Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Reduced Modified Proctor vs Modified Proctor

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The compaction characteristics between reduced modified Proctor and modified Proctor tests have been compared. The results show that maximum dry unit weight values are comparable for both the tests but optimum moisture content values differ slightly more. For both the tests: optimum moisture content was found to correlate best with liquid limit, and the relationship for maximum dry unit weight with optimum moisture content was found to be almost the same. Since reduced modified Proctor requires less time and 40% less compaction energy as compared to modified Proctor test, it can be considered as a suitable alternative to the modified Proctor test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MDDRMP :

Maximum dry unit weight from reduced modified Proctor test

MDDMP :

Maximum dry unit weight from modified Proctor test

OMCRMP :

Optimum moisture content from reduced modified Proctor test

OMCMP :

Optimum moisture content from modified Proctor test

wL :

Liquid limit of soil

wP :

Plastic limit of soil

IP :

Plasticity index of soil

References

  • ASTM (2012a) D698–12: Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2012b) D1557–12: standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurtug Y, Sridharan A (2004) Compaction behaviour and prediction of its characteristics of fine grained soils with particular reference to compaction energy. Soils Found 44(5):27–36. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.44.5_27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma B, Gogoi B, Sridharan A (2019) Static Compaction Characteristics of Coarse and Fine Grained Soils. In: Hossain Z, Zhang J, Chen C (ed) Solving Pavement and Construction Materials Problems with Innovative and Cutting-edge Technologies, GeoChina 2018, Sustainable Civil Infrastructures, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95792-0_4.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

    H. S. Shaivan

  2. Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, India

    A. Sridharan

Authors
  1. H. S. Shaivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Sridharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. S. Shaivan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shaivan, H.S., Sridharan, A. Comparison of Reduced Modified Proctor vs Modified Proctor. Geotech Geol Eng 38, 6891–6897 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01405-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01405-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation