A6 Alvaston Bypass, Derbyshire

1 Background
1.1 Project information
Name

A6 Alvaston Bypass

Region

East Midlands

Type of project

Road Building

Timescale

September 2002 December 2003

Client

Highways Agency, www.highways.gov.uk

Contractor

Jackson Civil Engineering, www.jackson-civils.co.uk

Employers Agent

Scott Wilson, www.scottwilson.com

Designer

URS Corporation Ltd, www.urseurope.com

1.2 Type of construction project

The A6 Alvaston Bypass is a 10.6 million 2.3 km dual carriageway that has recently been
constructed to the east of Alvaston, near Derby. The scheme forms part of the Highways
Agencys programme to complete the A50 Stoke-Derby Link and is the remaining section of
the road spur into Derby from the Southern Bypass. The majority of the Bypass runs through
green field areas, although a small section runs on top of an old landfill site.
The new dual carriageway features environmental bunds, footways, cycleways and
equestrian facilities along the length of the road. There is also a cable stay bridge at Green
Lane, a bridleway bridge at Elvaston Lane and an underpass for pedestrians, cyclists and
equestrians at the southern end near Thulston roundabout.

Figure 1: Bypass constructed with recycled and secondary aggregate

1.3 Recycled and secondary aggregate (RSA) and tonnages

used
Over 250, 000 tonnes of RSA have been used in the construction of the bypass. The types
and amounts of RSA used are detailed below:

Foundry sand

46,000 tonnes

Pulverized-fuel ash (PFA)

179,000 tonnes

Recycled aggregate
- Capping
- Ground Improvement

27,800 tonnes
1,350 tonnes

Recycled asphalt

1,200 tonnes

Recycled railway ballast

Not known

Recycled surplus site arisings

1,500 tonnes

1.4 Nature of use/application of RSA

RSA have been used on the project in a number of ways, for example: general fill, topping
material on a bridleway, embankment construction, capping material and coarse aggregate in
concrete. Most of the RSA have been imported however some of the materials have been
sourced directly from site. A summary of the materials and their respective applications is
given below.
RSA
Foundry Sand

Application
General fill material
Topping material for 1
km long bridleway

Pulverized-fuel
Ash
Recycled
Aggregate

Embankment fill material

Capping
Ground improvement

General material description

Class 1A Well graded granular
material
Class 1B Uniformly graded granular
material
Class 2E Reclaimed pulverized fuel
ash cohesive material
Class 6F2 Selected granular material
(coarse grading)
Class 6B Selected coarse grading
material
Class 6C Selected uniformly graded
granular material

Recycled Asphalt

Recycled Railway
Ballast
Recycled Surplus
Site Arisings

Non-frost susceptible
foundation for new main
carriageway central
reserve and combined
footpath/cycleway

Class 1A Well graded granular

material

Coarse aggregate in
concrete
Widening verge of PFA
embankment

BS882

(Also complied with Class 6F3

Selected granular material)

Class 2C Stony cohesive material

Table 1: Applications of RSA

1.5 What are the primary aggregate alternatives and why was
the RSA chosen?
If no suitable RSA had been available, the primary aggregates alternatives would probably
have been as follows:

Carboniferous Limestone. This would have been used for the capping and ground
improvement, giving a total requirement of some 29,000 tonnes. The nearest source for
this quantity of material is approximately 35 miles from the site. The Aggregate Levy and
transport costs mean that this would have been an expensive material to import;

Natural Gravel. This would have replaced the Recycled Railway Ballast as coarse
aggregate in the concrete. Such a change would have increased the cost of concrete
delivered to site, due to the Aggregate Levy This material was, however, locally available;

Natural Ballast. This would be an as-dug hoggin (sand and gravel), graded to
Specification for Highway Works Class 1A/1B, to replace the Foundry Sand used as
general fill, the Recycled Asphalt in the central reserve/footpath/cycleway and the
Recycled Site Arisings in the verge widening. Some 48,000 tonnes of this material would
have been required, making a local source unlikely. Transport costs would probably have
been an issue with this material;

Natural Sand. This would have replaced the Foundry Sand on the bridleway. The
quantity of material involved is relatively small, making a local source possible, however
costs would have been higher due to the Aggregate Levy.

With respect to the PFA, the project was planned and priced from the outset on the basis that
this material would be used as the main embankment fill material due to there being an
abundant source 7 miles away at a local power station. There were also engineering reasons
why PFA was selected for embankment construction, in that strict settlement criteria had been
imposed on the embankment by the Environment Agency. Had PFA, or an alternative suitable
RSA, not been available, the likely way forward would have been to source a more cohesive
fill material (e.g. clay from a borrow pit) and attempt to accelerate the settlement process
through surcharging. Such a process is, however, time consuming and expensive. As a
reasonably good quality fill material was required for the embankment, the primary aggregate
alternative to PFA would probably have been Natural Ballast.
In summary, RSA materials were used on the A6 Alvaston Bypass for three primary reasons,
namely:

Cost - in all cases, the use of an alternative primary aggregate would have been more
expensive;

Availability - suitable RSA were available locally and in the required quantities;

Sustainability. - there are clear environmental advantages associated with using RSA in
lieu of natural aggregates.

1.6 Any regulatory/environmental issues encountered and

how they were dealt with
PFA has been widely used in the road building industry for many years. As such, its negligible
impact on the surrounding environment is well documented. Notwithstanding, the proposed
use of PFA on this contract was discussed with the Environment Agency at tender stage. No
objections were raised.
Foundry Sand is a by-product of the metal casting industry. At present, there is very little
information available relating to the potential environmental impact and beneficial re-use of

industrial by-products. Prior to the use of this material, therefore, it was essential to ensure
that the Environment Agency had no objections. After reviewing a chemical analysis, which
indicated the presence of certain heavy metals, the Environment Agency confirmed they had
no objection to the material being used.
The use of Foundry Sand on the bridleway was also discussed with the British Horse Society.
Again, no objections were raised regarding the use of the material.

Figure 2: Foundry sand used in the bridleway

1.7 The decision-making process, including procurement

The strategy for procuring materials for a road building contract is developed at the earliest
stage of the tender process. As stated previously, the primary factors are cost and availability.
However, these issues must be assessed within the overall context of material quality and
performance, as well as impact on the environment.
A simplified decision making process for procuring materials would be as follows:

From final design information, calculate expected volumes of cut/fill materials. Classify
materials by type and assess suitability for re-use. Unsuitable materials to go off site or
be rendered suitable for re-use through treatment (e.g. Lime Improvement);

Identify required quantity and type of imported material(s);

Identify sources of potentially suitable imported materials, available at an acceptable

price, in the required quantity and at the right time. With respect to RSA, it is often this
last point that causes difficulty, in that their availability depends largely on other
construction contracts being undertaken in the vicinity. As such, RSA available one week
may not be available the next. Clearly, such a risk needs to be taken into account when
pricing the contract. Fortunately, for this contract, a number of alternative RSA were
available locally, principally PFA from Ratcliffe-on-soar Power Station and Foundry Sand
from Stanton Ironworks near Nottingham;

Obtain test results to demonstrate specification compliance or to form the basis of an

application for a Departure from Standard. If appropriate, discuss the use of the materials
with regulatory bodies (e.g. Environment Agency) and ensure they have no objections.

It should also be noted that the Highways Agency actively promote and encourage the use of
RSA on their contracts and give preference to Project Teams which use them. Indeed, the
increased use of RSA in highway construction is a key policy objective of the Highways
Agencys Environmental Strategic Plan Towards a balance with nature. This document
makes it clear that the Highway Agencys primary objective with regard to waste management
is:

to develop techniques to ensure that the Trunk Road network is managed in the most
sustainable manner, conserving the existing resource, generating less work and removing
barriers that prevent or inhibit the use of secondary or waste materials.
To this end, the Highways Agency proposes:
Co-operating more closely with industry to identify barriers to the reuse or recycling of
highway materials and to encourage the use of secondary and waste materials where
practical and Amending technical specifications to encourage use of local and lower grade
materials in highway construction as a means of reducing demand for new materials.
The use of RSA on the A6 Alvaston Bypass is entirely in line with this policy.

2 Specific detail
2.1 The Specification
The Specification was the Highways Agencys Specification for Highways Works, up to and
including the May 2001 amendments.

2.2 Use of the RSA in relation to current standards,

specifications
The Highways Agencys Specification permits the use of RSA. Also, British and European
Standards are being continually updated to allow the increased use of these materials.
Notwithstanding current specification requirements, certain regulatory bodies (e.g.
Environment Agency) may require additional testing prior to granting approval for use. This
was the case with the Foundry Sand, for which the Environment Agency required a chemical
analysis.

2.3 Cost effectiveness

The use of RSA on this contract in lieu of equivalent primary materials has resulted in a lower
project outturn cost.
It should be noted however that these lower costs do not fully translate into savings to the
contract. This is because, for example, the contract was priced from the outset on the basis
that PFA would be used as the main embankment fill material. As such, the contract does not
benefit financially for using PFA in lieu of a primary material, other than to make the original
tender more financially attractive to the Client.
Costs have been reduced for various reasons including: lower initial material purchase costs,
shorter transportation distances (a major factor), no requirement to pay waste management
charges including the Landfill Tax (2 per tonne for inert materials and currently 14 per
tonne for active wastes) and a reduction in the amount of primary materials that would be
subject to a charge from the Aggregates Levy (1.60 per tonne). The reduction in overall
direct costs realised through the use of RSA are approximately as follows:

Foundry sand

2.00 per tonne

Pulverized-fuel ash

3.50 per tonne

Recycled aggregate

2.00 per tonne

Recycled asphalt

6.50 per tonne

Recycled rail ballast

N/a

Recycled surplus and site arisings

6.50 per tonne

No whole life costing has been carried out, however the Project Team consider that the
performance of RSA on this contract in the longer term will be at least equivalent to
alternative primary materials.

2.4 Supply chain issues, ease of construction

Potential sources of RSA were not particularly difficult to locate, as the Contractor utilised the
services of a broker. The sources of PFA and Foundry Sand are well known in the area and,
as a rule, are able to provide whatever quantity is required when necessary. In addition, a
number of construction contracts were ongoing in the local area, which gave access to other
RSA.
Also of note was that due to the size of the contract, many potential suppliers contacted the
Project Team on a speculative basis to offer their materials for consideration.
Throughout the project there were no major problems with the supply of RSA. There were,
however, significant difficulties in maintaining a regular and secure supply of primary
materials (particularly Type 1 sub-base), due to the proximity of another much larger
construction contract.
The easily available nature of the RSA also reduced the need for on site stockpiling and
double handling. The quality and performance of the delivered material was also very
consistent. In equivalent circumstances, the RSA proved no more difficult to place and
compact than primary materials.

Figure 3: a) PFA used as a fill material in an embankment; b) PFA used in carriageway

construction; c) Example of geotextile separator to prevent migration of fines

2.5 Primary aggregates

Primary aggregates were used for the sub-base (Type 1) and some localised areas of
capping (Class 6F2) and ground improvement (Class 6B/6C). All of this material was crushed
limestone. All other imported aggregates were RSA.

3 Results of engineering performance and related

tests

3.1 Test results on the RSA materials used

RSA materials were subject to routine testing to ensure compliance with the Specification, as
follows:

Pulverized-fuel ash
-

Recycled aggregate (6F2)

-

Grading and moisture content to BS 1377 Part 2;

Optimum moisture content to BS 1377 Part 4;
Chemical tests various.

Recycled asphalt

Grading and moisture content to BS 1377 Part 2;

Optimum moisture content to BS 1377 Part 4;
10% fines to BS 812 Part 111 (soaked).

Foundry sand
-

Moisture content and bulk density to BS 1377 Part 2;

Max dry density (MDD) to BS 1377 Part 4;
End-product compaction to 95% MDD using a calibrated Nuclear Density Meter.

Grading to BS 1377 Part 2;

Moisture content to BS 1377 Part 2 Method 3;
Optimum moisture content BS 1377 Part 4 Method 3.7

Reclaimed rail ballast

All testing undertaken by concrete supplier in accordance with BS 882.

Foundry sand was used as general fill material to construct the approach embankments to
two bridges and as a topping material for a bridleway. Laboratory tests found that the sand
had an Optimum Moisture Content of around 21%. There were some difficulties in getting the
sand delivered to site within the required moisture content range (2% of the Optimum
Moisture Content). As a result, compaction of the sand was also assessed using a calibrated
Nuclear Density Meter, against a calculated mean Maximum Dry Density of 1.490 Mg/m3.
Constructing the carriageway on an embankment rising from existing ground level would have
involved placing fill material on soft/loose and variable near surface deposits. Instead,
excavation beneath the earthworks outline was undertaken to the level of the underlying
natural sand and gravel deposits and PFA imported for embankment construction. Excavation
beneath the earthworks outline varied between 0.3 m and 2.0 m. A calibrated Nuclear Density
Meter was used to assess the end-product compaction of the PFA material. The Optimum
Moisture Content of the PFA was calculated at around 29%, with a mean Maximum Dry
Density of 1.20 Mg/m3. Plate Bearing Tests were also carried out at selected locations on the
PFA to validate the use of a 150 mm layer of Type 1 sub-base. California Bearing Ratios
(CBR) in excess of 15% were found at all the areas tested.
Recycled aggregate (primarily crushed brick and concrete) used as Class 6F2 capping was
laid 600 mm thick and reinforced at two levels with Tensar SS30 Geogrid due to poor ground
conditions. The 10% fines value of the aggregate was 110 kN which was much higher than
the minimum requirement of 50 kN. Routine testing was also carried out to monitor the
particle size distribution; of the 47 tests carried out only 3 failed and these were only minor.

Plate Bearing Tests were also performed once capping had been completed. The results
showed that CBRs were in excess of 15% which allowed for a 150 mm layer of Type 1 subbase to be used as a pavement foundation.
Recycled aggregate in the form of brick batts were used as a 500 mm thick layer for ground
improvement to improve certain sections of the sub-formation. The material was sandwiched
between 2 layers of Lotrak 1800 geotextile separation membrane, resulting in a stable and
free drainage base on which the capping and pavement could be constructed.
Performance testing was carried out on the recycled asphalt. A frost heave test was
performed and the maximum heave was recorded as 7.3 mm in a 96-hour period, which was
well below the maximum permitted heave of 15 mm. This was undertaken in accordance with
test method BS 812: Part 124: 1989 (including SHW Cl. 715 amendment). The recycled
asphalt was laid 140 mm thick beneath 150 mm Type 1 sub-base and 60 mm bituminous
surfacing, giving an overall construction depth of 350 mm.
The recycled railway ballast was tested by the concrete supplier, Lafarge Ready Mix, and
complied fully with BS 882. Initial concerns were raised with regard to the colour of the RSA
and its potential impact on the colour of the final concrete product, however these concerns
proved to be unfounded.
The recycled surplus and site arisings were crushed to a Class 2C grading and compacted in
accordance with Table 6/1 in the Specification for Highways Works. The material mainly
consisted of sands, gravels and a smaller proportion of cohesive materials. Hard dig materials
were also present. The resulting material was used to widen a 200m long section of the main
PFA embankment by 3.2 metres, to permit the planting of mature trees in natural soil.

3.2 Any technical issues encountered and how they were

dealt with
There were very few technical difficulties encountered with the use of the RSA. With regard to
the use of PFA for the earthworks, the starter layer beneath PFA should normally be a Class
6D material in accordance with the Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works.
However, on site testing indicated the underlying natural sand and gravel to be generally
Class 1A or Class 1B and to have a relatively high permeability, suggesting it would be well
suited as both a drainage layer and capillary break. A Departure from Standard (DoS) was
granted by the Highways Agency to permit the use of the natural sand and gravel as a starter
layer. The use of PFA necessitated a number of special measures:

As the underlying natural sand and gravel is much coarser than a Class 6D material, a
geotextile separator was placed on the starter layer to prevent the migration of fines;
In areas of PFA, filter drains were lined with an impermeable membrane to prevent water
seeping from the drains and softening the embankment and to stop fines migrating from
the fill into the drains;
PFA was not used in the construction of the environmental or landscape bunds. This was
to reduce the risk of important planting areas, provided to screen the Bypass from local
residents, from failing to establish;
To monitor long term settlement of the carriageway, settlement markers have been
installed at 10 m intervals over a distance of approximately 950 m. These will be
surveyed at 3 monthly intervals for the first 2 years of the maintenance period and 6
monthly intervals thereafter. Settlement during the maintenance period must not exceed
20 mm, with differential settlement not exceeding 1:700 in any direction.

PFA is a low density material which exhibits negligible internal settlement once placed and
compacted. The use of PFA should minimise long term settlement of the embankment and
ensure the road surface remains level and does not suffer differential settlement that would
affect the ride quality.

The only major difficulty associated with PFA is that its placement and compaction is very
weather dependant. Indeed, on this contract, PFA works were suspended due to bad weather
from November 2002-April 2003. In good weather, the material was found to perform well.
The initial consideration with regard to the use of Foundry Sand under the Specification for
Highway Works is whether it would be classified as unacceptable material Class U2, as
defined in Clause 601(3). After reviewing a chemical analysis, the Environment Agency was
content for the material to be used for its intended applications. The Foundry Sand was
incorporated into the Permanent Works as Class 1A and Class 1B general fill material.
Routine on-site compliance testing found that 115 of the 124 Particle Size Distribution tests
conducted indicated the sand to be Class 1B material. The remaining 9 were Class 1A. Some
variance was noted in the grading of the sand, with uniformity coefficients ranging from 3.4 to
13.6. The average value was approximately 6, indicating that, in general, the sand was
relatively close graded. Due to the presence of leachable Sulfate in the sand, an assessment
of its potential impact on the structural concrete for the two bridges was undertaken. A 2:1
soil/water extract test indicated the sand to have a Water Soluble Sulfate Content (as SO4) of
1.32 g/l. After due consideration, the originally specified Class DC-1/0 concrete mix was
deemed appropriate.
The use of Foundry Sand in planted areas was discussed with and approved by landscape
specialists and soil scientists. Some modifications to the initially proposed planting scheme
were undertaken to ensure that the most appropriate plants for these areas were selected.

Figure 4: a) A stockpile of Surplus Site Arisings awaiting crushing; b) Limestone Type

1 sub-base

4 Lessons learned
The primary lessons learned regarding the use of RSA on the A6 Alvaston Bypass can be
summarised as follows:

In equivalent circumstances, RSA perform just as well as primary materials;

If RSA are readily and locally available, there are clear direct cost advantages associated
with their use;

It is important to undertake early discussions with the appropriate regulatory bodies (e.g.
Environment Agency) to deal with any areas of concern;

The use of RSA generated favourable publicity and led to a positive image for all parties
involved;

On the down side:

Some RSA are very weather dependant, which can effectively preclude their use if
contracts are awarded at certain times of the year;

There is very little guidance available on the environmental impact and beneficial re-use
of industrial by-products. Clearer guidance may help to promote increased use of these
products.