Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

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

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

TBell47 (Structural) (OP)
8 Jun 04 12:49
Does Proctor ASTM D-698 soil compaction call for 95% dry density or is that Proctor ASTM D-1156?

Thank you.
Helpful Member!  BigH (Geotechnical)
5 Aug 04 15:57
TBell47 - both D698 (Standard Proctor) and D1556 (Modified Proctor) are tests to determine a maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents.  Each test, though, uses a differnt energy in compacting the specimens in the mould.  Neither specifies 95%, or 98% or . . .  That is the specification to choose.  For instance, in road constrution, you might compact the embankment to 93% maximum dry density D-1556, the subgrade to 95% maximum dry density D-1556, the subbase and base courses to 98% maximum dry density.  For clayey fills consisting of expansive soils, you might actually specify 85% maximum dry density (MDD).  So the end result in specifying the desired relative compaction (the % of MDD)depends on your use, etc.  As for the selection of D698 or D1556 - this many times is a matter of choice.  Typically for granular fills I would use, 97% MDD D1556 = 100% MDD D698.  I will typically specify D698 for areal fills but D1556 for structural fills (say to support a footing).  Others, such as Focht3 might say differently due to norms in his area of work.  Please check out the many many many threads in the geotechnical or civil areas for, at times, heated discussions on this topic.  Do a keyword search.
TBell47 (Structural) (OP)
7 Aug 04 10:24
BigH,

Thank you. Much clearer now.
I see I typo'd D-1556 in the body of the question.
Sorry for the delay in retrieving your response.
My computer at the office is being changed out for a newer model.

Many Thanks,
Thomas
TBell47
mjamgb (Civil/Environmental)
7 Jan 05 12:47
For anyone viewing this thread, remember that the difference between the testing methods is energy dependent. Very often it will be necessary to specify a standard proctor energy level reference wihin a large structural fill due to clearance issues (such as backfill around pipes or under haunches) and the use of smaller equipment.
Helpful Member!  Ron (Structural)
7 Jan 05 20:36
TBell47...one quick clarification....it is ASTM D1557 on the modified proctor.

BigH has given a good practical approach to deciding applicability that is consistent with many Departments of Transportation requirements...embankment at 95% of standard proctor (ASTM D698, AASHTO T99), subgrade at 95% modified proctor (ASTM D1557, AASHTO T180) and stabilization/base materials at 98% modified.

The relationship between the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor or the modified Proctor varies with material.  The selection of the method to use depends on the materials (generally, granular materials use the Modified Proctor), as well as the expected capability of the compaction equipment (based on the location, application, and accessibility of equipment).
BigH (Geotechnical)
12 Jan 05 20:59
Monahan (from NJIT) wrote a nice book on compaction - he explained, if I remember right, the modified proctor as the hernia test.  To add to Ron's comments, I would always specify modified under a foundation or when I wanted to ensure that the contractor took the compaction requirements seriously.  Standard is "too easy" to achieve that it may sometimes be taken as trivial.
riccochet (Civil/Environmental)
28 Aug 05 16:34
Just 1 more thing to remember BigH. One difference that is often overlooked is the amount of moisture each method allows. That is a Modified Proctor will not allow as much moisture as using a Standard Proctor on the same material. Also a 95% Modified is close to being the same as 98% Standard.

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!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close