1.2.1 Method A—This procedure uses a test specimen prepared in a mold complying with Test Methods D698 (4.0 in. (101.6 mm) in diameter and 4.6 in. (116.8 mm) in height), sometimes referred to as a proctor mold, resulting in a height over diameter ratio of 1.15. This test method may be used only on materials with 30 % or less retained on the 19.0-mm (³/₄-in.) sieve. See Note 2.

1.2.2 Method B—This procedure uses a test specimen with a height over diameter ratio of 2.0 prepared in a cylindrical mold in accordance with Practice D1632 (2.8 in. (71.1 mm) in diameter and 9.0 in. (229 mm) in height). This test method is applicable to those materials that pass the 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve.

1.3.1 The gravitational system of inch-pound units is used when dealing with inch-pound units. In this system, the pound (lbf) represents a unit of force (weight), while the unit for mass is slugs.

1.3.2 The slug unit of mass is almost never used in commercial practice, that is, density, balances, etc. Therefore, the standard unit for mass in this standard is either kilogram (kg) or gram (g), or both. Also, the equivalent inch-pound unit (slug) is not given/presented in parentheses.

1.3.3 It is common practice in the engineering/construction profession to concurrently use pounds to represent both a unit of mass (lbm) and of force (lbf). This implicitly combines two separate systems of units; that is, the absolute system and the gravitational system. It is scientifically undesirable to combine the use of two separate sets of inch-pound units within a single standard. As stated, this standard includes the gravitational system of inch-pound units and does not use/present the slug unit for mass. However, the use of balances or scales, recording pounds of mass (lbm) or recording density in lbm/ft³ shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.

1.4.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded and calculated in the standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user's objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of these test methods to consider significant digits used in analysis methods for engineering data.