StructDamage:A Large Scale Unified Crack and Surface Defect Dataset for Robust Structural Damage Detection
Authors: Misbah Ijaz, Saif Ur Rehman Khan, Abd Ur Rehman, Sebastian Vollmer, Andreas Dengel, Muhammad Nabeel Asim
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, 51700, Pakistan. · Department of Computer Science, Rhineland-Palatinate Technical University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, orgaddressKaiserslautern, 67663, Germany. · BiogentX (biogentx.com, Renala Khurd, District Okara, Punjab, Pakistan. · German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Kaiserslautern, 67663, Germany. · Intelligentx GmbH (intelligentx.com), Kaiserslautern, Germany. · Department of Core Informatics, Graduate School of Informatics ,Osaka Metropolitan University, Saka, 599-8531, Japan.
Automated detection and classification of structural cracks and surface defects is a critical challenge in civil engineering, infrastructure maintenance, and heritage preservation. Recent advances in Computer Vision (CV) and Deep Learning (DL) have significantly improved automatic crack detection. However, these methods rely heavily on large, diverse, and carefully curated datasets that include various crack types across different surface materials. Many existing public crack datasets lack geographic diversity, surface types, scale, and labeling consistency, making it challenging for trained algorithms to generalize effectively in real world conditions. We provide a novel dataset, StructDamage, a curated collection of approximately 78,093 images spanning nine surface types: walls, tile, stone, road, pavement, deck, concrete, and brick. The dataset was constructed by systematically aggregating, harmonizing, and reannotating images from 32 publicly available datasets covering concrete structures, asphalt pavements, masonry walls, bridges, and historic buildings. All images are organized in a folder level classification hierarchy suitable for training Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers. To highlight the practical value of the dataset, we present baseline classification results using fifteen DL architectures from six model families, with twelve achieving macro F1-scores over 0.96. The best performing model DenseNet201 achieves 98.62% accuracy. The proposed dataset provides a comprehensive and versatile resource suitable for classification tasks. With thorough documentation and a standard structure, it is designed to promote reproducible research and support the development and fair evaluation of robust crack damage detection approaches.
Figures & tables
Author
Year
Country
Dataset Name
Surface
Resolution
Images
Karimi et al. (2024)
2024
Iran & Portugal
Crack in Historic Buildings
Masonry materials
3456 × 3456
4374
Özgenel and Sorguç (2018)
2018
Turkey
METU Concrete Crack
Concrete
227 x 227
40,000
Guzmán-Torres et al. (2023)
2023
Mexico
CONCORNET2023
Reinforced concrete
Variable
790
Dorafshan et al. (2018)
2018
USA
SDNET2018
Concrete
256 x 256
56,000
Xu et al. (2022)
2022
China
CrackNJ156
Pavement
512 × 512
156
Guo et al. (2023)
2023
United States
CrackSC
Pavement
320 × 480
197
Table 1: Comparison of existing datasets with total samples and unique classes
Figure 1: Distribution of calss count categories of source datasets
Figure 2: StructDamage dataset construction workflow
Figure 3: Number of images per source dataset included in StructDamage dataset
Figure 4: Geographic distribution of source datasets included in StructDamage dataset
Source datasets
Collection methods
Captures devices
Karimi et al. (2024) ; Özgenel and Sorguç (2018) ; Guzmán-Torres et al. (2023) ; Dorafshan et al. (2018) ; Xu et al. (2022) ; Guo et al. (2023) ; Sabouri and Sepidbar (2023) ; Long et al. (2025) ; Garita-Durán et al. (2025) ; Ye et al. (2021) ; Flotzinger et al. (2024) ; Benz and Rodehorst (2022) ; Oluwaseun (2023) ; Mundt et al. (2019) ; Oliveira and Correia (2014) ; Xu et al. (2019)
Ground survey
Smartphone camera, DSLR camera, digital camera, area array CCD camera, drones
Eisenbach et al. (2017) ; Stricker et al. (2019) ; Alkalbani et al. (2025) ; Li et al. (2024) ; Maeda et al. (2018) ; Maeda et al. (2021) ; Zou et al. (2012)
Vehicle mounted
CCD cameras, Smartphone (Android)
Dai et al. (2025)
CCTV / borehole camera
CCTV camera
Katsigiannis et al. (2023)
Ground survey + online sources
Smartphone & Manufacturer websites
Ren et al. (2024)
Street view platform
Street-view camera
Bai et al. (2021)
Post event survey
Smartphone / DSLR
Table 2: Licensing framework and redistribution terms for source datasets
Source datasets
Annotation type
Number of datasets
Karimi et al. (2024) ; Özgenel and Sorguç (2018) ; Dorafshan et al. (2018) ; Dai et al. (2025) ; Katsigiannis et al. (2023) ; Xu et al. (2019) ; Oluwaseun (2023)
Image level label
7
Guzmán-Torres et al. (2023) ; Eisenbach et al. (2017) ; Stricker et al. (2019) ; Long et al. (2025) ; Ren et al. (2024) ; Alkalbani et al. (2025) ; Li et al. (2024) ; Maeda et al. (2018) ; Maeda et al. (2021) ; Arya et al. (2021) ; Arya et al. (2024)
Bounding box annotations
11
Xu et al. (2022) ; Guo et al. (2023) ; Zou et al. (2012) ; Garita-Durán et al. (2025) ; Ye et al. (2021) ; Benz and Rodehorst (2022) ; Goo et al. (2024) ; Oliveira and Correia (2014)
Table 3: Summary of annotation format used across the source datasets
Figure 5: Annotation types across the source datasets
License type
Redistribution terms
Source datasets
CC BY 4.0
Attribution required; commercial and derivative use permitted
Özgenel and Sorguç (2018) ; Dorafshan et al. (2018) ; Xu et al. (2022) ; Sabouri and Sepidbar (2023) ; Katsigiannis et al. (2023) ; Ren et al. (2024) ; Li et al. (2024) ; Arya et al. (2024)
CC BY-NC 3.0
Attribution required; non-commercial use only
Arya et al. (2021) ; Flotzinger et al. (2024)
CC BY-SA 4.0
Attribution required; commercial and derivative use permitted; redistribution allowed under the same license
Oluwaseun (2023)
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Attribution required; non commercial use only; derivative works permitted; redistribution under the same license (ShareAlike)
Garita-Durán et al. (2025) ; Gao and Mosalam (2020)
MIT license
Attribution required (license notice); commercial use, modification, and redistribution permitted with no copyleft requirement.
Guzmán-Torres et al. (2023) ; Guo et al. (2023) ; Bai et al. (2021) ; Maeda et al. (2018) ; Maeda et al. (2021)
Apache-2.0 license
Attribution required (license and NOTICE file); commercial use, modification, and redistribution permitted; patent rights granted.
Alkalbani et al. (2025)
Table 4: Licensing framework and redistribution terms for source datasets
Figure 6: Preprocessing operations
Figure 7: Class distribution of StructDamage dataset
Figure 8: Balanced data distribution
Methods
Accuracy (%)
Precision (%)
Recall (%)
F1-Score (%)
DenseNet121
98.4300
0.98326
0.98378
0.98339
DenseNet169
98.4300
0.98286
0.98334
0.98302
DenseNet201
98.6203
0.98526
0.98580
0.98534
EfficientNetV2B0
96.2654
0.96060
0.96047
0.96000
EfficientNetV2B1
93.9105
0.93746
0.93820
0.93670
MobileNetV2
98.3349
0.98220
0.98236
0.98214
Table 5: Baseline classification results on StructDamage (balanced validation subset)
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy · Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental, and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Department of Computer Science, Rhineland-Palatinate Technical2026 University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, orgaddressKaiserslautern, 67663, Germany.Apr · 4BiogentX (biogentx.com, Renala Khurd, District Okara, Punjab, Pakistan. · 2German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Kaiserslautern, 67663, Germany. +2