Soil-Aware Deep Learning for Robust Interpretation of Low-Strain Pile Integrity Tests
Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol.16, no.9, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Publication Type: Article / Article
- Volume: 16 Issue: 9
- Publication Date: 2026
- Doi Number: 10.3390/app16094189
- Journal Name: Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
- Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Compendex, INSPEC, Directory of Open Access Journals
- Keywords: ConvNeXt, deep learning, low-strain pile integrity testing (LSPIT), multimodal fusion, reflectogram interpretation, site-context embedding, soil-aware modeling, transfer learning
- Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: Yes
Abstract
The Low-Strain Pile Integrity Test (LSPIT), standardized in ASTM D5882, is widely used as a rapid and economical non-destructive technique for assessing pile continuity in deep foundation systems. However, interpretation of LSPIT reflectograms remains strongly dependent on expert judgment and is influenced by soil–pile interaction effects such as damping and radiation losses, which can alter waveform morphology and confound automated defect screening. This study proposes a soil-aware deep learning framework that combines image-based reflectogram features with categorical geotechnical context describing the dominant soil regime at the measurement site. Reflectogram images are processed with a pretrained ConvNeXt-Large backbone, while soil information derived from Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) logs is represented as a categorical auxiliary input and mapped to a learnable embedding. The resulting multimodal design conditions waveform interpretation based on site context rather than relying on signal morphology alone. The framework is examined on an assembled benchmark of 510 expert-labeled reflectograms (404 intact and 106 defective), including a nine-site subset of 182 field records with explicit soil annotations. On the assembled benchmark, the model yields 99.41% accuracy and a weighted F1-score of 0.9941; on the nine-site subset, the observed accuracy is 99.45% with zero missed defective cases. Balanced accuracy, specificity, missed-detection rate, false-alarm rate, and confidence intervals are additionally reported to better align the evaluation with engineering screening practice. The study also states the current limits of the evidence base, including partial soil annotation, dominant-soil simplification, restricted soil coverage, and the absence of leave-site-out and interpretability-focused validation. Overall, the results support soil-aware multimodal learning as a promising proof-of-concept direction for more context-aware automated LSPIT interpretation, while also identifying the validation steps still required for broad field deployment.