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


Standard proctor and modified proctor

Standard proctor and modified proctor

Standard proctor and modified proctor

So I understand they represent different compaction energy. However, how do I know which one to use? Do types of projects matter?

RE: Standard proctor and modified proctor

It's not the type of project, but the type of soil and the application.

The standard Proctor was developed in the 1920's by R.R. Proctor. At that time, the compaction energy of the test was comparable to the capabilities of the compaction equipment that was available....mostly lighter static compaction. The test was used for most soil types from clayey sands to silty sands to clean sands. It was also used for graded aggregate base materials as long as the larger particle sizes were no more than about 3/4".

As equipment became better and compaction techniques became better, the compaction equipment was imparting more energy to the soil and getting higher compaction than the lab produced. Thus came the "modified" Proctor with higher input compaction energy to more closely match the better equipment.

The moisture density relationship (Proctor) can be used on a variety of soils and has applicability to most soils that would be acceptable for use under buildings or roadways. There are some exceptions where the Proctor does not give adequate information to use as a comparison test. This usually occurs in some clean, fine sands where the Proctor curve is too flat to have much relevance.

Unless you have clayey sands, clay or very silty sands, the modified Proctor is usually appropriate. It is appropriate for those soils as well; however, they are much more difficult to achieve proper compaction with the modified Proctor than the standard Proctor.

RE: Standard proctor and modified proctor

Thanks for such detailed explanation!

RE: Standard proctor and modified proctor

For what to use . . . . I typically (not always) use them as follows:

Standard Proctor:
Core and cohesive shells of dams
Subgrade and select subgrade of soils for roadways
engineered backfill not being used to support structures
engineered upfill (raising grade)not being used to support structures

Modified Proctor (also called the "hernia" test)
Engineeerd fill that will be used to support structures (under mat or spread foundations)
Roadway subbase and base course

I've had arguments before with junior engineers writing reports that I reviewed who used standard proctor and I, due to reasons, above insisted that modified be used. They wanted 100% standard proctor maximum dry density and I was willing to go 97% modified Proctor dry density. In our region they were about the equivalent with the fills we were using (not always the case though) - why did I want modified? I figured that when contractors saw the requirement "modified" they took it more seriously than they would if they saw "standard" - "heck you can do standard without any effort".

The big question though is what level of compaction you would use . . . For foundation support I would not use less than 98% modified and if footing 100%. For roads, you can look up your state's or province's road design manual. For earth core dams it is typically 95% standard. Landscaping areas I wouldn't go anything over 90 to 93% standard.

RE: Standard proctor and modified proctor

Also note that the Standard optimum moisture content will be higher than the Modified optimum moisture content. Higher moisture is desirable in some situations since it tends to decrease permeability and produce a more ductile fill. This is why it is often used for dams as BigH points out.

RE: Standard proctor and modified proctor

I consider them both equally approximate. I think it's misguided to think optimum moisture content is marked by a vertical line. For dams, hydraulic barriers and the like, I specify percent saturation, which is directly obtaied from the moisture-density relations.

I agree that airstrips and prominent structures are typically related to modifled proctor. That's because folks don't like specifying 100 percent of anything, so they go with 95 percent modified, which is (really) the same thing as 100 percent standard, notwithstanding the optimum moisture content matter. . .

You'll find that in the United States, the conventions are often regional.


ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!

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!


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