{"id":988,"date":"2026-07-25T01:55:29","date_gmt":"2026-07-25T01:55:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8081\/soyleitechnologies\/sip-1111-tanya-nash-ats-recycling-agent-study\/"},"modified":"2026-08-01T13:44:06","modified_gmt":"2026-08-01T13:44:06","slug":"sip-1111-tanya-nash-ats-recycling-agent-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/soylei-dev.ecochran.dyndns.org\/soyleitechnologies\/sip-1111-tanya-nash-ats-recycling-agent-study\/","title":{"rendered":"Two SIP-1111\u2122 Treatments Led Hamburg Rutting Resistance in a 35% RAP Study"},"content":{"rendered":"

Asphalt Testing Solutions & Engineering, LLC (ATS) evaluated recycling agents, softer binders, and warm-mix additives in a blinded 35% reclaimed asphalt pavement mixture. The February 2021 study approached product selection from the asphalt producer and mix designer’s point of view: compare rutting resistance, cracking response, dosage, and production practicality using a common set of mixture tests.<\/p>\n

Two SIP-1111\u2122 treatments appear in the blinded report as Q<\/strong> and R<\/strong>. They produced the two lowest Hamburg deformation values in the study: 1.11 mm for Q<\/strong> and 1.07 mm for R<\/strong>, compared with 1.79 mm for the PG 67-22 control<\/strong>. ATS ranked R first and Q second for Hamburg performance across the blinded treatment set.<\/p>\n

A contractor-centered 35% RAP comparison<\/h2>\n

ATS used locally available Northeast Florida materials in a 12.5 mm Superpave mixture. The design contained 35% RAP and used a PG 67-22 control binder with a continuous grade of 68.5-26.4\u00b0C. The RAP binder had a continuous grade of 91.0-14.0\u00b0C, and the recycled binder ratio was 0.38.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Design property<\/th>\nATS value<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Nominal maximum aggregate size<\/td>\n12.5 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RAP content<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Control binder<\/td>\nPG 67-22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Control binder continuous grade<\/td>\n68.5-26.4\u00b0C<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
RAP binder continuous grade<\/td>\n91.0-14.0\u00b0C<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Recycled binder ratio<\/td>\n0.38<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Design asphalt content<\/td>\n5.1%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n

The laboratory-fabricated, laboratory-compacted mixtures were tested with Hamburg Wheel Tracking under AASHTO T 324, I-FIT under AASHTO TP 124, and IDEAL-CT under ASTM D8225. Supplier dosage recommendations were converted to a common percent-by-weight-of-virgin-binder basis for comparison.<\/p>\n

Q and R set the Hamburg pace<\/h2>\n

Relative to the control, Hamburg deformation was approximately 38% lower for Q<\/strong> and 40% lower for R<\/strong>. The next-lowest blinded treatment measured 1.12 mm, followed by 1.17 mm. Both SIP-1111\u2122 treatments therefore remained at the front of a tightly grouped rutting-resistance tier.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Blinded treatment<\/th>\nNormalized dosage<\/th>\nHamburg deformation<\/th>\nI-FIT<\/th>\nCT Index<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
PG 67-22 control<\/td>\nNot applicable<\/td>\n1.79 mm<\/td>\n0.38<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SIP-1111\u2122 (Q)<\/td>\n2.8%<\/td>\n1.11 mm<\/td>\n0.31<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SIP-1111\u2122 (R)<\/td>\n4.5%<\/td>\n1.07 mm<\/td>\nNot reported<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
G, leading combined rank<\/td>\n3.4%<\/td>\n1.57 mm<\/td>\n0.79<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n

The cracking results separated the two SIP-1111\u2122 treatments. Q raised CT Index from 11 to 13, while R measured 10. Product G led the report’s combined Hamburg and CT Index ranking with a CT Index of 33 and Hamburg deformation of 1.57 mm. ATS excluded I-FIT from its combined ranking because the report identified inconsistency in those results; R also had no reported I-FIT value.<\/p>\n

Performance per unit of dosage<\/h2>\n

ATS went beyond raw test rank by calculating cracking improvement per millimeter of Hamburg deformation and then dividing that result by normalized dosage. Q recorded a cracking-improvement-to-Hamburg value of 2 and a rounded dosage-efficiency value of 1. R recorded -1 and -0.2, respectively. Products G and L formed the report’s leading dosage-efficiency tier.<\/p>\n

These results show why recycling-agent selection belongs inside a balanced mixture-design process. The two SIP-1111\u2122 treatments led Hamburg resistance in this mixture, while their cracking and dosage-efficiency results responded differently. Dosage, binder content, aggregate structure, recycled-binder condition, and the contractor’s performance targets all shape the final design.<\/p>\n

What asphalt producers can carry forward<\/h2>\n