×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Standard proctor test

Standard proctor test

Standard proctor test

(OP)
Is there any significant difference between 90% vs. 95% proctor compaction?

RE: Standard proctor test

YES!  

That's the difference between loose and fairly dense.  I've never seen anything below 95% spec'd.  98% is typical for dam embankments.

RE: Standard proctor test

There is a difference, it's simple math!  Regarding practical application, are you citing Standard or Modified Proctor?

f-d

¡papá gordo ain't no madre flaca!

RE: Standard proctor test

what differences are you looking for and is this project a road, pipeline, dam, levee, parking lot or subgrade for a nuclear reactor? What kind of soil?

cost, strength, permeability, compactive effort, potential for settlement?

RE: Standard proctor test

In addition to CVG's comments add level within the ground/ fill and whether its a swelling soil. There are other considerations depending on what the requirements are etc  

RE: Standard proctor test

Yes, let's just say that there is a difference (and identifying if modified or standard Proctor is another aspect).  Until one knows in what application you are trying to "judge" the difference, it is pretty difficult for anyone to say if the "difference" is critical (maybe crucial is a better term) or not.  dgillette, I have seen less than 95% - use of 93% modified (to be about equivalent to 95% standard).

RE: Standard proctor test

I am sure I have included this before in a reply, however I think it is worth stating again.
The variation in MDD which is achieved using either the 2.5kg (standard) or 4.5kg (modified) will be dependant upon the soil type, however, as a rule of thumb, in the UK cohesive soils generally have a MDD suing the 2.5kg rammer close to 95% of the MDD for the 4.5 kg rammer. With alluvial silts and sands, the numbers can be very similar as there is a paucity of clay fines, and the materials in it self very spherical (like compacting marbles).
As to the difference between 90% and 95%, then the easiest way to get a handle on this is to draw out the graph of the moisture content/dry density relationship, then add the horizontal lines equivalent to 95% and 90% of the MDD. In addition to this, add in the air void lines. The range of materials which can meet the 90% requirement as opposed to the 95% is obviously much larger, has a significantly larger range in moistures and also much higher air void contents. Risk is as follows:
1. the increase in moisture permissible between 95% and 90% will reduce the bearing capacity/shear strength for cohesive soils and will increase the long-term settlement (self-weight, creep and consolidation) of the fill;
2. the increase in air void content permissible by increasing the range of densities from 95% to 90% will make the fill more susceptible to collapse and inundation settlement.
Therefore the difference is a 'potential' reduction in end-performance, reduction in bearing capacity, increase in settlement etc... In addition to this, if the material is cohesive, and is placed wetter than the 95% limit to the 90% limit, the trafficability of the fill will be greatly reduced and you will run the risk of the fill being unsuitable for placement. Again, based on experience with soils in the UK, fill placed above the moisture equivalent to 95% MDD will have a CBR of less than 2.5%, the lower permissible limit for engineered fill (in the UK according to the SHW and IAN 73 [HD 25])
 

RE: Standard proctor test

Where did the OP go?  He or she never answered cvg's question about what this is for.

Good answer iandig.

Note: The OP said "Standard" in the title.

RE: Standard proctor test

Some people just don't understand that this stuff is fun. happy shades

RE: Standard proctor test

This stuff is fun.  We often vary between the std and mod Proctor based on soil and application.  Attempting to alleviate swell potential in fat clays will have us specify the std Proctor to increase moisture application in field with appropriate degree of compaction considered.  I am always amazed at the ignorance by many earthwork contractors as to the difference in std and mod Proctor.  Can and does really make a difference for them.  95% of std is nothing like 95% mod.

RE: Standard proctor test

I sometimes see 90% Standard Proctor compaction for non-structural landscaped areas on the civil engineering drawings.  95% was cited on for all structural areas.  Perhaps, this is what the post was alluding to...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources