en&hash=8330589964F9A7926CC28E3F3CCCECE779663109>.

EPA NSW 2014b, ‘The recovered glass sand order 2014’, EPA NSW, viewed 20 March 2021,
<https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/waste/rro14-glass-
sand.pdf?la=en&hash=0236F03847053B2A675C89F824FD6F4474F94020>.
EPA, Victoria 2021, ‘1828.2: Waste disposal categories - characteristics and thresholds’, Environmental
Protection Agency, Victoria, Australia.
European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers' Association, 2020, ‘Europe – 91% of all End of Life Tyres collected
and treated in 2018’, image, viewed 28 April 2021, <https://www.etrma.org/library/europe-91-of-all-end-of-
life-tyres-collected-and-treated-in-2018/>.
Exportersindia.com, 2021, ‘Shredded Waste Tyre’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://www.exportersindia.com/trm-ltd/shredded-waste-tyre-huntingdon-spain-1152698.htm>.
FARC 2015, ‘Fly ash utilisation in road construction’, Fly Ash Resource Centre, State Pollution Control
Board, Odisha, India. 35pp
Federal Highway Administration, 2003, ‘Fly ash facts for highway engineers’, Washington, 2003.
Federal Highway Administration, 2016, ‘User guidelines for waste and byproduct materials in pavement
construction’, U.S Department of Transportation, Washington DC.
Federal Highway Administration 2020, ‘Using Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Pavement-Preservation
Treatments’, U.S Department of Transportation, Georgetown Pike McLean, VA.
Fulton, B 2008, ‘Use of recycled glass in pavement aggregate’, ARRB Conference – Research Partnering
with Practitioners, 23rd, Adelaide, SA, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 1-8pp.
Geopave Material Technology, 1997, ‘Technical note TN020 – reducing reflection cracking over jointed
concrete pavement’, VicRoads.
Gheni, A.A., Liu, X., ElGawady, M.A., Shi, H., and Wang, J. 2018, ‘Leaching assessment of eco-friendly
rubberized chip seal pavement’, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2672(52) 67–77.
Harrison J, Lyons M, O’Connor J & Thomas L, 2008, ‘Passenger Vehicle Tyre Usage in Bitumen’, Technical
Report TN216, VicRoads Victoria, Australia.
Heidrich C & Woodhead A 2010, ‘Road base applications using Victorian power station ash’, Ash
Development Association of Australia, Wollongong, NSW.
Indiamart, 2021, ‘Blast Furnace Slag’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/blast-furnace-slag-19128448930.html>.
Izaks, R., Rathore, M., Haritonovs, V. & Zaumanis, M. 2020, ‘Performance properties of high modulus
asphalt concrete containing high reclaimed asphalt content and polymer modified binder’, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1-10.
Jafar, J. J. 2016, ‘Utilisation of waste plastic in bituminous mix for improved performance of roads’, KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, 20 (1), 243-249.
Kang, G, Cikmit, AA, Tsuchida, T, Honda, H, & Kim, Y 2019, ‘Strength development and microstructural
characteristics of soft dredged clay stabilized with basic oxygen furnace steel slag’, Construction &
Building Materials, vol. 203, pp. 501–513, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.106.
King R, Brown W & McArthur R 2019, ‘Crumb rubber in asphalt roads – where the rubber hits the road’,
International Public Works Conference,
<https://www.ipwea.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=321ffd79-
d989-8584-93c0-bbd50a202722&forceDialog=0>.
LGNSW 2020, ‘Recycled materials in roads and pavements technical review’, 99pp.
Magaldi 2021, ‘Dry bottom ash handling system, bottom ash conveyor’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://www.magaldi.com/en/products-solutions/dry-bottom-ash-handling-in-pcf-power-plants/>.
Main Roads Western Australia 2007, ‘Pavements, specification 501’, Main Roads Western Australia.

Maqsood, T, Shooshtarian, S, Wong, P, Khalfan M & Yang R 2019, ‘Resource circular economy:
opportunities to reduce waste disposal across the supply chain’, SBEnrc 1.65 - A National Economic
Approach to Improved Management of Construction and Demolition Waste.
Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand 2002, ‘Construction and demolition waste’, Ministry for the
Environment, Wellington, NEPC, New Zealand, viewed 28 April 2008,
<http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/construction-demo/index.html>.
Ministry for the Environment New Zealand, 2004, ‘Module 2: hazardous waste guidelines’, New Zealand.
Ministry for the Environment 2021, ‘Landfill waste acceptance criteria and landfill classification 2’, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Mohammed, Koting, Katman, Babalghaith, Patah, Ibrahim & Karim, 2021, ‘A review of the utilization of coal
bottom ash (Cba) in the construction industry’, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 8031–, doi:
10.3390/su13148031.
Morian, D & Ramirez, L 2016, ‘Economic considerations for asphalt pavement recycling techniques’,
Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. 2016.
National Center for Asphalt Technology 2012, ‘Effects of changing virgin binder grade and content on rap
mixture properties’, NCAT Report No. 12-03, Auburn, 2012.
Petho, L. 2020, ‘Implementing crumb rubber gap-graded and open graded asphalt technologies – the
Australian experience’, RILEM International Symposium on Bituminous Materials, Vol 27, p1031-1037.
PIARC 2008, ‘Review of the growth and development of recycling in pavement construction’, Report
2008RO5, Technical Committee on Road Pavements (C4.3), World Road Association (PIARC), Paris,
France.
Pickin, J, Wardle, C, O’Farrell, K, Nyunt, P & Donovan, S 2020, ‘National waste report 2020 prepared for
department of the environment and energy’, Blue Environ. Pty Ltd, no. November, 1-126.
Pidwerbesky, B. 2015, ‘Recycling crushed concrete in pavements’, Presentation, IPENZ.
Powerblanket 2021, ‘Repairing Cracked Concrete’, image, viewed 28th of April 2021,
https://www.powerblanket.com/blog/repairing-cracked-concrete/
Ragaert, K, Delva, L, & Van Geem, K 2017, ‘Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste’ waste
management (elmsford)’, vol. 69, pp. 24–58, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.044.
Renaizandz Industries 2021, ‘Class F Fly Ash’, image, viewed 28 April 2021, <https://renaizandz.com/class-
f-fly-ash/>.
Rizhaosteel, 2021, ‘Granulated Blast Furnace Slag’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://www.rizhaosteel.com/glscz/343.htm>.
Stock in Italy, 2021, ‘Stocklot crumb rubber in powder’, image, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://www.stockinitaly.com/shop/do-it-yourself/polymers-in-granules/stocklot-crumb-rubber-for-roads/>.
Sustainability Victoria 2014, ‘Market summary – recycled glass’, fact sheet, viewed 28 April 2021,
<https://assets.sustainability.vic.gov.au/susvic/Report-Market-Analysis-Glass-Sept-2014.pdf>.
Sustainable Aggregates South Australia, 2010, ‘Management of asbestos in recycling C&D waste:
environmental fact sheet no. 5’.
Terrones-Saeta, JM, Suárez-Macías, J, Moreno-López, ER, & Corpas-Iglesias, FA 2021, ‘Determination of
the chemical, physical and mechanical characteristics of electric arc furnace slags and environmental
evaluation of the process for their utilization as an aggregate in bituminous mixtures’, Materials, vol. 14,
no. 4, p. 782–, DOI: 10.3390/ma14040782.
Tobias, M 2019, ‘Recycling and reusing concrete’, image, viewed 28 April 2021, <https://www.ny-
engineers.com/blog/recycling-and-reusing-concrete/>.
Transport for New South Wales, 2014, ‘Quality alert 50 – use of steel slag aggregates in road construction’,
CGTD 2014/003, NSW.

Tyre Stewardship Australia, 2022, ‘Tyre particle health, environment and safety report’, Tyre Stewardship
Australia, Collingwood, Vic, viewed 8 April 2022.
Verian, KP, Ashraf, W, & Cao, Y 2018, ‘Properties of recycled concrete aggregate and their influence in new
concrete production’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 133, pp. 30–49, doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.005.
Wang, Y, Leng, Z, Li, X & Hu, C 2018, ’Cold recycling of reclaimed asphalt pavement towards improved
engineering performance’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol 171, p1031-1038.
Washington State Department of Transportation 2015, ‘WDOT strategies regarding use of steel slag in
pavements’, 2015.
White, G. and Magee, C. 2019, ‘Laboratory evaluation of asphalt containing recycled plastic as a bitumen
extender and modifier’, Journal of Traffic and transportation Engineering, (7) 218-235.
World Highways, 2021, ‘Innovative additive for use in recycled asphalt applications’, image, viewed 28 April
2021, <https://www.worldhighways.com/wh6/products/innovative-additive-use-recycled-asphalt-
applications/>.
Xiao, F, Yao, S, Wang, J, Li, X & Amirkhanian, S 2018, ’A literature review on cold recycling technology of
asphalt pavement’, Construction and Building Materials, 180, 579-604.
Standards
AS 1141.14-2007, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle shape, by proportional calliper.
AS 1141.21-1997, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: aggregate crushing value.
AS 1141.22-2008, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: wet/dry strength variation.
AS 1141.23-1995, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: Los Angeles value.
AS 1141.24-1997, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: aggregate soundness: evaluation by
exposure to sodium sulfate solution.
AS 1141.35-2019, Preview Methods for sampling and testing aggregates Detection of sugar contamination in
concrete aggregates.
AS 1141.41-1999, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: polished aggregate friction value:
horizontal bed machine.
AS 1141.4-2000, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: bulk density of aggregate.
AS 1141.42-1999, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: pendulum friction test.
AS 1141.5-1996, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle density and water absorption of fine
aggregate.
AS 1141.5-2000, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle density and water absorption of fine
aggregate.
AS 1141.6.1-1995, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle density and water absorption of
coarse aggregate: weighing-in-water method.
AS 1141.6.2-1996, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle density and water absorption of
coarse aggregate: pycnometer method.
AS 1289.2.2.1-1998, Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: soil moisture content tests:
determination of the total suction of a soil: standard method.
AS 2758.1-1998, Aggregates and rock for engineering purposes: concrete aggregates.
AS HB 155-2002, Guide to the use of recycled concrete and masonry materials, CSIRO.
AS/NZS 3582.1-2016, Supplementary cementitious materials fly ash.
AS/NZS 4360-2004, Risk management.

ASTM D6140-00 2014, Standard Test Method to Determine Asphalt Retention of Paving Fabrics Used in
Asphalt Paving for Full-Width Applications, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014,
www.astm.org
Transport Agency Specifications and Guidelines
Queensland (TMR)
Technical Specification MRTS05 Unbound Pavements (March 2022)
Technical Specification MRTS07B Insitu Stabilised Pavements using Cement or Cementitious Blends (July
2021)
Technical Specification MRTS07C Insitu Stabilised Pavements Using Foamed Bitumen (July 2021)
Technical Specification MRTS08 Plant-Mixed Heavily Bound (Cemented) Pavements (July 2021)
Technical Specification MRTS09 Plant-Mixed Foamed Bitumen Stabilised Pavements (July 2021)
Technical Specification MRTS10 Plant-Mixed Lightly Bound Pavements (July 2021)
Technical Specification MRTS11 Sprayed Bituminous Treatments (Excluding Emulsion) (July 2019)
Technical Specification MRTS18 Polymer Modified Binder (including Crumb Rubber) (July 2020)
Technical Specification MRTS30 Asphalt Pavements (March 2022)
Technical Specification MRTS32 High Modulus Asphalt (EME2) (March 2022)
Technical Specification MRTS36 Recycled Glass Aggregate (November 2020)

Technical Specification MRTS39 Lean Mix Concrete Sub-base for Pavements (November 2018)
Technical Specification MRTS40 Concrete Pavement Base (November 2018)
Technical Specification MRTS101 Aggregates for Asphalt (July 2020)
Technical Specification MRTS102 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Material (March 2019)
Project Specific Technical Specification PSTS112 Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt (February 2019)
Technical Note TN148 Asphalt Mix Design Registration (July 2020)
Technical Note TN183 Use of High Percentages of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Material in Dense
Graded Asphalt (March 2019)
Technical Note TN193 Use of recycled materials in road construction (September 2020)
Pavement Design Supplement, Supplement to ‘Part 2: Pavement Structural Design’ of the Austroads Guide
to Pavement Technology (June 2021)
NSW (TfNSW)
QA Specification 3051 Granular Pavement Base and Subbase Materials (June 2020)
QA Specification 3151 Aggregates for Sprayed Bituminous Surfacing (June 2020)
QA Specification 3152 Aggregates for Asphalt (June 2020)
QA Specification 3154 Granulated Glass Aggregate (June 2020)
QA Specification 3252 Polymer Modified Binder for Pavements (June 2020)
QA Specification 3256 Crumb Rubber (June 2020)
QA Specification R44 Earthworks (June 2020)
QA Specification R50 Stabilisation of Earthworks (June 2020)
QA Specification R71 Construction of Unbound and Modified Pavement Course (June 2020)
QA Specification R73 Plant Mixed heavily Bound Pavement Course (December 2021)

QA Specification R75 Insitu Pavement Stabilisation Using Slow Setting Binders (June 2020)
QA Specification R116 Heavy Duty Dense Graded Asphalt (December 2021)
QA Specification R117 Light Duty Dense Graded Asphalt (September 2020)
QA Specification R118 Crumb Rubber Asphalt (September 2020)
QA Specification M250 Heavy Patching (Flexible Pavement) (June 2020)
QA Specification M290 Pavement Rebuilding (Bound and Unbound Material) (June 2020)
Pavement Design Supplement, Roads and Maritime Supplement to Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (August 2018)
Victoria (DoT)
Section 204 Earthworks (October 2013)
Section 290 Lime Stabilisation of Earthworks Materials (May 2013)
Section 407 Dense Graded Asphalt (November 2021)
Section 408 Sprayed Bituminous Surfacings (April 2020)
Section 421 High Binder Crumb Rubber Asphalt (March 2020)
Section 422 Light Traffic Crumb Rubber Asphalt (November 2019)
Section 702 Subsurface Drainage (May 2019)
Section 703 General Concrete Paving (August 2021)

Section 801 Source Rock for the Production of Crushed Rock and Aggregates (October 2013)
Section 812 Crushed Rock for Pavement Base and Subbase (July 2016)
Section 813 Base and Subbase for Lower Trafficked Roads (October 2021)
Section 815 Cementitious Treated Crushed Rock for Pavement Subbase (July 2016)
VicRoads 2021, ‘Registration of bituminous mix designs’, Code of Practice RC 500.01, VicRoads,
Melbourne, VIC.
VicRoads 2017, ‘Registration of crushed rock mixes’, Code of Practice RC 500.02, VicRoads, Melbourne,
VIC.
Technical Note TN09 Steel Furnace Slag Aggregate (October 2011)
Technical Note TN020 Reducing Reflection Cracking Over Jointed Concrete Pavement (September 1997)
Technical Note TN107 Use of Recycled Materials in Road Pavement (September 2019)
New Zealand
NZTA M01: 2020 Specification for Bitumen
NZTA M01_A: 2019 Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder
NZTA M4: 2006 Specification for Basecourse Aggregate
NZTA M6: 2019 Specification for Sealing Chip
NZTA M10: 2020 Specification for Dense Graded Asphaltic Concrete
NZTA T09:2003 Procedure for the Estimation of the Kerosene Content
South Australia (DIT)

RD-PV-S1 Supply of Pavement Materials (August 2020)
RD-BP-S1 Supply of Bituminous Materials (September 2019)

Pavement Design Supplement, DPTI Supplement to the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2
(August 2018)
DPTI Part R15 Supply of Pavement Materials Supply of Pavement Materials (August 2017)
DPTI Part R15A Attachment Pavement Material Specification (August 2017)
DPTI Part R27 Supply of Asphalt (May 2017)
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Supplement to the Austroads Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design (August 2018)
Western Australia (MRWA)

Specification 302 Earthworks (November 2020)
Specification 501 Pavements (January 2022)
Specification 503 Bituminous Surfacing (February 2018)
Specification 510 Asphalt Intermediate Course (April 2022)
Specification 511 Materials for Bituminous Treatments (December 2022)
Specification 516 Crumb Rubber Open Graded Asphalt (November 2020)
Transfer of appropriate crumb rubber modified bitumen technology to WA Stage 2: Gap Graded Asphalt
(June 2019)
Northern Territory (DIPL)

Department of Infrastructure Materials Testing Manual (February 2014)

Protocol for assessing RM in asphalt mix

and sprayed seal road surfacings
Introduction
The objective of this protocol is to provide guidance on key factors to consider when evaluating the potential
application of RMs in various sprayed seal applications and asphalt, especially those involving novel
materials or applications without an established track record.
General guidance only is provided as the range of RMs that could be used is very broad, and each state and
road agency may have more specific requirements in relation to regulations and specifications covering
environmental, health and safety and engineering performance factors.
This protocol should be read in conjunction with the Framework for Assessment of Recycled Materials (RM)
in the Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology, Part 4E (referred to here as the Framework). The
Framework covers, at an overarching level, environmental, health and safety, engineering performance and
project management factors to be considered when assessing the use of RM in roading projects. The
protocol below focusses on issues of specific concern for asphalt and sprayed seal road surfacings.
Figure A1 provides an overview of the protocol.
Assessments should be made by competent experts in the given field with appropriate qualifications and
experience, as discussed in the Framework. It is unlikely that a single expert will be qualified in all areas. The
scale and detail of assessments required will depend on the novelty or maturity of the RM in question (i.e. if it
has previously been widely used) the volumes or frequency at which it will be used, its source and the
sensitivity of the environment in which it will be used.
Applications of RM in Asphalt and Sprayed Seals
Applications for RM in asphalt and sprayed seal surfacings fall into two groups:
RM used to modify or extend the bitumen phase
Materials such as crumb tyre rubber, plastics, cooking oil, tall oil pitch or lignin are dissolved or dispersed in
the bitumen to improve its properties or simply to reduce the amount of virgin bitumen used. Typically,
concentrations are less than 20%.
RM used to modify or substitute the aggregate phase
Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), glass or slag are used to substitute part or all of the
natural aggregate that would otherwise be used. Other RMs may help bind (stabilise) the aggregate. When
RAP is used in asphalt mix, part of the bitumen phase is also substituted.
Established applications
Various RMs are already widely used in surfacings in Australia and New Zealand, and internationally (for
example, Technical Note TN193 Use of recycled materials in road construction, Department of Transport and
Main Roads, Queensland and Technical Note TN107 Use of recycled materials in road pavements, DoT,
Victoria. RMs used in asphalt and sprayed seals include:
• RAP – millings in asphalt mix and as temporary seal wearing courses before an asphalt mix overlay
(RAP has also been used to a limited extent as a dust-reducing surfacing on unsealed roads).
• Recycled crushed glass aggregates – small size aggregate substitution in asphalt mix.

• Industrial slag aggregate – high friction aggregate for sprayed seals and asphalt surfacings.
• Crumbed tyre rubber – bitumen modifier for sprayed seals and asphalt mix.
These RMs have a generally successful track record and their engineering properties are well covered in
existing state and national specifications. From an environmental perspective though, it is important to be
aware that the levels or presence of potentially harmful contaminants may vary widely depending on the
source of the materials.
Figure A 1: Recycled Material Assessment Protocol for Asphalt and Sprayed Seals

Assessment Criteria
Benchmarking
To make assessments of RMs, it may be useful to use the properties of existing conventional materials to
provide benchmark values. For example, the engineering properties (e.g. modulus, fatigue life) of asphalt mix
containing recycled plastic as a binder component could be compared to that of conventional asphalt. Care
must be taken to as far as possible select conventional materials of the same type and that are used in the
same application as that intended for the materials or products containing the RM. Hence in the asphalt mix
example above, the aggregate grading, and source, base bitumen grade and overall binder content of the
benchmark asphalt should be the same as that containing the plastic. If an exact equivalency is not possible,
using typical results for a range of similar conventional materials may be acceptable.
Benchmarking may be applied to assessment of the RM alone or when incorporated at intended

concentrations in the final surfacing or pavement product. In the latter case the RM would be benchmarked
against conventional materials (e.g. natural aggregate of the same grading) and in the former against asphalt
mix, spray seal surfacings, etc. For example, the leachate from recycled crushed concrete compared to
natural aggregates is of interest when assessing the potential effects of stockpiling the materials but
additional testing would be needed to assess in-service risks in the pavement where it is present at a lower
concentration and moisture conditions are different.
Consistency, Storage and Handling of RM

A sufficient supply of consistent RM for the application in question is obviously essential. A material
specification is required for contractual purposes and to understand the expected variability in the RM. If the
RM is being sold as a proprietary formulation or product on a commercial basis, then seek material
specifications (for inputs and outputs), quality control data (and if possible, product warranties) from the
supplier or contractor. The supplier should be certified, and operate under a recognised quality assurance
standard, controlling record keeping, sampling methods and frequency, etc.
Many RMs, such as the post-consumer waste plastic stream, are complex mixtures whose composition may
vary over time. This may significantly affect the desired engineering properties of an asphalt or seal.
Suppliers’ provided specifications may not cover all necessary requirements for applications in asphalt or
sprayed seals and representative samples of the RM should be tested for consistency of key properties
relevant to its intended application. For example, for bitumen modifiers key properties may include particle
size distribution, melting point, melt-flow index or some other measure of dispersion ease and storage
stability in the bitumen. The significance of the known or expected variation in the RM and its effects on the
surfacing’s performance should be evaluated at the outset.
The levels of foreign matter (for example, wood, metal in demolition waste) or contamination with toxic or
eco-toxic materials must also be understood and controlled (see sections below).
Practicalities concerning the RMs storage and handling may differ from usual practice arising from use of
conventional materials and need to be considered. These include:
• Establishing suitable sampling frequencies for quality control testing
• Special safe-handling requirements, (for example, maximum heating and storage temperatures of liquid
additives such as waste cooking oils)
• Storage stability and handling (for example, in outdoor stockpiles exposed to the weather, effect of
temperature on agglomeration in a stockpile, agitation in storage and transport vessels)
• Risk of fire through spontaneous combustion within stockpiles
• Dust generation during handling (including microplastics)
• Biodegradation with long-term storage

• Biohazards (for example, bacterial or fungal growth on recycled glass)

• Special requirements for cleaning of plant or switch-over to conventional materials
• Potential problems in legal disposal of non-conforming asphalt mix containing the RM (for example, from
laydown trials or due to plant malfunction).
The above list is not exhaustive, and users may need to consider other factors that may be relevant to their
intended application.
Engineering Performance Assessment
Compliance with Specifications
Materials modified with RM are expected to comply with the relevant state or national specifications (or
agreed modifications to them) that would apply to the equivalent conventional materials. This also applies to
field performance/conformance evaluated on the finished in-place mix, such as density and roughness
(surface evenness) for asphalt or texture requirements in sprayed seals.
Non-Standard Testing Requirements
It is important to note that standard asphalt and bitumen tests and specifications are empirical in nature and
have evolved over time for use with natural aggregates and bitumen produced from distilling crude oil. As a
result, some properties are assumed, such as insolubility in water and resistance to biodegradation over
extended periods (decades) when exposed to the elements. In addition, some performance outcomes may
rely on use of conventional materials. Bitumen reacts with oxygen (and ozone) in the atmosphere, which is
promoted by UV light but is otherwise inert to reaction with water or chemical species it may be exposed to.
This inert behaviour is not necessarily the case when RMs are incorporated/used and potential unforeseen
physical or chemical properties or processes need to be assessed based on knowledge of the RMs
composition. Performance outcomes also need to be assessed to determine what if any impacts result form
use of the RM.
Suitability of Test Methods
Test methods designed for conventional materials may not be applicable to materials modified with RMs, or it
may be that additional non-standard tests are needed to fully assess the impacts of using the RM. They
should be reviewed to ensure accurate results are obtained. In particular, take care with:
• Viscosity measurement by capillary viscometers of binders modified with RM present as particulates at
the test temperature (the same applies to DSR measurements using cone and plate or parallel plate
systems or sliding-plate viscosity measurements – particulates should be less than 25% of the gap size).
• Aggregate gradings for mixes with fibrous RM added to the aggregate fraction (for example, waste
textiles).
• Bitumen contents of asphalt mix using solvent extraction methods (for example, ASTM D2172) where
the RM may be insoluble and will be measured as part of the aggregate fraction.
• Bitumen contents using high temperature ignition methods (for example, ASTM D6307) where RM
added to the bitumen may not combust as expected.
The methods should be calibrated by running standard mixes of known bitumen content.
In addition, some specifications may be prescriptive/limited in nature or not include performance related
testing. Authors may also not have envisaged/contemplated the use of the RM in question when writing the
specification. Therefore, additional performance related testing may be needed to assess the use of a RM.

Road Users
RM in asphalt mixes or sprayed seals may affect the road-user experience, in particular with respect to
surface friction (skid resistance). This should be investigated. For larger stone sizes the PSV test (BS EN
1097-8) or variants (AS 1141.41 and AS 1141.42) are suitable for assessing polishing resistance. To assess
small-size aggregate materials used in asphalt mixes, slabs using the RM in the expected concentrations
should be prepared and friction measured using the British Pendulum Tester or equivalent method and
compared to benchmark materials. The rate of bitumen wear under traffic (i.e. rate of increase of initial skid
resistance) could also be affected.
When considering the potential impacts of RM in asphalt and sprayed seals, all road users should be
considered. Potential road users include cyclists (and other micromobility device users), pedestrians
(including children, pensioners, and people with disabilities), vehicle traffic (including cars, trucks, buses, and
motorcyclists), maintenance/road workers, emergency services and animals. Further consideration should
also be given to emerging technologies such as automated vehicles and intelligent transport systems and
how the RM incorporation may impact compatibility (e.g. reflectivity of road surfaces).
Asphalt Mix
For asphalt mix, key properties include:
Bitumen Properties
Numerous documents can be referred to for guidance on testing and performance requirements of RM-
modified bitumen, such as ATS3110 Supply of Polymer Modified Binders, AS2008, NZTA M1-A, NZTA
M1 and other specifications. However, such documents have been developed for specific polymer types
and further testing may be required for those not covered. Note that some RM bitumen modifiers may not
be soluble in toluene or trichloroethene and may fail solubility requirements. Similarly, measuring viscosity
by capillary tube for bitumen containing insoluble particles is not valid. In the latter case, additional care
may be required to assess phase stability (gradual separation over time) using methods designed for
conventional polymer-modified bitumens such as AGPT T108 Segregation of polymer modified binders.
Aggregate Properties
RM used as aggregate substitutes may not comply with all properties expected from natural or
manufactured aggregates, for example strength or shape which may affect packing behaviour. This may
not be critical if the RM is only substituting a small fraction of the aggregate or only the fine aggregate
sizes (< 5 mm) and the overall behaviour of the mix, including surface friction is satisfactory. Testing may
be needed to assess such impacts.
Binder Content and Grading
Test methods using solvent extraction may need to be adapted for bitumen additives that are not soluble
in the chlorinated solvents typically used (for example, ASTM D2172 Quantitative Extraction of Bitumen
from Bituminous Paving Mixtures). Non-natural aggregates (such as industrial slags) may have very high
densities compared to natural materials, and acceptable binder contents may need to be adjusted (see
NZTA M10 Specification for Dense Graded and Stone Mastic Asphalts).
Moisture Sensitivity
Particular attention should be paid to potential loss of adhesion of RM in the presence of water (for
example, AGPT T232 Stripping Potential of Asphalt – Tensile Strength Ratio). Stripping has been
identified, for example, as a problem with use of recycled crushed glass particles > 5 mm. If a problem is
indicated more comprehensive evaluation could be undertaken using tests such as the Hamburg wheel
tracking test (with the sample submerged).

Fatigue Life and Modulus
Recycled material has the potential to dramatically impact the fatigue life and modulus of asphalt
pavements for better or worse. For example, if recycled plastic does not sufficiently dissolve when
combined with bitumen, it will be present as particulates at ambient road-surface temperatures. These
may become partially swollen with components of the bitumen (which could be a time dependent
process), and their particle-size distribution will depend on the preparation methods used (temperature,
shear conditions). As a result, the mix’s failure strength, modulus or fatigue-cracking behaviour may be
significantly altered. Therefore, due diligence is required with proper investigations of the mix
performance undertaken using standard methods (such as, AS 2891.13.1 Determination of the resilient
modulus of asphalt, AGPT T232 Stripping Potential of Asphalt – Tensile Strength Ratio, AGPT-T274
Characterisation of Flexural Stiffness and Fatigue Performance of Bituminous Mixes). Performance
results can be benchmarked against an alternative conventional mix to aid in determining suitability for
the specified application.
Deformation
Wheel-tracking tests should be carried out to assess rutting (deformation) resistance (for example, AGPT
T231 Deformation Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures by the Wheel Tracking Test).
Durability
Durability assessments of compacted asphalt mix are problematic due to the difficulty in realistically
accelerating the mix’s ageing without mechanically damaging it. Open-graded porous asphalt with >20%
air voids is an exception to this – significant ageing can be achieved at temperatures close to extreme
field conditions (85 °C) and durability assessed using the Cantabro test (AGPT-T236 Asphalt Particle
Loss). Asphalt durability, though, is usually inferred from the resistance to oxidation of the binder only,
using methods such as ASTM D2872 Standard Test Method for Effect of Heat and Air on a Moving Film
of Asphalt (Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test) followed by AASHTO R 28 Standard Practice for Accelerated
Aging of Asphalt Binder Using a Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) or AS/NZS 2341.13 Methods of testing
bitumen and related roadmaking products – Long-Term Exposure to Heat and Air. The latter method is
not suitable for binders with particulates.
A robust and objective approach to assessing RM durability behaviours, particularly untried materials, is
necessary as any laboratory accelerated durability test only approximates real conditions. Durability
behaviour can also be assessed by considering the chemical composition of the RM: information on long-
term behaviour in a non-roading application may be available (for example, waste plastics).
As well as comparing to specifications, it is useful to compare test results of RM asphalt mixes to results
from comparable conventional mixes. This is especially the case if non-standard testing is carried out to
evaluate some area of concern that existing specifications may not cover.
For both preparation of laboratory test specimens and in full-scale production, mixing and compaction
temperatures for RM-modified asphalt mixes may also need to be changed to achieve the desired
compaction level. Similarly, spraying temperatures and/or cutter concentrations may need to be adjusted
for binders modified with RM.

Sprayed Seals
Similar to TfNSW specification R106 and R107, testing of sprayed seals (e.g. initial adhesion and stripping
test) should be undertaken on the combined binder and aggregate mix when assessing the impact of RM
incorporation. To minimise risk associated with novel, untried RM applications preliminary testing should be
undertaken using laboratory prepared seals and performance compared to benchmark conventional
materials.
Binder Properties
The same considerations (discussed above) also apply to sprayed seal binders.
Emulsification
If sprayed seal binders are to be emulsified, the possible effect of RM on that process and the behaviour
of the final product must be investigated. Some RM (for example, crumb tyre rubber, plastics) may alter
the viscosity of the binder, or its water absorption behaviour, or be present as particulates that make
emulsification difficult or impossible. Standard recipes used to emulsify conventional binders may not be
applicable. The RM may also affect emulsion breaking rates and coalescence behaviour in the field.
Standard test methods for binder content (for example, Dean and Stark distillation, AS 2341.9) or
viscosity (Brookfield rotational viscometer, AS 2341.4) should be reviewed to ensure compatibility with the
RM in question.
Even with conventional bitumen’s, testing of binders recovered from emulsions can be problematic as the
recovery method (time, film thickness and temperature, etc.) may affect the resulting binder properties.
These problems may be exacerbated with RM-modified binders that may interact with the bitumen
emulsifiers and other additives, in complex ways. It should not be assumed that a recovery method used
for conventional emulsified binders is also suitable for RM-modified materials. The method will need
verifying.
Aggregate Properties
Currently the only RM material commonly used as a substitute sealing aggregate is industrial slag (for its
good friction properties). RM considered for sealing aggregates should meet all the standard
requirements for natural aggregates (for example, NZTA M06 Specification for Sealing Chip) unless there
is good evidence to suggest this is not necessary. Special attention should be paid to friction properties
(i.e. Polished Stone Value test) and durability (strength/crushing resistance). Evaluation of aggregate
durability and abrasion resistance in the field using test procedures that involve a water soaking step (for
example ASTM D6928 Standard Test Method for Resistance of Coarse Aggregate to Degradation by
Abrasion in the Micro-Deval Apparatus) provide a more realistic assessment of behaviour than dry tests.
Results could be benchmarked against conventional aggregates with satisfactory field performance.
Adhesion
Adhesion agents are commonly added to sealing binders to prevent early stripping in wet weather.
Consider the potential for RM added to the binder to interfere with the action of adhesion agents (or other
additives) or reduce binder-chip adhesion in some other way. An initial assessment could be made from
the RMs chemical composition. For example, most adhesion agents are basic so an acidic RM used to
modify the bitumen’s rheology could react with the agent. Similarly, a RM with significantly different
surface chemistry to that of natural aggregates may necessitate a different type of adhesion agent.
Available test procedures for this type of evaluation in sprayed seals are generally based on Vialit plate or
boiling-water-type tests with varying degrees of precision and operator dependence. These tests should
always be run in parallel with benchmark materials. Assessments can also be made using tests designed
for asphalt mixes, in which the RM is used to substitute some of a natural aggregate grading.
Durability
The same considerations (discussed above) for asphalt mix binders also apply. Sprayed seal durability is
usually inferred from the binder’s resistance to oxidation, using methods such as NZTA T13 Durability
Test Method for Bitumen or AS/NZS 2341.13 Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking
products – Long-Term Exposure to Heat and Air. The latter method is not suitable for binders with
particulates.

Cutter Sensitivity
Use of RM in bitumen may change the sensitivity of the resulting binder to cutters such as kerosene, i.e.
the amount of cutter required to achieve a given reduction in viscosity may change. This means standard
cutter charts or estimates of cutter required based on past experience with conventional bitumen may be
incorrect. Changes in required cutter content (or other possible incompatibilities) due to RM need to be
assessed in the laboratory (e.g. using NZTA method T09) and benchmarked against conventional
materials.
Selection and Design Guidance
Current guidance related to the selection and design of sprayed seal is based on the use of standard
binder grades. This guidance may need to be adjusted based on research for non-standard materials.
Construction Practices
Consideration should be given to whether changes in construction practices are needed to accommodate
the use of the RM in bitumen. Traffic management, rolling requirements may, for instance, need to vary.
Full-Scale Trials
For RM with an established track record in surfacing construction, or RM that constitute only a minor
variation of those materials, then trials are unlikely to be necessary (other than a standard lay-down trial).
Trials are essential, though, for novel, untried RM. In these cases, initial trials should be on lower risk and
lower volume roads, and small in scale. Trials will highlight unexpected construction issues that cannot be
otherwise anticipated and provide an opportunity for some early performance monitoring.
Notwithstanding the above and prior to trialling new materials, sufficient laboratory and desktop assessments
need to be undertaken to ensure that materials are fit for purpose and do not present an unacceptable
performance, environmental or safety risk.
Details of construction and monitoring will vary depending upon the nature of the RM and any concerns, but
trials should at the least:
• Have a control section using an equivalent conventional material
• Have sections constructed on the same day or within a few days of each other
• Have sections of at least 100 m length (this minimises un-representative areas at the start and end of
the sections and provides sufficient length for collection of high-speed vehicle data).
• Have equivalent traffic loadings, stresses and climate conditions
• Be constructed on a sound pavement with minimal rutting.
For seals it will be important to assess:

• Whether the calibration of the sprayer needs is valid or needs to be redone if viscosities differ
• The spraying pattern to ensure an even spraying pattern is achieved without blockage of nozzles or
'tram-tracking' occurring
• Whether any changes in construction practices are needed.
Environmental performance assessment
RM used in asphalt mix or sprayed seal surfacings may present environmental hazards not present when
conventional materials are used. These may arise from the nature of the RM itself, but could be from
contaminants in the materials.

Adverse environmental effects may arise primarily through:

• Leaching of water-soluble compounds (for example, metals) that are ecotoxic to aquatic or terrestrial
species. This can occur through the action of rainwater on the surface and the movement of water in the
pavement beneath. Chemical species leached from the road surfacing material may subsequently react
after release to produce more highly ecotoxic compounds.
• Dust generated during stockpiling, construction and maintenance of the surfacing. Dust containing
harmful compounds can enter waterways and settle on pasture or arable farmland adjacent to the
roadway and potentially enter the food chain. Microplastics may be released to the environment in this
way.
• Emissions from volatile compounds present in the RM or generated at asphalt-mixing and paving
temperatures or sprayed sealing application temperatures.
• Dust from mechanical abrasion by traffic of aggregate and bitumen from the finished road surface over
the life of the surfacing. Microplastics may be released to the environment in this way.
Common, potentially harmful contaminants within asphalt and sprayed seals include:
• Dioxins (for example, generated from PVC plastics at high temperatures)
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (for example, transformer oils)
• Heavy metals, lead, cadmium, chromium, arsenic etc. (for example, in industrial slag or glass from
fluorescent light bulbs)
• Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (for example, waste motor oils)

• Volatile hydrocarbons
• BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene – common industrial solvents)
• Phenols (for example, foundry sands)
• Asbestos (for example, demolition waste)
• Coal tar (for example, asphalt or sprayed seal binders pre-1970s)
• Pesticides (for example, agricultural waste plastics)
• Phthalates (for example, plasticisers for plastics)
• Materials that raise or lower the pH of ground or surface water.
While many of the above mentioned contaminates are present and integral to conventional asphalt and
sprayed-seal materials, it must be confirmed that environmentally acceptable thresholds are not exceeded
when incorporating RM.
Dusts from stockpiles or generated during construction or by long-term traffic abrasion of the surface are
primarily of concern to health (see below) but can also act to distribute contaminants well beyond the road
corridor. One topical example is the potential generation of microplastic particles from waste-plastic-modified
surfacing materials, although the actual danger posed to the environment and human health in that case is
currently unclear. Another example are particulates from synthetic aggregates or glass road-that marking
beads may contain metals that could enter the food chain.
In general, a conservative approach is advised if there is any uncertainty about the presence of significant
hazards. The potential environmental damage caused, and the difficulty and expense associated with
remediating the inadvertent incorporation of highly eco-toxic substances into the roadway could be
substantial.

Materials Already Controlled
The RM may already be classified under state or national environmental regulations and there may be
restrictions on where it can be used. This is often the case for aggregates from demolition waste, for
example, in Victoria, permissible limits for a range of contaminants in clean fill have been specified (EPA,
Victoria, 2021). State and national environmental protection agencies or equivalent bodies can provide
advice.
Determining the Chemical Composition and Source
Understanding the RMs chemical composition and its source and processing history is essential for properly
assessing its potential for environmental harm. However, many RMs are complex mixtures, and it is not
practicable to fully characterise their compositions. The first assessment should be based on the source and
history of the RM if known. Glass from post-consumer drink bottles for example is unlikely to be significantly
contaminated, whereas that from an industrial process or consumer electronics may be. The processing
method used also indicates the contaminant types possibly present, which should be tested for.
Standard analysis methods exist for analysing many contaminants, but these may require an initial extraction
step or other sample treatment processes that need tailoring to the specific RM in question. This is
particularly so if RM are already in a seal or asphalt mix matrix. Specialist advice should be sought.
Based on the measured chemical composition, potential for environmental harm can be assessed. Note that
there are no standards specifically governing chemical composition of road construction materials. A
decision about the potential risk must be made and may be based on:
• Comparisons with concentrations of chemical species also present in bitumen or natural aggregate
materials considering either the individual constituents or the whole asphalt mix or seal matrix, i.e. using
conventional materials as a benchmark. This is not a fool-proof approach as most analysis methods will
report total quantities of a chemical species not necessarily its chemical form found in the RM. Heavy
metal contaminates may be present as oxides or simple salts, which can significantly affect their water
solubility or general bioavailability. Vanadium for example is present in relatively high concentrations in
most bitumens but bound in chemical structures that prevent significant leaching.
• Comparisons of state and national regulations listing allowed contaminant levels for clean-fill materials
or comparable standards for landfills where leachate is uncontrolled/poorly controlled. All jurisdictions in
Australia and New Zealand have controls governing to varying degrees the chemical composition of
types of materials that can be disposed of as clean fill or in ‘low grade’ landfills. This is a reasonable
model for the road pavements situation where leachate or other emissions are mostly not controlled.
Leaching, Volatile Emissions and Particulate Release Tests
If environmental risk cannot be decided on the basis of the chemical composition alone, then consider further
investigations. These investigations involve experimentally modelling routes for the RM or its components’
dispersal into the environment. Most commonly this will be through water leaching but volatile emissions and
particulate (dust) release should also be considered. Measurement of realistic leaching, volatile emissions or
particulate release requires careful design of experiments to accurately simulate field conditions.
The development of a testing framework for the release of microplastics in road surfacings is currently
underway and serves as the most relevant assessment method to date (Austroads AP-R663-21). The wet
track abrasion test (AGPT-T272) designed for slurry seals is being optimised for asphalt under controlled pH
and temperature conditions. The method includes optimising the isolation of plastics from bitumen,
aggregates and other road debris to ascertain the volume of environmentally accessible microplastics.

Leaching tests usually involve exposing the test material to a known volume of water at a given pH and
temperature for a set time. Details of procedures to collect leachates will vary depending on the RM and
whether present in asphalt or sprayed surfacings. Commonly used leaching tests such as the US EPA
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching (TCLP) procedure (US EPA method 1311 or AS 4439.3) can be used as a
starting point but will likely need adapting to reflect real conditions.
In the first instance, water leachates should be analysed for the presence of harmful contaminates. More
extensive investigations, if warranted, will directly measure the eco-toxicity of the leachates using aquatic or
terrestrial organisms (typically algae species, Daphnia, or earthworms).
General principles that should be applied when performing leaching studies include:
• Acceptance criteria need to be identified to make decisions concerning the test results (see below). For
a few leachate compounds it may be possible to make comparisons with concentrations found in the
leachate from tests using conventional materials. In general though, assessments will have to be made
in terms of a water quality standard (see below).
• Leaching tests should be conducted using the RM in the form (for example, particle size and grading)
and concentration anticipated for use in practice.
• Leaching tests should be carried out with the RM in the material matrix (asphalt mix or sprayed seal)
that will be used in practice. In many cases the matrix (in particular the bitumen) will strongly mitigate
leaching rates.
• The surface area of the asphalt mix or sprayed seal should be known or estimated so leaching rates can
be meaningfully extrapolated to actual field conditions. Consider how leaching test conditions (time,
water volume etc.) can be related to specification units (usually μg/L) if following a water quality
standard.
• The leachate analysis methods (for example, inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy, gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry) should be identified before testing begins so the experimental
design developed can minimise the need for the crude leachate sample to be extensively worked-up.
• The leaching test conditions should try to mimic likely environmental effects, such as UV degradation of
bitumen, which increases the release of water-soluble species. Asphalt and sprayed seal surfaces will
experience abrasion by tyres and produce a fine aggregate dust. The increased surface area of the dust
could result in significant increases in the rate of leaching.
Chemical Analysis of Leachate
The US EPA in particular has many standard methods available for analysing specific chemical species
or compounds. These can be carried out by specialist analytical laboratories in Australia and New
Zealand. Such laboratories should have accreditation for the methods used (IANZ in New Zealand, NATA
in Australia). These laboratories should be consulted before designing or carrying out leaching tests to
ensure tests can meet sample size, storage time or other necessary conditions.
Some species (for example, metals) are relatively easy to detect. Usually, multiple metals can be
determined simultaneously. Organic species (for example, PAH) or pesticide residues may require more
labour-intensive analyses: to limit costs an understanding of the RMs source and general chemical
composition is needed to guide selection of relevant species for analysis.
Assessment of Leachate Analysis Results
Concentrations of contaminants in the leachates can be assessed against water quality standards and/or
the chosen benchmark. For example, the Australian and New Zealand Governments have developed a
set of ‘Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines)
that provide a database with allowable limits for a wide range of compounds. Standards vary widely
depending on local authority, state or national jurisdictions.

Eco-Toxicity Testing
Usually, the leachate sample must be modified to a neutral pH for eco-toxicity studies unless this is the
factor of concern (for example, leaching of crushed concrete). Eco-toxicity tests give results in terms of
parameters such as lethal concentration (LC50), concentration affecting growth rates (EC50), and the no-
observed effect concentration (NOEC), usually in μg/L of the compound or chemical species evaluated.
For sparingly soluble materials and complex mixtures, all the potential eco-toxic materials and their
concentrations may be unknown. In that case it is common to use the ‘water accommodated fraction’
(WAF) approach and express the concentration of the test sample as a ‘bulk loading rate’ (for example,
grams of asphalt mix per litre of water). Leaching is allowed to proceed until an equilibrium is reached,
which can be confirmed by conducting a series of tests at different leaching times.
Eco-toxicity results can be assessed in relation to regulations governing eco-toxicity specific to state or
national governments. However, these regulations typically assume water soluble compounds whose
ecotoxicity can be determined based on their concentration in μg/L. For road surfacing materials using the
WAF approach, this is not the case. For such complex mixtures where unknown synergistic or matrix
effects may also be occurring, the best approach is to compare the results to those from tests using
equivalent conventional materials as a benchmark.
Because of the complexity of eco-toxicity testing and the results interpretation, it is usually beneficial to
consult with the regulating authority before testing, to ensure the testing proposed is adequate.
More Extensive Investigations
If warranted by the scale or extensive on-going application, a full-scale trial using the RM can be constructed
and monitored in the field (see the full-scale trials section above). Typically, a large-scale field collection
container (lysimeter) is used to collect leachate water draining off or through the road surface (for example
see Endres et al., 2016). The results from such testing can be used with water - flow modelling to predict
leachate movement and concentrations in the surrounding environment and develop predictions for other
road geometries.
Lifecycle Assessment (GHG and Volatile Emissions)
Performing a full lifecycle assessment to calculate the benefits/disbenefits in terms of CO2 equivalent
emissions requires reliable data on energy consumption and volatile emissions associated with processing
and construction using the RM (or the major components if it is a mixture). Additional fuel consumption in
processing, handling and applying the RM are obvious sources of CO2 emissions, but emissions in the form
of volatile hydrocarbons or nitrogen oxides (potent greenhouse gases) and their effects must also be
considered. Consideration should also be given to potential mitigation measures that can be implemented to
achieve better emission outcomes (e.g. the use of warm mix asphalt for crumb rubber mixes).
Using the RM may increase CO2 equivalent emissions compared to equivalent conventional materials when:
• Higher binder storage temperatures are required
• Additional handling, blending or high-shear mixing is needed to incorporate the RM into the bitumen
(including emulsification) or if pumping viscosities increase significantly
• Higher asphalt mixing or compaction temperatures are required
• Higher application temperatures are required for sprayed sealing
• The RM loses volatiles at application temperatures for asphalt-mixing or sprayed sealing
• Use of the RM may reduce construction productivity
• Additional plant clean-up or switch-over steps are needed
• The RMs presence will complicate the asphalt mix or seal’s end-of-life disposal
• The RM reduces the service life of the asset or increases maintenance requirements

• The RM is not 're-recyclable'.
If there are no significant changes in practice, or to the overall asset life or maintenance requirements, then
the analysis can be simplified to examine the processing, handling and transport requirements for the RM
compared to conventional materials.
Transport Agencies in Australia and New Zealand have formed the Transport Authorities Greenhouse Group
(TAGG) and have developed a workbook to guide in assessing Greenhouse Gas emissions from roading
projects (EPA, Victoria, 2021).
In addition to CO2 emissions, consider the ultimate fate of the pavement material containing the RM. If the
material cannot be recycled in turn, then small amounts of RM may have effectively contaminated a much
larger volume of pavement material, which has now effectively become waste. This has been identified as a
key concern with Austroads Project APT605 investigating potential management strategies for the effective
reuse of recycled plastic modified asphalt.
Health and Safety Effects
RM sold as commercial products should have an accompanying Safety Data Sheet (or equivalent) which
specifies toxicity and other health and safety hazards associated with transport, storage and use. These may
require additional or different handling controls and procedures and use of specialised PPE compared to that
for conventional asphalt, sealing materials and other such related additives and adhesion agents.
In asphalt and sprayed seal applications, health and safety hazards from RM will likely arise mainly through:
• Inhalation (volatiles, aerosols and dust arising during construction and from stockpiles)
• Skin/eye contact (including burns)
• Ingestion
• Biohazards
• Explosion/fire hazards.
If the nature of the RM is such that no significant, new or higher levels of dust or volatile emissions are
expected compared to conventional materials (for example, recycled crushed glass), then it is reasonable to
assume that existing handling and construction protocols will suffice to control the risk. Most cases will
require the same or similar mitigation measures, training and PPE.
Take particular care to assess the potential for volatile compound emissions (for example PAH) to be
released from RM when exposed to asphalt manufacturing, paving or sprayed seal application temperatures.
Emissions could be toxic and pose an explosion hazard. Volatiles may be present as solvent or oil
contaminants in demolition waste for example. Storing RM binders at high temperatures for extended periods
could also result in build-up of volatiles through chemical decomposition.
Assessment of health and safety risks must consider potential exposure to road users (for example, cyclists)
and the local population, schools, workplaces, especially during construction. Operational safety plans must
be reviewed and adapted to account for specific risks from RM.
State and national regulations dictate workplace exposure limits (WES) allowed for known chemical species.
Compliance with these regulations is a legal obligation. Measuring and assessing exposures in terms of the
regulations is a specialised activity carried out by monitoring workers during construction and handling
operations. Austroads AP-R663-21 can be referred to for a suitable framework to assess VOC, PAHs and
total particulate matter (TPM) in air for recycled plastics (both wet and dry methods) to determine
conformance with acceptable standards.

The high temperatures associated with asphalt mix and sprayed sealing operations may result in generation
of offensive odours (for example, from crumb tyre rubber). Even if not a threat to health, local authorities may
still consider these a nuisance that may need mitigating. This is likely to be more of a concern in densely
populated urban areas and at asphalt plants where production using RM generates ongoing odours. The use
of WMA technologies may assist for asphalt and their use is highly recommended in crumb rubber asphalt.
Similar sorts of technologies may eventually translate to seals in the future and so may similarly assist.
References
Austroads 2005, ‘Asphalt Particle Loss’, AGPT-T236, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006, ‘Deformation Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures by the Wheel Tracking Test’, AGPT-T231-06,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006, ‘Fatigue Life of Compacted Bituminous Mixes Subject to Repeated Flexural Bending’,
AGPT-T233-06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015, ‘Characterisation of the Viscosity of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Binder Using the
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)’, AGPT-T192-15.
Austroads 2021e, ‘Segregation of Polymer Modified Binders, AGPT-T108-21, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Endres M., Brand M., Tiffert A., Schnell M., Kocher B., Marks T. & Hilliges R. 2016, ‘Percolation and
contaminant transport in road embankments with and without technical safeguards to reduce percolation
– lysimeter experiments’, Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2392-2401.
EPA, Victoria 2021, 1828.2: ‘Waste disposal categories – characteristics and thresholds, Environmental
Protection Agency’, Victoria, Australia.

Kazmi, D., Williams, D. J. & Serati, M. 2020, ‘Waste glass in civil engineering applications—a review’,
International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 17 (2), 529-554
Mohajerani, A., Vajna, J., Cheung, T. H. H., Kurmus, H., Arulrajah, A. & Horpibulsuk, S. 2017, ‘Practical
recycling applications of crushed waste glass in construction materials: a review’, Construction and
Building Materials, 156, 443-467.
Su, N. & Chen, J.S. 2002. ‘Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with recyclable glass’,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 35, Taiwan, pp 259 – 274.
TDOT 2008, ‘Use of glass cullet in roadway construction’, Research Summary, Texas Department of
Transportation, <http://www.dot.state.tx.us/services/general_services/recycling/glass_cullet.htm>.
Standards
AS 2008-2013, Residual bitumen for pavements
AS 2341.9-1992, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products - determination of water
content (Dean and Stark)
AS 4439.3-2019, Wastes, sediments and contaminated soils Preparation of leachates - bottle leaching
procedure
AS/NZS 2341.1-2015, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products - determination of
dynamic viscosity by rotational viscometer
AS/NZS 2341.13-1997, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products Long-term exposure to
heat and air (Reconfirmed 2013)
ASTM D2172 / D2172M-17e1, ‘Standard test methods for quantitative extraction of asphalt binder from
asphalt mixtures’, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, www.astm.org
ASTM D6307-19, ‘Standard test method for asphalt content of asphalt mixture by ignition method’, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019, www.astm.org
BS EN 1097-8 2020, ‘Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates – determination of the
polished stone value’, BSI.

NZTA M01-2020, Specification for dense graded asphaltic concrete

NZTA M06-2019, Specification for sealing chip
NZTA M10-2020, Specification for bitumen
NZTA T13-2011, Durability test method for bitumen
United Stated Environmental Protection Agency 1992, ‘Method 1311: toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure, part of test methods for evaluating solid waste’, physical/ chemical methods, US EPA.


AGPT04E-22 Guide To Pavement Technology Part 4E Recycled Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

AGPT04E-22 Guide To Pavement Technology Part 4E Recycled Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Austroads Ltd 2022 | This material is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads

• Transport for NSW

2. Aspects of Recycling ............................................................................................................................. 9

3. Framework for Determining Recycled Materials Suitability ............................................................ 15

3.1 Framework Description .......................................................................................................................... 15

4. Recycled Crushed Glass ..................................................................................................................... 28

5. Recycled Plastic Waste ....................................................................................................................... 32

6. Industrial Slag ....................................................................................................................................... 38

7. Recycled Tyres ..................................................................................................................................... 44

8. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement ............................................................................................................. 50

Austroads 2022 | page i

8.2 Engineering Risk and Performance........................................................................................................ 52

9. Coal Combustion Products ................................................................................................................. 56

10. Recycled Crushed Concrete and Masonry ........................................................................................ 61

Table 2.2: 2020 Waste Generation Estimates by Materials Source ........................................................12

Austroads 2022 | page ii

Austroads 2022 | page iii

It is evident that improved understanding of recycled materials and advancement in technology/process-

Austroads 2022 | page 1

Part 4E of the Guide to Pavement Technology presents:

Austroads 2022 | page 2

1.1.1 Insitu Recycling

1.2 Guide to Pavement Technology

• Part 1: Introduction to Pavement Technology

Austroads 2022 | page 3

1.3 Policy Environment

1.3.1 Changes to International Waste Policies

Impacts of Changes to China’s Waste Import Policy

Australia’s National Waste Action Plan

Australia's National Waste Action Plan outlines actions to:

Austroads 2022 | page 4

Council of Australian Governments Waste Export Ban

Australian Federal Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020

materials collected for recycling. It established a framework to:

Aotearoa New Zealand’s National Waste Strategy

Austroads 2022 | page 5

Figure 1.1: New Zealand Waste Strategy: Legislative Framework

Waste Disposal Levy Increase & Expansion

Waste Reduction Work Programme

Austroads 2022 | page 6

National Plastics Action Plan

1.3.4 Responses in Transport and Infrastructure: Australia

Transport and Infrastructure Council Response

Procurement Policy Responses

Austroads 2022 | page 7

1.3.5 Responses in Transport and Infrastructure: Aotearoa New Zealand

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Government Procurement Rules

Austroads 2022 | page 8

Figure 2.1: Recyclable Supply Chain (WSP 2021)

2.1 Circular Economy

Austroads 2022 | page 9

Figure 2.2: Circular Economy Diagram (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018)

2.2 Composition of Waste

Austroads 2022 | page 10

2.3 Recycled Waste Volumes

Table 2.1: Typical Waste Stream Composition

Waste Stream Estimated % of Total Stream by Mass

MSW C&I C&D

Plastics 10% 9% <1%

Masonry materials 3% 6% 90%

Metals* 10% 21% 6%