Proctor Compaction Testing

Nebraska Department of Roads

Research Project SG-10

By

Construction Management Program

University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588-0050

Joshua Connelly
Wayne Jensen, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Harmon, P.E.
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Proctor Compaction Testing May 2008
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author/s 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Joshua Connelly, Wayne Jensen, and Paul Harmon
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
University of Nebraska- Lincoln
W-145 Nebraska Hall 11. Contract or Grant No.

Lincoln, NE 68588-0500 SG-10

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
The Nebraska Department of Roads
1500 Highway 2
Lincoln, NE 68509-4659 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The Nebraska Department of Roads specifies the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698/AASHTO T
99) as the method of estimating maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for subgrades
and compacted fill sections. The standard Proctor test approximates maximum soil density capable
of being produced by early generations of construction equipment.

Laboratory procedures known as the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557/AASHTO T 180) have
been developed that accurately estimate the greater densities available from the compaction efforts of
modern construction equipment. For the same soil, the optimum moisture content (OMC) for a
modified Proctor test is usually less than OMC for a standard Proctor test while maximum dry
density is higher.

This research consisted of performing both standard and modified Proctors tests on representative
groups of Nebraska soils and then evaluating and comparing the test results. A table with formula to
convert standard Proctor dry densities and moisture contents to modified Proctor specifications and
vice versa was produced. Sample calculations estimating the cost savings from compacting to
modified versus standard Proctor specifications were included as was a chart showing the compaction
standards currently used by state transportation agencies.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Proctor, Modified, Standard,
Compaction

19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. Of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized

i
 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 Introduction.......1

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review & Procedures...2

CHAPTER 3 Procedures & Methods...5

3.1 Nebraska Group Index....5

3.2 Preparation...5

3.3.1 Standard Proctor...7

3.3.2 Modified Proctor....8

3.3.3 Specific Gravity.....8

CHAPTER 4 Results........9

4.1 Shale......9

4.2 Till.....10

4.3 Loess-Till.....10

4.4 Loess...11

4.5 Sandy Silt....11

4.6 Fine Sand....12

4.7 Gravel......12

CHAPTER 5 Summary & Conclusions.....13

5.1 Conversion Formulas..13

5.2 Compaction Specifications Used by State Departments of

Transportation.14

5.3 Cost Analysis15

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........17

REFERENCES.....18

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Differences Between AASHTO T99 and T180...2

Table 2. Soil Types and Correlating Nebraska Group Indices....5

Table 3. Sieve Analysis Of Soils..6

Table 4. Limits of Nebraska Group Indexes...7

Table 5. Conversion Formulas...13

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Nebraska Group Index Chart...3

Figure 2. Particle Size Distribution for NGI Soil Types.....6

Figure 3. Shale Compaction Curves.......9

Figure 4. Till Compaction Curves......10

Figure 5. Loess-Till Compaction Curves......10

Figure 6. Loess Compaction Curves.....11

Figure 7. Sandy Silt Compaction Curves..11

Figure 8. Fine Sand Compaction Curves.....12

Figure 9. Gravel Compaction Curves....12

Figure 10. Map of Compaction Specifications by State.15

v
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

The Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) specifies use of standard

Proctor (AASHTO T99/ASTM D 698) testing procedures to determine the moisture-

density relationship of soil for highway construction projects. The standard Proctor

approximates the compaction effort achieved by earlier generations of compaction

equipment. Newer compaction equipment is heavier and capable of achieving

100+% of standard Proctor compaction specifications after a minimal number of

passes. Modified Proctor (AASHTO T180/ASTM D1557) testing procedures more

closely approximate the compaction effort of modern equipment. For the same type

of soil, the modified Proctor yields a higher maximum dry density and lower optimum

moisture content. This research investigated the use of the modified Proctor as an

alternative to the standard Proctor within the NDOR compaction specifications. A

secondary objective was to develop formulas to convert soil densities and moisture

contents from standard to modified Proctor specifications and vice versa.

Seven specific native Nebraskan soils distributed across the range of

Nebraska Group Index values were tested, each using both the standard and the

modified Proctor testing procedures. Two compaction curves were developed for

each soil type as the standard and modified Proctor test results were plotted.

Algorithms were subsequently developed to compare the difference between

standard and modified Proctors, as well as to create conversion formulas between

the two Proctors for each soil type.

1
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW & PROCEDURES

Testing procedures for the standard and modified Proctor test procedures are

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

T99 and T180 respectively. The corresponding American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) testing procedures are D 698 and D 1557 respectively. The

differences between AASHTO T99 and T180 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Differences Between AASHTO T99 and T180

AASHTO T99 AASHTO T180

(Standard Proctor) (Modified Proctor)
Hammer Weight 5.5 lbf 10 lbf
Drop Distance 12 inches 18 inches
Energy 12,400 ft-lbf/ft 56,000 ft-lbf/ft
Number of Layers 3 5

Dry preparation of soil samples was completed using AASHTO T87 (ASTM D

421). The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils were determined using

AASHTO T89 (ASTM D 4318) procedures. Particle size of the solids was

determined using AASHTO T88 (ASTM D 422) procedures. Soils were classified

using the Nebraska Group Index (NGI) based upon the results of sieve analysis and

Atterberg Limit testing using the Nebraska Group Index Chart shown in Figure 1.

The specific gravity was determined using AASHTO T84 (ASTM C128). Specific

gravity measurements were subsequently used to plot a zero air void curve on the

moisture density diagrams for each soil type.

2
 Figure 1. Nebraska Group Index Chart

A soil with 23% retained on the #10 sieve, 34% retained on the #40 sieve, and 46%

retained on the #200 sieve, a liquid limit of 50 and a plastic limit of 22 would be

classified using the Nebraska Group Index Chart (Figure 1) according to the

following procedures. First using Chart 1, the 46% retained on the #200 sieve would

3
be aligned with a Liquid Limit (LL) of 50, producing a reference number of about 4.9.

Then using Chart 2, the 46% retained for the number 200 sieve is aligned with the

Plastic Index (PI) of 28, producing a reference number of about 7.1. The Nebraska

Group Index is the sum of the reference values from Chart 1 and Chart 2. The sum

of 4.9 and 7.1 is 12, which can be used for soil classification using Table 2. A NGI of

12 falls within the range of a loess soil type.

4
 CHAPTER THREE
PROCEDURES & METHODS

3.1 Nebraska Group Index

Seven native Nebraskan Soils were initially collected for testing. Each soil

was analyzed to determine particle size and Atterberg limits and subsequently

classified into a specific Nebraska Group Index. Additional samples were collected

until one sample was available for each of the soil types shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Soil Types and Correlating Nebraska Group Indices

Soil Type NGI

Gravel -4 to -2

Fine Sand -1 to 1

Sandy Silt 2 to 7

Loess 8 to 12

Loess/ Till 13 to 14

Till 15 to 21

Shale 22 to 24

3.2 Preparation

Soil samples were collected from various parts of Nebraska. After each soil

was transported to the laboratory, a sieve analysis was performed in accordance to

AASHTO T87 (ASTM D 421). The results of the sieve analysis are shown in Table 3

and the particle size distributions for the soils are plotted in Figure 2.

5
 Table 3. Sieve Analysis Of Soils

% Passing
Part
Sieve Diam Fine Sandy Loess/
Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Loess Till Till Shale

4 4.76 79.5 100 100 100 100 100 100

10 2.00 56.8 98 99.8 100 100 100 100

16 0.84 34.4 91.4 97.5 98.9 98.2 98.6 100

40 0.42 17.5 66.4 76.7 93.3 88.2 84.4 96.6

100 0.149 2.3 25.1 50.3 82.6 70.9 61.4 87.9

200 0.074 0.3 16.3 44.4 78.2 61.4 52.8 82.5

Pan

Particle Size Distribution For Soil Types

100
90
80 Gravel
Percent Passing

70 Fine Sand
60 Sandy Silt
50 Loess
40 Loess/Till
30 Till
20
Shale
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size (mm)

Figure 2. Particle Size Distribution for NGI Soil Types

6
 The Atterberg Limits were then measured for each soil in accordance with

AASHTO T89 (ASTM D 4318), which yielded the Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL),

and the Plasticity Index (PI). The results of Atterberg Limits testing are shown in

Table 4. Additional samples were collected until a soil was available that fell within

each range of the Nebraska Group Indices shown in Table 2.

Table 4. Limits of Nebraska Group Indexes

NDOR NGI
-4 to -2 -1 to 1 2 to 7 8 to 12 13 to 14 15 to 21 22 to 24
Limits

Soil Type Fine Sandy Loess/

Gravel Loess Till Shale
Calculated Sand Silt Till

Actual NGI -4 -1 2 8 13 16.5 25

LL NP NP NP 33.5 49.4 68.2 67

PI NP NP NP 9.8 27 42.6 41.4

% Pass
0.3 16.3 44.4 78.2 61.4 52.8 82.5
#200

3.3.1 Standard Proctor Testing

For each soil type, water was added to the soil to bring it to a predetermined

moisture content percentage. Three layers of the soils then were compacted in a

standard four-inch mold using an automatic standard Proctor hammer in accordance

with AASHTO T99 (ASHTO D 698). The T99 procedure specifies a hammer

weighing 5.5 pounds and a drop distance of 12 inches, which creates 12,400 ft-lbf/ft

of force.

7
3.3.2 Modified Proctor

The modified proctor is similar to the standard proctor; water was added to

each soil sample to bring it to the desired moisture content. Five layers of the soil

then were compacted in a standard four-inch mold using an automatic modified

Proctor hammer in accordance to AASHTO T180 (ASTM D 1557). The T180

procedure specifies a hammer weighing 10 pounds and a drop distance of 18

inches, which creates 56,000 ft-lbf/ft of force. The heavier hammer and lengthened

drop distance significantly increase the compactive effort.

3.3.3 Specific Gravity

A small sample for each of the soils was taken to perform AASHTO T84

(ASTM C 128) procedures. Once the specific gravity was determined, it was used to

plot a zero air voids (ZAV) curve as a reference for each soils two compaction

curves.

8
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

The actual results were similar to expectations. Higher maximum dry density

resulted when more compaction effort was applied. Optimum moisture content was

lower when more compaction effort was applied, reflecting the reduced volume of

void space between soil particles. Actual test results for each NGI soil type are

shown in Figures 3 though 9 below.

4.1 Shale

Shale: Standard and Modified Proctors

125

120
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft)

115

110 Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor
105 Zero Air Void Curve

100

95

90
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 3. Shale Compaction Curves

9
4.2 Till

Till: Standard and Modified Proctors

130

125
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft)

120

115 Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor
110 Zero Air Void Curve

105

100

95
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 4. Till Compaction Curves

4.3 Loess-Till

Loess-Till: Standard and Modified Proctors

130

125
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft)

120

115 Standard Proctor

Modified Proctor
110 Zero Air Void Curve

105

100

95
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 5. Loess-Till Compaction Curves

10
4.4 Loess

Loess: Standard and Modified Proctors

130

125
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft)

120

Standard Proctor
115 Modified Proctor
Zero Air Void Curve

110

105

100
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 6. Loess Compaction Curves

4.5 Sandy Silt

Sandy Silt: Standard and Modified Proctors

130

125
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft)

120
Standard Proctor
Modified Proctor
Zero Air Void Curve
115

110

105
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 7. Sandy Silt Compaction Curves

11
4.6 Fine Sand

Fine Sand: Standard and Modified Proctors

135

130
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft

125

Standard Proctor
120 Modified Proctor
Zero Air Void Curve

115

110

105
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 8. Fine Sand Compaction Curves

4.7 Gravel

Gravel: Standard and Modified Proctors

150

145
Max Dry Unit Weight (lb/ft)

140

135
Standard Proctor
130 Modified Proctor
Zero Air Void Curve
125

120

115

110
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 9. Gravel Compaction Curves

12
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION & SUMMARY

5.1 Conversion Formulas

Procedures for converting from specifications expressed in the standard

Proctor system to equivalents in the modified Proctor system for various NGIs was

one of the objectives of this research. Based upon the data points shown in Figures

3 9, the formulas shown in Table 5 were developed to convert one type of

compaction specifications to the other.

Table 5. Conversion Formulas

Soil NGI Range Standard To Modified To

Type Modified Standard
-4 to -2 d + 0 d - 0
Gravel OMC -2 OMC +2
Fine -1 to 1 d +1 d -1
Sand OMC -1 OMC +1
Sandy 2 to 7 d +10 d -10
Silt OMC -3 OMC +3
8 to 12 d +10 d -10
Loess OMC -4 OMC +4
Loess- 13 to 14 d +12 d -12
Till OMC -6.5 OMC +6.5
15 to 21 d +15 d -15
Till OMC -6.5 OMC +6.5
22 to 24 d +13 d -13
Shale OMC -7 OMC +7

where d is the Dry Unit Weight and OMC is the Optimum Moisture Content

The formulas allow easy and quick conversion of specifications based upon

standard Proctor testing to modified Proctor and vice versa. Use of modified versus

standard Proctor specifications has the potential to result in cost savings on projects

13
where water must be transported to the site to increase the moisture content of the

soil to near optimum for standard Proctor specifications.

5.2 Compaction Specifications Used by State Departments of Transportation

The Department of Transportation (DOT) within each state defines

specifications for compaction of soil on highway projects within that state. Figure 10

illustrates current practice with regard to compaction specifications employed by

Legend

Standard

Modified

Combination

Neither

Figure 10. Map of Compaction Specifications by State

each state agency. Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and Vermont use localized procedures

which do not correspond directly with either standard or modified Proctor. The

14
twenty-seven states shown in red currently base subgrade compaction effort on

standard Proctor specifications, while the fourteen states in orange specify either

standard or modified Proctor for different situations. The five states in yellow use

strictly modified Proctor specifications.

5.3 Cost Analysis

A soils optimum moisture content is usually lower when compacted to

modified Proctor versus standard Proctor specifications. The heavier hammer

weight and longer drop distance involved in modified Proctor procedures result in

more compaction energy, creating higher unit weight. Higher unit weight

corresponds to less void space, so maximum unit weight can be achieved using less

water. The difference in quantity of water needed for compaction to OMC when

comparing standard to modified procedures depends primarily on the soil type and

the percent void space remaining after each compaction procedure.

For loess, research indicated about four percent difference in OMC between

modified and standard Proctor tests, with the standard Proctor having an OMC of

18.75% and the modified Proctor having an OMC of 14.75%. The wet unit weight, w,

of this soil was approximately 120 lbs/ft at 14.75% moisture content. The dry unit

weight, d, can be calculated by dividing the wet unit weight by one plus the water

content.

w 120 lbs/ft 3
d = = = 104.6 lbs/ft 3
1 + 1 + 0.1475

The difference in quantity of water needed for compaction of one cubic yard

of loess can then be calculated by multiplying the dry unit weight by the difference in

moisture content at OMC (4%).

15
 106.4 lbs/ft 3 x 0.04 = 4.18 lbs/ft 3
4.18 lbs/ft 3 x 27 ft 3 /cy = 112.9 lbs/cy

The amount of water saved is 112.9 lbs/cy. Since water weighs 8.34 pounds

per gallon, 13.5 gallons less water are needed at OMC when loess is compacted

using modified versus standard specifications.

112.9 lbs/cy
= 13.5 gal/cy
8.34 lbs/gal

If the subgrade for a paving project is 30 feet wide, 8 inches thick, and 5 miles

long, slightly more than 19,565 cubic yards of material will be compacted.

30 ft x 8" /12" /ft x 5 miles x 5,280 ft/mile = 528,264 ft 3

528,264 ft 3
= 19,565.33 cy
27 ft 3 /cy

The total amount of water saved on a five miles of subgrade would be 13.5

gal/cy multiplied by 19,565.33 cy or 264,132 gallons. As of April 2008, the NDORs

average unit cost for water was about $11 per 1,000 gallons. Multiplying 264,132

gallons by $11/1,000 gallons results in saving $2,905.45.

13.5 gal/cy x 19,565.33 cy = 264,132 gal

264,132 gal x $11/1,000 gal = $2,905.45

Note that the savings shown result from the cost of water only and do not

include the cost of transporting water to the site. Soils such as loess-till, till, and

shale, with greater differences in optimum moisture content between standard to

modified optimum moisture contents will produce additional savings. Soils such as

gravel, fine sand, and sandy silt, with lower differences in optimum moisture content

will produce less savings.

16
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by the Nebraska Department of Roads as a research

project under the title SG-10 Proctor Compaction Testing. The project was

completed under the direction of Dr. Wayne Jensen, P.E. and Paul Harmon, P.E. at

the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Joshua Connelly, a Construction Management

major at UNL, completed most of the research for this project.

The authors would like Rich Gloe from NDOR Materials and Testing Division

for his guidance, collaboration and sharing his lab to complete the testing. John

Miller with NDOR Estimating Unit of Contracting Division cheerfully provided

information concerning the cost of materials. Many other individuals from the

NDORs Materials and Research Division also made significant contributions to this

study.

17
 REFERENCES

AASHTO T84, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate.

AASHTO T87, Dry Preparation of Disturbed Soil & Soil Aggregate Samples for Test.

AASHTO T88, Particle Size Analysis of Soils.

AASHTO T89, Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils.

AASHTO T99, Standard Method of Test for the Moisture-Density Relations of Soils.

AASHTO T180, Modified Method of Test for the Moisture-Density Relations of Soils.

The above standards were published by:

American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials
444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001

ASTM C 128, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity),
and Absorption of Fine Aggregate.

ASTM D 421, Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-
Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants.

ASTM D 422, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D 698, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of

Soil.

ASTM D 1557, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of

Soil Using Modified Effort.

ASTM D 4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils.

The above standards were published by:

ASTM International
100 Barr Harbor Drive
PO Box C700
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959

Nebraska Department of Roads. (1990) Earthwork Engineering Guide, p. 1.48.

1500 Highway 2, Lincoln, NE 68509-4759.

18