Tyre bales vs traditional fill is a comparison more civil engineers and contractors are running before committing to a specification. Material supply cost is only part of the picture; transport, installation, ground improvement, and long-term maintenance all shift the numbers in ways a simple price-per-tonne check won’t catch.
This guide works through each cost element honestly, covering granular fill, EPS, lightweight cellular concrete, and other alternatives. The goal is to show where tyre bales are genuinely competitive, where they’re not, and what drives the difference on real civil engineering projects.
When a civil engineer or contractor first considers tyre bales as an alternative to conventional fill materials, the instinct is to compare material supply cost per tonne or per cubic metre. This is a starting point, but it is not a complete picture. The full cost comparison for any construction material includes transport and logistics, installation requirements, the volume of material needed to achieve the design function, long-term maintenance implications, and, in some cases, the cost of disposing of excavated material that tyre bales help avoid.
Tyre bales are competitive in civil engineering applications not because they are the cheapest material in isolation (they are not always), but because the combination of material cost, transport efficiency, installation simplicity, and the avoidance of costs that conventional approaches generate creates a whole-project cost that is frequently lower than alternatives. Understanding where in the cost comparison tyre bales are strong, and where they are not, allows engineers and contractors to make genuinely informed decisions about when to specify them.
This guide works through each element of the cost comparison between tyre bales and the main alternative fill materials used in civil engineering applications. The comparisons are indicative because actual costs vary significantly by location, project size, and market conditions; the relationships between the costs are more consistent than the absolute numbers.
The fill materials that tyre bales compete with in civil engineering applications vary by application type. The relevant comparisons are:
Granular fill (Type 1 sub-base, selected fill). The standard conventional fill for road foundations, embankments, and retaining wall backfill. Widely available, well-understood, but heavy (1,800 to 2,200 kg/m³) and with no lightweight benefit.
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) blocks. The premium lightweight fill option. Ultra-low density (15 to 30 kg/m³) provides excellent load reduction but at high material cost. Commonly used in embankment applications over very soft ground where the load reduction benefit is most critical.
Lightweight cellular concrete (LCC). A cementitious lightweight fill at 300 to 800 kg/m³. Higher cost than granular fill, lower cost than EPS, but still significantly more expensive than tyre bales.
Pulverised fuel ash (PFA). A by-product of coal combustion is used as a lightweight fill at 1,000 to 1,200 kg/m³. Lower cost than EPS and LCC, but not as lightweight as tyre bales. Availability depends on proximity to power stations.
Gabion baskets (for comparison in drainage and retaining applications). Wire mesh baskets filled with aggregate are used in slope stabilisation and retaining applications. Higher material and labour costs than tyre bales for comparable structural function.
Material supply cost comparisons are inherently location-specific because transport distance fromthe supply source to the site is a major component of cost for all bulk construction materials. The following is a relative comparison that holds broadly across UK conditions, with the caveat that local prices should always be obtained for specific projects.
On a raw supply cost per tonne, PAS 108 tyre bales are comparable to granular fill and substantially cheaper than EPS or LCC. The material supply cost comparison is broadly neutral to tyre bales.
The transport cost comparison is where tyre bales begin to differentiate clearly from conventional fill in applications over soft ground.
Granular fill transport. Granular fill is dense (1,800 to 2,200 kg/m³). A 20-tonne aggregate delivery vehicle carries approximately 9 to 11 cubic metres of granular fill. Transport cost is proportional to the number of deliveries needed, which is determined by the volume of fill required.
Tyre bale transport. PAS 108 tyre bales are low-density (500 to 700 kg/m³). A flatbed vehicle carrying tyre bales is typically limited by volume rather than payload weight. More volume of material is delivered per vehicle load compared to granular fill, even though the mass per load is lower. For applications where the engineering function requires volume (not mass) of fill, tyre bales provide more volume per delivery than granular fill.
More significantly, in embankment and foundation applications over soft ground, the use of tyre bale fill reduces the total volume of fill required compared to granular fill to achieve the same design function. A granular fill embankment over very soft ground may require significant ground improvement works, additional material to compensate for settlement, and maintenance of the pavement above as differential settlement occurs. A tyre bale fill embankment over the same ground requires none of these additional measures. The total quantity of material moved is lower, which reduces transport costs proportionally.
EPS transport. EPS is extremely light and bulky, and the volume-limited delivery vehicle typically carries far less mass per load than either granular fill or tyre bales. The high cost per m³ of EPS is compounded by transport inefficiency for large volume applications.
Installation costs for fill materials depend on the plant required, the rate of placement, and any special handling or compaction requirements.
Granular fill installation. Requires compaction in layers to achieve the specified density. A compaction plant (vibrating roller, plate compactor) is needed alongside the excavator or wheel loader placing the fill. Compaction in layers requires the fill to be placed and processed multiple times to achieve the full depth. Labour and plant costs for compaction are a significant addition to material supply and transport costs.
Tyre bale installation. Bales are placed by an excavator directly from the delivery vehicle, one at a time, in the designed stacking arrangement. No compaction is required. Once placed, each bale stays where it is. Installation rate for a single excavator is typically 40 to 80 bales per day, depending on site conditions, access, and stacking complexity. For a standard single-layer road foundation, an experienced operator can install a substantial area in a single shift. The installation cost per cubic metre of fill placed is lower for tyre bales than for compacted granular fill.
EPS installation. EPS blocks are placed by hand or with light mechanical handling, without compaction. Installation is straightforward,d but the high material cost dominates. Damage to EPS during installation (cracking, crushing) is a risk that requires care; tyre bales are essentially indestructible by normal plant operation.
In applications over soft or poor ground, conventional granular fill construction typically requires extensive preliminary works. Poor subgrade may need to be excavated and replaced, or the ground may need to be improved before the fill can be placed. In either case, there are costs: the cost of excavating and disposing of the poor material (which, as contaminated or waterlogged soil, may be expensive to dispose of) and the cost of ground improvement works.
Tyre bale fill, by reducing the load applied to the soft subgrade, eliminates the need for ground improvement in many applications where it would otherwise be required for granular fill. This avoidance of ground improvement cost is frequently the single largest cost saving in tyre bale versus conventional fill comparisons, and it does not appear in a simple material-cost-per-tonne comparison.
A road construction project over soft ground that would require £80,000 of ground improvement works with conventional granular fill may require none with a tyre bale foundation. The tyre bale material cost is then compared against the combined cost of granular fill plus ground improvement, not just the granular fill cost. In this comparison, tyre bales typically win clearly.
Fill material selection has long-term implications beyond the construction phase, particularly for roads and embankments over poor ground.
Settlement and maintenance. Conventional granular fill embankments over soft ground settle over time as the soft subgrade consolidates under the fill load. This settlement causes road surface defects (roughness, cracking, and ponding) that require ongoing maintenance. Tyre bale fill, by reducing the load on the soft subgrade, reduces long-term settlement and the associated maintenance costs. For road authorities and asset managers, the whole-life cost of a tyre bale road foundation may be significantly lower than a granular fill equivalent, even if the initial construction cost is similar.
Durability. Tyre rubber does not biodegrade, does not corrode, and resists the chemical conditions typical of civil engineering environments. PAS 108 tyre bales in a road foundation or embankment maintain their material properties over decades. Granular fill in similar conditions may be subject to softening if drainage fails, frost damage in exposed locations, or contamination from leachate in landfill-adjacent applications.
End of life. For temporary applications, tyre bales can be excavated and the material managed as waste tyres at the end of use. This end-of-life cost should be factored into the whole-life comparison for temporary applications.
Applications where tyre bales are clearly cost-competitive: Road and access track foundations over soft or waterlogged ground where ground improvement would otherwise be required. Embankment fill over soft ground where conventional fill would cause unacceptable settlement. Retaining wall drainage backfill where the lower density reduces wall loading. Slope stabilisation applications where the material cost competes directly with gabion basket alternatives. Any application where the sustainability credentials of waste-derived material contribute to planning approval or sustainability framework credits.
Applications where conventional materials remain more competitive: High-load structural fill applications where the design requires high-density material for load transfer rather than lightweight characteristics. Applications requiring specific chemical properties not available in tyre rubber. Sites where tyre bale supply logistics are significantly more costly than local granular fill supply, for example, very remote sites close to a quarry but far from any tyre recycling operation.
Contact Gradeall International to discuss tyre bale supply for specific civil engineering applications. The MKII Tyre Baler and the full tyre recycling equipment range support PAS 108 bale production for the civil engineering market.
Tyre bales raise practical questions when they first appear in a civil engineering specification. Here are the ones contractors and engineers ask most often.
Get current supply prices from local tyre bale producers and from local granular fill suppliers. Get transport costs based on actual site access and travel distance. Ask the project engineer to estimate the ground improvement or excavation costs that tyre bale fill would avoid. Add installation cost estimates from a groundworks contractor familiar with both materials. The resulting comparison is project-specific and gives a reliable basis for the decision.
Many civil engineering and infrastructure procurement frameworks use sustainability assessment tools (CEEQUAL, BREEAM Infrastructure) that award credits for the use of waste-derived materials in place of virgin resources. PAS 108 tyre bales, as a material manufactured from waste tyres, typically contribute to recycled content and waste diversion credits. Confirm the applicable framework and scoring with the project sustainability lead.
Yes. For large projects, the volume of tyre bales needed is substantial, and supply logistics become an important cost variable. Large projects also justify closer engagement with bale producers on pricing and delivery scheduling. For small projects (a few hundred bales), the administrative and logistical overhead of tyre bale procurement may reduce the cost advantage compared to simply ordering a few loads of granular fill from a local quarry.
This depends on the production volume, the bale sale price achievable in the local civil engineering market, and the alternative disposal cost for tyre bales sold to energy recovery. For operations producing significant bale volumes and selling into an active civil engineering market, the premium achieved by PAS 108 civil engineering bales over energy recovery bales can accelerate the payback on production equipment investment. Contact Gradeall International for commercial guidance based on your specific volume and market context.
← Back to news
Industry 4.0: Digital Transformation in Tyre Recycling Operations
Reciclagem de Pneus no Brasil: Equipment, Regulations, and Market Guide
Recycled Tire Uses: What Can Be Made from Waste Tires?
5 Myths About Tyre Recycling Debunked: Separating Fact from Fiction
This website uses cookies to enhance your experience. Some are essential for site functionality, while others help us analyze and improve your usage experience. Please review your options and make your choice.If you are under 16 years old, please ensure that you have received consent from your parent or guardian for any non-essential cookies.Your privacy is important to us. You can adjust your cookie settings at any time. For more information about how we use data, please read our privacy policy. You may change your preferences at any time by clicking on the settings button below.Note that if you choose to disable some types of cookies, it may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
Some required resources have been blocked, which can affect third-party services and may cause the site to not function properly.
This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and ensure the site functions properly. By continuing to use this site, you acknowledge and accept our use of cookies.