Contact US

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!

*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

ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

Does Proctor ASTM D-698 soil compaction call for 95% dry density or is that Proctor ASTM D-1156?

Thank you.

RE: ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

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.

RE: ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method


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,

RE: ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

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.

RE: ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

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).

RE: ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

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.

RE: ASTM D-698 or D-1556 Proctor Method

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.

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! Already a Member? Login


Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

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