Mathematics, Vol. 13, Pages 3359: Artificial Intelligence Applied to Soil Compaction Control for the Light Dynamic Penetrometer Method

Mathematics doi: 10.3390/math13213359

Authors:
Jorge Rojas-Vivanco
José García
Gabriel Villavicencio
Miguel Benz
Antonio Herrera
Pierre Breul
German Varas
Paola Moraga
Jose Gornall
Hernan Pinto

Compaction quality control in earthworks and pavements still relies mainly on density-based acceptance referenced to laboratory Proctor tests, which are costly, time-consuming, and spatially sparse. Lightweight dynamic cone penetrometer (LDCP) provides rapid indices, such as qd0 and qd1, yet acceptance thresholds commonly depend on ad hoc, site-specific calibrations. This study develops and validates a supervised machine learning framework that estimates qd0, qd1, and Zc directly from readily available soil descriptors (gradation, plasticity/activity, moisture/state variables, and GTR class) using a multi-campaign dataset of n=360 observations. While the framework does not remove the need for the standard soil characterization performed during design (e.g., W, γd,field, and RCSPC), it reduces reliance on additional LDCP calibration campaigns to obtain device-specific reference curves. Models compared under a unified pipeline include regularized linear baselines, support vector regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, and a compact multilayer perceptron (MLP). The evaluation used a fixed 80/20 train–test split with 5-fold cross-validation on the training set and multiple error metrics (R2, RMSE, MAE, and MAPE). Interpretability combined SHAP with permutation importance, 1D partial dependence (PDP), and accumulated local effects (ALE); calibration diagnostics and split-conformal prediction intervals connected the predictions to QA/QC decisions. A naïve GTR-average baseline was added for reference. Computation was lightweight. On the test set, the MLP attained the best accuracy for qd1 (R2=0.794, RMSE =5.866), with XGBoost close behind (R2=0.773, RMSE =6.155). Paired bootstrap contrasts with Holm correction indicated that the MLP–XGBoost difference was not statistically significant. Explanations consistently highlighted density- and moisture-related variables (γd,field, RCSPC, and W) as dominant, with gradation/plasticity contributing second-order adjustments; these attributions are model-based and associational rather than causal. The results support interpretable, computationally efficient surrogates of LDCP indices that can complement density-based acceptance and enable risk-aware QA/QC via conformal prediction intervals.

Source link

Jorge Rojas-Vivanco www.mdpi.com