Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Rough set algorithm for crack category determination of reinforced

concrete structures
Yeong Min Kim a, Chee Kyeong Kim b,*, Jae Cheol Lee c
a
MIDAS Information Technology Company Limited, SKn Technopark Tech Center, 15th floor 190-1 Sangdaewon1-dong, Jungwon-gu, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, 462-721,
Republic of Korea
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, Sunmoon University, Kalsan-ri, Tangjeong-myeon, Asan-si, Chungnam, 336-708, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Architectural Engineering, TongMyong University, 535 Yongdang-dong, Nam-gu, Busan, 608-711, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rough set theory is a new mathematical approach to imprecision, vagueness and uncertainty in data
Received 24 July 2007 analysis. This paper presents a new approach to rough set theory in determining the category of crack
Received in revised form 14 February 2008 causes for insufficient and imprecise crack characteristics observed in regular inspection of concrete
Accepted 4 April 2008
structures. The categories of crack causes are classified into four classes, that is, (1) concrete material,
Available online 27 May 2008
(2) construction work, (3) service and environmental factors, and (4) structure and applied loads. The
crack characteristics include time of formation, shape, regularity, cause of concrete deformation, and
Keywords:
range. The decision table was constructed considering crack characteristics as condition attributes and
Rough set
Decision algorithm
the categories of crack causes as decision attributes. A minimal decision algorithm for this decision table
Crack characteristics was generated on the basis of rough set theory; the algorithm is equivalent to the original decision table,
Concrete Structures but requires minimum subsets of condition attributes. It turned out in determining the category of crack
causes that, ‘‘time of formation” had the most important influence among crack characteristics, and
‘‘shape” could be omitted with the least influence on diagnosis.
 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction concrete structures. The categories of crack causes are classified

The maintenance activities for concrete structures are required
to maintain and enhance the usability and durability of structures
throughout their life cycle [1]. Concrete structures are damaged
and deteriorated by various causes; among them cracks act as a
primary cause of decreased structural capacity, durability, water-
proofing, etc. Therefore, early diagnosis and appropriate counter-
measures play an important role in the maintenance and
management of concrete structures.
Routine inspection of concrete structures or the early stages of
crack diagnosis only make available insufficient and incomplete
crack characteristics which are not sufficient to diagnose the
causes of cracks. Therefore, in these stages it is necessary to classify
the category of crack causes of individual structural members
approximately, and then integrate these data to obtain the overall
crack patterns of the structure. Finally, in the detailed diagnosis
stage, the causes of cracks are investigated in detail, focusing on
the selected crack category.
This paper presents a decision algorithm based on rough set
theory to determine the category of crack causes, using the approx-
imate crack characteristics observed during regular inspection of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 41 530 2321; fax: +82 41 530 2839.
E-mail address: ckkim@sunmoon.ac.kr (C.K. Kim).
into four classes, that is, concrete material, construction work,
service and environmental factors, and structure and applied loads.
The minimum crack characteristics are required in constructing
the decision algorithm, and hence secure flexibility against uncer-
tainty and imperfection of the investigated data, especially, if some
characteristics cannot be investigated.
Rough set theory is a new mathematical approach to impreci-
sion, vagueness, and uncertainty in data analysis, which was first
introduced by Pawlak in 1982 [2,3]. The problem of determining
the category of crack causes from the given crack characteristics
is a decision making problem characterized by insufficient and
incomplete information, and hence belongs to the region where
rough set theory is highly applicable.
Fuzzy set theory has long been successfully applied in various
engineering field. The features of concrete cracks gathered from vi-
sual inspection are generally uncertain and ambiguous, here fuzzy
based data manipulation has shown good applicability [4,5]. But in
the application of fuzzy set theory, there had arisen difficulty that
if some data are unable to obtain, these data should be manipu-
lated in advance before fuzzy related functions, such as fuzzy infer-
ence are performed [6].
Since the introduction of rough set theory, it has demonstrated
substantial importance in expert systems, decision making sys-
tems, machine learning, inductive reasoning, pattern recognition,

0965-9978/$ - see front matter  2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.04.002
 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211
information retrieval, and so on. Using rough set theory, Attoh-
Okine proposed decision support systems for pavement rehabilita-
tion and maintenance [7], Kaname et al. presented a rough set
approach to information retrieval [8], and Furuta et al. extracted
experiential knowledge of experts from diagnostic results of the
danger levels of slope-failure as decision tables of a minimal deci-
sion algorithm [9]. These studies showed that rough set theory
could be a useful tool for information analysis of data having the
characteristics of imprecision, incompleteness and unobtainable.
2. Rough set theory and decision making problems
In this section, rough set theory is reviewed and a decision table
– an important type of knowledge representation system in apply-
ing rough set theory – is briefly described.
2.1. Notion of rough set theory
Rough set theory is an extension of classical set theory and be-
gins by relating certain information to all the objects under consid-
eration. Objects with the same characteristics cannot be
distinguished from each other, and this feature of indiscernibility
forms the mathematical basis for rough set theory.
2.1.1. Knowledge base and the indiscernibility relation
Let U denote a finite non-empty set, called the universe; the set
R1 = {X1, X2, . . . ,Xn} which satisfies Eq. (1) is called the classification
or equivalence relation of U, and Xi is called an equivalence class of
the equivalence relation R1.
X i # U; X i –U; X i \ X j ¼ U; [X i ¼ U; ði–j; and i; j ¼ 1; . . . ; nÞ
The set R = {R1, R2, . . . ,Rm}, comprised of equivalence relations of U,
is called the knowledge base of U, and the knowledge base K is rep-
resented as K = (U,R).
If P # R and P–U; then \P (the intersection of all equivalence
relations belonging to P) is also an equivalence relation, called
the indiscernibility relation over P, and the notation for this rela-
tion is IND(P). The classification or partition of U by IND(P) is ex-
pressed as U/IND(P) or U/P, and an equivalence class of IND(P) is
called a P-basic category.
2.1.2. Approximation of a rough set
Let X # U, and R the equivalence relation. If X is the union set of
arbitrary R-basic categories, then X is R-definable, otherwise X is R-
undefinable. An R-definable set is called an R-exact set and an R-
undefinable set is called an R-rough set. A rough set is approxi-
mately defined by the two exact sets of lower approximation and
upper approximation.
Now consider knowledge base K = (U,R). The lower approxima-
tion of X # U by R is the union of all equivalence classes E of equiv-
alence relation R 2 IND(K) which are included in X, i.e.,
RX ¼ [fE 2 U=RjE # Xg
The upper approximation of X # U by R is the union of all equiva-
lence classes E of equivalence relation R 2 IND(K) which have a non-
empty intersection with X, i.e.,
RX ¼ [fE 2 U=RjE \ X–Ug
Based on the lower and upper approximation of X # U by R, the
universe U can be divided into three disjoint regions, that is, a posi-
tive region POSR(X), a negative region NEGR(X), and a boundary re-
gion BNDR(X), as follows:
203
POSR ðXÞ ¼ RX ð4Þ
NEGR ðXÞ ¼ U  RX ð5Þ
BNDR ðXÞ ¼ RX  RX ð6Þ
Fig. 1 illustrates the approximation of a set X by knowledge R and
the corresponding positive, negative and boundary regions. Each
small rectangle represents an equivalence class. From this figure
one can note with certainty that any element x 2 POSR(X) belongs
to X with respect to R, and that any element x 2 NEGR(X) does not
belong to X with respect to R. The upper approximation of a set X
is the union of the positive and boundary region, that is,
RX ¼POSR(X) [ BNDR(X). One cannot decide with certainty whether
or not an element x 2 BNDR(X) belongs to X. For arbitrary elements
x 2 RX, one can only conclude that x possibly belongs to X [10].
2.1.3. Characterization of the imprecision of a rough set
The imprecision of a rough set is due to the existence of the
boundary region, and the imprecision can be characterized either
numerically or topologically. Numerical characterization is defined
by an accuracy measure or roughness, and topological character-
ization is defined by the concepts of upper and lower approxima-
tion. ‘‘Accuracy measure” indicates the degree of completeness of
knowledge. The accuracy measure of X with respect to R is defined
as Eq. (7), here card means number of elements of a set.
cardRX
aR ðXÞ ¼ ; ð0 6 aR ðXÞ 6 1Þ ð7Þ
cardRX
Roughness is the opposite of accuracy measure and represents the
incompleteness of the knowledge. The roughness of X with respect
to R can be defined using the concept of accuracy measure as
qR ðXÞ ¼ 1  aR ðXÞ; ð0 6 qR ðXÞ 6 1Þ ð8Þ
ð1Þ
A rough set can be topologically classified into the following four
classes:
 Roughly R-definable: RX–U and RX–U
 Internally R-undefinable: RX ¼ U and RX–U
 Externally R-undefinable: RX–U and RX ¼ U
 Totally R-undefinable: RX ¼ U and RX ¼ U
With the accuracy measure we can know the range of the
boundary, but not its structure, on the other hand, the topological
classification of the rough set gives us insight into the structure of
the boundary, but nothing about its range. Therefore, in applying a
rough set, both numerical and topological characterization need to
be considered.
ð2Þ
ð3Þ
Fig. 1. Positive, boundary and negative regions of a set X.
204 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211

2.1.4. Knowledge reduction and dependency
When we define some category of knowledge, it is not always
necessary to use all of it. The elimination of non-necessary knowl-
edge is called knowledge reduction, and here, the two concepts of
‘‘reduct” and ‘‘core” are used. Reduct is the minimal necessary part
of the knowledge which is sufficient to define all basic categories
appearing in current knowledge, and core is the peculiar part
which cannot be eliminated in knowledge reduction.
Let P and Q be equivalence relations of universe U, then the
P-positive region of Q is defined by the union of all the objects of
U which can be classified as the equivalence class of U/Q by the
knowledge U/P, i.e.,
POSP ðQ Þ ¼ [ PX
X2U=Q
Let P and Q be equivalence relations of U. If Eq. (10) is satisfied, then
C 2 P is said to be Q-dispensible in P, otherwise, C 2 P is Q-indispen-
sible in P. If all C are Q-indispensible in P, P is said to be independent
with respect to Q.
POSINDðPÞ ðINDðQ ÞÞ ¼ POSINDðPfCgÞ ðINDðQ ÞÞ
the decision table. The restriction of decision rule dx over P and Q
is expressed as dxjP and dxjQ, and called the condition and decision
of decision rule dx, respectively.
If the following Eq. (14) is satisfied for every attribute x, y(x – y)
of universe U, then decision rule dx is called consistent, otherwise,
inconsistent.
if dx jP ¼ dy jP then dx jQ ¼ dy jQ ð14Þ
The simplification of the decision table is the process of eliminating
attributes which are not necessary in decision making. With the re-
duced decision table one can derive the same decision with fewer
condition attributes, which means that one need not consider
ð9Þ non-necessary conditions, which thus reduces the effort necessary
for decision making. Furthermore, with the reduced condition attri-
butes we can organize an expert’s knowledge in more compact
form. The simplification of the decision table is processed, first, to
obtain the reducts of the condition attributes by eliminating col-
umns of non-necessary condition attributes, and second, to elimi-
nate the values of non-necessary condition attributes.
ð10Þ

If S # P is P-independent and POSS(Q)=POSP(Q) is satisfied, then S is

said to be the Q-reduct of P, that is, REDQ(P), and the union of all the Table 1
Q-indispensible attributes is said to be the Q-core of P, that is, COR- Category of crack causes and list of crack causes corresponding to each category
EQ(P). The relation of these two notions is expressed as
Category of crack cause Crack Causes of cracks
COREQ ðPÞ ¼ \REDQ ðPÞ ð11Þ No.
Concrete material A1 Abnormal setting of cement paste
Let K = (U,R) be the knowledge base and P, Q  R. If we can induce A2 Heat of hydration of cement
knowledge Q from knowledge P then Q is said to be dependent on A3 Abnormal expansion of cement
P, and the degree of dependency k is defined as A4 Clay in aggregate
A5 Low quality aggregate
cardPOSP ðQ Þ A6 Reactive aggregate
k ¼ cP ðQ Þ ¼ ; ð0 6 k 6 1Þ ð12Þ
cardU A7 Chloride in concrete
A8 Settlement and bleeding of concrete
If k = 1 then Q is said to be totally dependent on P, if 0 < k < 1 then Q A9 Shrinkage of concrete
is said to be roughly dependent on P, and if k = 0 then Q is said to be
Construction work B1 Unequal dispersing of admixture
totally independent of P. B2 Overtime mixing
B3 Segregation during pumping
2.2. Knowledge representation system and the decision table B4 Improper placing sequence
B5 Rapid placing
B6 Insufficient compaction
A decision table is an important class of knowledge representa- B7 Vibration or loading before hardening
tion system in the application of rough set theory [7]. A decision B8 Rapid shrinkage during initial curing
table specifies what decision should be taken when certain condi- B9 Initial frost damage
tions are satisfied. Most decision making problems can be formal- B10 Improper treatment of work joint
B11 Movement of reinforcing bar
ized by a decision table, which explains the usefulness of a decision
B12 Insufficient protective covering
table in the process of decision making. Knowledge reasoning is a B13 Deformation of forms
process of finding new facts from existing facts, and here, the logic B14 Leakage (from form or ground)
for knowledge reasoning is called decision logic, the rules for B15 Early removal of forms
knowledge reasoning are called decision rules, and the sets of deci- B16 Settlement of form support

sion rules are called a decision algorithm. If all the decision rules of Service and environmental C1 Change of external temperature and
the decision algorithm are true, then the decision algorithm is said factors humidity
C2 Temperature/humidity gap between
to be consistent.
member surface
In knowledge representation system K = (U, A), for every primi- C3 Repetition of freezing and thawing
tive attribute a 2 A there exists a set of its values known as the C4 Fire
domain of a, denoted as Va. For every a 2 A, there exists a function C5 Surface heating
C6 Chemical reaction of acid and chloride
a:U ? Va, which assigns a unique attribute value from Va to every
C7 Corrosion of reinforcing bar
object x 2 U. For subsets of attributes B  A, the binary relations ex- (neutralization)
pressed as Eq. (13) are called the indiscernibility relation over B, C8 Corrosion of reinforcing bar (penetrated
chloride)
INDðBÞ ¼ fðx; yÞ 2 U 2 jaðxÞ ¼ aðyÞ; 8a 2 Bg ð13Þ
Structure and applied loads D1 Eternal long time loading within design
In knowledge representation system K = (U,A), if P and Q (P \ Q = U) load
D2 Eternal long time loading over design load
are subsets of A, P represents the condition attributes, and Q the
D3 Dynamic short time loading within design
decision attributes, then this knowledge representation system load
can be called a decision table. The equivalence classes of IND(P) D4 Dynamic short time loading over design
and IND(Q) are called the condition and decision equivalence clas- load
ses, respectively. D5 Lack of section size and reinforcing bars
D6 Differential settlement of structure
For every x 2 U, a function dx:A ? V is defined to satisfy
D7 Freezing of ground
dx(a) = a(x) ("a 2 P [ Q), and here, dx is called a decision rule of
Table 2
Checklist for causes of cracks

Category of crack Crack Time of formation Shape Regularity Cause of concrete deformation Range
cause No.
Several hours Several More than several Turtle Linear Regular Irregular Contraction Expansion Settlement  bending  shear Material Member Structure
1 day days tens of days
Surface Penetrate
Concrete material A1     
A2       
A3      
A4       
A5      
A6       

Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211

A7      
A8     
A9         
Construction work B1       
B2         
B3         
B4       
B5      
B6      
B7      
B8       
B9       
B10       
B11     
B12     
B13     
B14     
B15      
B16       
Service and C1          
environmental C2       
factors C3        
C4         
C5         
C6      
C7     
C8     
Structure and applied D1      
loads D2      
D3      
D4      
D5       
D6     
D7     

205
206 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211

3. Decision algorithm for determining the category of crack and 58 are inconsistent. The inconsistent decision rules are repre-
causes sented as shadowed.

In this section, we discuss the generation of a rough set based 3.2. Composition of rough sets and reduction of knowledge
decision algorithm for determining the category of crack causes
to which an inspected crack belongs, and evaluate the applicability From Table 4, the equivalence classes of condition attributes P
of this decision algorithm using actual crack cases. and decision attributes Q of universe U are shown in Eq. (15) and
Eq. (16), respectively:
3.1. Construction of the decision table
U=P ¼ fE1 ; E2 ; E3 ; E4 ; E5 ; E6 ; . . . ; E65 g
E1 ¼ fx1 g; E2 ¼ fx2 g; E3 ¼ fx3 g; E4 ¼ fx4 ; x58 g ð15Þ
According to the Japanese Concrete Institute (JCI), the categories
of crack causes can be divided into four classes, that is, (1) concrete E5 ¼ fx5 g; E6 ¼ fx6 ; x28 ; x82 g; . . . ; E65 ¼ fx91 g
material, (2) construction work, (3) service and environmental fac- U=Q ¼ fX 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 ; X 4 g
tors, and (4) structure and applied loads. Each category has its own X 1 ¼ fx1 ; x2 ;    ; x25 g; X 2 ¼ fx26 ; x27 ; . . . ; x61 g ð16Þ
detailed list of crack causes numbering 9, 16, 8 and 7, respectively, X 3 ¼ fx62 ; x63 ;    ; x91 g; X 4 ¼ fx92 ; x93 ; . . . ; x98 g
with overall crack causes numbering 40 as shown in Table 1. The
detailed crack causes are estimated using the checklist of crack fea- The dependency or consistency of the decision algorithm of decision
tures (represented in Table 2), which is widely used in Japan and attributes Q to condition attributes P is calculated as in Eq. (17). The
Korea [11,12]. degree of dependency k is calculated to be 0.408, which is between
Table 2 can be regarded as a decision table comprised of condi- 0 and 1, which means that Q is roughly dependent on P. The rela-
tion attributes of crack symptoms and decision attributes of crack tively low value of 0.408 means that there are many inconsistent
causes. This decision table is inconsistent because it maps more cases where, for the same set of condition attributes, there exist
than two crack causes for the same crack symptoms; for example, non-identical decision attributes.
the cracks numbered B2 and B3 have identical crack symptoms. It cardPOSP ðQ Þ 40
may also be hard to determine from this decision table if certain k ¼ cP ðQ Þ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:408
cardU  98 
symptoms are insufficient or even missing. For this case we can
here; cardPOSP ðQ Þ ¼ card [ PX ð17Þ
counter cracking more successfully if we can extract the minimal X2U=Q
characteristics necessary for diagnosis. According to the impor- ¼ cardðPX 1 [ PX 2 [ PX 3 [ PX 4 Þ ¼ 9 þ 19 þ 12 þ 0 ¼ 40
tance of each crack feature for crack diagnosis, the absence of some
feature(s) could make the diagnosis difficult or completely ineffec- The accuracy measure of equivalence classes of each decision attri-
tive. Therefore, it is useful to know the importance of each crack bute with respect to equivalence classes of condition attributes is
feature so as to determine what features should be examined, shown in Eqs. (18)–(21), respectively.
and to determine the reliability of the decision if some features cardPX 1 9
are missing. aP ðX 1 Þ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:170 ð18Þ
cardPX 1 53
Table 3 shows attributes and their values in constructing the cardPX 2 19
decision table from Table 2. Table 4 is the decision table taken both aP ðX 2 Þ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:352 ð19Þ
cardPX 2 54
from the relation of crack features and crack categories of Table 2
cardPX 3 12
and the crack attributes defined in Table 3. We extracted a total of aP ðX 3 Þ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:235 ð20Þ
98 decision rules from Table 2, out of which 40 rules are consistent cardPX 3 51
cardPX 4 0
aP ðX 4 Þ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:000 ð21Þ
cardPX 4 16
Table 3 The roughness of equivalence classes of each decision attribute with
Attributes and attribute values of decision table for causes of cracks respect to those of the condition attributes are calculated from the
Classification of Attribute name Attribute Attribute Attribute results of the accuracy measure as in Eqs. (22)–(25), respectively.
attributes symbol condition value
qP ðX 1 Þ ¼ 1  aP ðX 1 Þ ¼ 0:830 ð22Þ
Condition Time of formation a Several hours 1 0
attributes day
qP ðX 2 Þ ¼ 1  aP ðX 2 Þ ¼ 0:648 ð23Þ
(P) Several days 1 qP ðX 3 Þ ¼ 1  aP ðX 3 Þ ¼ 0:765 ð24Þ
More than several 2 qP ðX 4 Þ ¼ 1  aP ðX 4 Þ ¼ 1:000 ð25Þ
tens of days
Shape b Turtle 0
From the calculated results of the accuracy measure and roughness,
Linear Surface 1
Penetrate 2
it can be concluded that if we classify the category of crack causes
Regularity c Regular 0 from the diagnosed crack features using the checklist in Table 2, we
Irregular 1 can classify cracks due to construction work (X2) best, and service
Cause of concrete d Contraction 0 and environmental factors (X3) second, concrete material (X1) third,
deformation Expansion 1
and we can not classify cracks due to structure and applied loads
Settlement 2
bending shear (X4) at all.
Range e Material 0 From the topological characterization of equivalence classes of
Member 1 decision attributes to those of condition attributes, we can say that
Structure 2 concrete material (X1), construction work (X2) and service and
Decision Category of crack f Concrete material A
attributes cause Construction work B
environmental factors (X3) are roughly P-definable for they satisfy
(Q) Service and C R X – U and RX–U, and structure and applied loads (X4) are inter-
environmental nally P-undefinable for they satisfy R X = U and RX–U. This means
factors that in the category of crack causes, X1, X2 and X3 have rules for
Structural and D
determining whether cracks with specific features belong to each
applied loads

or are complementary with each of them X c1 ; X c2 ; X c3 . On the other
 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211 207

Table 4
Unreduced decision rules and core of condition attributes

Rule Condition attributes (P) Decision attributes (Q) Q-core of P COREQ(P) Rule Condition attributes (P) Decision attributes (Q) Q-core of P COREQ(P)
U abcde f abcde U abcde f abcde
1 0 1 100 A 0–––0 50 1 1121 B 1 – 1 – –
2 1 1 000 A 1–––0 51 0 0101 B 0 – – – –
3 1 2 000 A 1–––– 52 0 0102 B 0 – – – –
4 1 1 001 A 53 0 1101 B 0 – – – 1
5 1 2 001 A 12–0– 54 0 1102 B 0 – – – 2
6 2 0 110 A 55 1 0121 B – – – – –
7 2 0 110 A 56 2 0121 B – 0 – 2 1
8 1 0 100 A 1–––– 57 2 1021 B
9 2 0 100 A 58 1 1001 B
10 1 1 100 A 1–––– 59 1 1002 B 1–––2
11 2 1 100 A 60 1 1021 B
12 2 1 120 A ––120 61 1 2021 B
13 2 0 120 A –––20 62 2 1000 C
14 2 1 011 A 63 2 1001 C
15 2 1 012 A 64 2 1002 C
16 0 1 021 A 65 2 1010 C ––010
17 2 0 000 A –00–0 66 2 1011 C
18 2 0 001 A 67 2 1012 C
19 2 0 002 A 68 2 1020 C ––020
20 2 1 000 A 69 2 1021 C
21 2 1 001 A 70 2 1022 C
22 2 1 002 A 71 2 2000 C
23 2 2 000 A 72 2 2001 C
24 2 2 001 A 73 2 2002 C
25 2 2 002 A 74 2 2010 C – – – 1 –
26 2 0 100 B 75 2 2011 C – 2 – 1 –
27 2 0 101 B 76 2 2012 C – 2 – 1 –
28 2 0 110 B 77 2 2020 C – – – 2 0
29 2 0 111 B 0 – – – – 78 2 2021 C
30 0 0 001 B 0 – – – – 79 2 2022 C
31 0 0 002 B 0 – – 0 – 80 2 0100 C
32 0 1 001 B 0 – – – – 81 2 0101 C
33 0 1 002 B 0 – – – – 82 2 0110 C
34 0 2 001 B 0 – – – – 83 2 0111 C
35 0 2 002 B 84 2 1100 C
36 2 0 001 B 85 2 1101 C 21101
37 2 0 002 B 86 2 1110 C
38 2 1 001 B 87 2 1111 C – 1 1 1 1
39 2 1 002 B 88 2 0102 C 2 – 1 – 2
40 2 2 001 B 89 2 0112 C – – – – 2
41 2 2 002 B 02––– 90 2 1102 C 2 – 1 0 2
42 0 2 021 B ––––– 91 2 1112 C – – 1 1 2
43 0 2 121 B 92 2 1021 D
44 2 2 021 B –21–– 93 2 1022 D
45 2 2 121 B 94 2 2021 D
46 0 1 021 B 0–1–– 95 2 2022 D
47 0 1 121 B 96 1 1021 D
48 2 1 121 B ––122 97 1 2021 D
49 2 1 122 B 98 2 1121 D

hand, X4 does not have any rule for its belongingness, but merely
functions for the belongingness of the complementary of it (X c4 Þ.
The importance of the condition attribute is defined by the con-
cept of the degree of alternation of the positive region of the deci-
sion rules if the corresponding attribute is deleted. The importance
of attribute h is defined using the notion of dependency defined in
Eq. (12), i.e.,
Ih ¼ cP ðQ Þ  cPfhg ðQ Þ ð26Þ

Fig. 2 shows the importance of each condition attribute calculated

using Eq. (26). From this we can conclude, if we determine to which
category of crack causes the given crack belongs, that ‘‘time of for-
mation” has the most influence, as it alters the positive region of
equivalence classes of the condition attributes the most, and
‘‘shape” has the least influence as it alters the positive region the
least. This result can be used as a guide for crack diagnosis and indi-
cates that the time of crack formation should be investigated with
the most importance to increase the reliability of the diagnosis. Fig. 2. Importance of each condition attribute in decision making.
208 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211

Table 5 decision rules. Explaining the method of obtaining a core condition

Reduced decision rules attribute in detail goes as follows: If we eliminate attribute ‘‘a”
Reduct Q-reduct of P Decision Reduct Q-reduct of P Decision from rule 1 (01100), then rule 1 and 84 (21100) cannot be dis-
REDQ(P) attributes (Q) REDQ(P) attributes (Q) cerned with the remaining attributes (1100). Therefore, each
U abcde f U abcde f attribute value of attribute ‘‘a” of rules 1 and 84, that is, 0 and 2,
1 0 – – – 0 A 47 0 – 1 – 1 B respectively, are core condition attributes of each rule.
2 1 – – – 0 A 47(1) 0 – 1 2 – B In Table 5, the reducts of the condition attributes for the deci-
3 1 – – – 0 A 49 – – 1 2 2 B
3(1) 1 2 – 0 – A 50 1 – 1 2 – B
sion rules of Table 4 are represented. The reducts of condition attri-
5 1 2 – 0 – A 50(1) 1 – 1 – 1 B butes are those sets of minimal attributes which make the
8 1 – – – 0 A 51 0 0 – – – B consistent decision rule true, and can be induced by adding inde-
8(1) 1 0 – 0 – A 51(1) 0 – – 0 1 B pendent attribute values C which do not satisfy Eq. (10) at the core
8(2) 1 – 1 0 – A 51(2) 0 – 1 – 1 B
condition attribute, COREQ(P). In rule 1 the core becomes reduct di-
10 1 – – – 0 A 52 0 0 – – – B
10(1) 1 – 1 0 – A 52(1) 0 – – – 2 B rectly, this means that rule a0b1c1d0e0 ? fA can be reduced to the
12 – – 1 2 0 A 53 0 – 1 – 1 B equivalent decision rule a0e0 ? fA. Rule 3 a1b2c0d0e0 ? fA has two
13 – 0 – 2 0 A 53(1) 0 – – 0 1 B reducts, a1e0 ? fA and a1b2d0 ? fA, which means the original rule
13(1) – – 1 2 0 A 54 0 – – – 2 B can be reduced to these two equivalent decision rules.
17 – 0 0 – 0 A 55 1 0 – 2 – B
30 0 0 – – – B 55(1) 1 0 – – 1 B
30(1) 0 – 0 0 – B 55(2) – 0 – 2 1 B 3.3. Generation of the minimal decision algorithm
30(2) 0 – – 0 1 B 55(3) 1 – 1 2 – B
31 0 – – – 2 B 56 – 0 – 2 1 B Table 6 is the minimal decision algorithm generated from the
31(1) 0 0 – – – B 59 1 – – – 2 B
reduced decision rules of Table 5, and is equivalent to the decision
31(2) 0 – 0 0 – B 65 – – 0 1 0 C
32 0 – 0 0 – B 68 – – 0 2 0 C rules of Table 4. This minimal decision algorithm consists of 23
32(1) 0 – – 0 1 B 74 – 2 – 1 – C rules overall, and satisfies all the consistent decision rules of Table
33 0 – – – 2 B 74(1) – – 0 1 0 C 4.
33(1) 0 – 0 0 – B 75 – 2 – 1 – C If we represent some selected minimal decision algorithm from
34 0 2 – – – B 76 – 2 – 1 – C
Table 6 in an ‘‘if {condition}, then {decision}” form, the result can
34(1) 0 – 0 0 – B 77 – 2 – 2 0 C
34(2) 0 – – 0 1 B 77(1) – – 0 2 0 C be stated as follows:
35 0 2 – – – B 85 2 1 1 0 1 C
35(1) 0 – – – 2 B 87 – 1 1 1 1 C  Rules for concrete material
35(2) 0 – 0 0 – B 88 2 0 1 – 2 C
Rule 1: a0e0 ? fA
42 0 2 – – – B 88(1) 2 – 1 0 2 C
43 0 2 – – – B 89 – 0 – 1 2 C
if (time of formation; several hours 1 day) and (range;
43(1) – 2 1 – – B 89(1) – – 1 1 2 C material)
43(2) 0 – 1 2 – B 89(2) 2 0 1 – 2 C then (category of crack cause; concrete material)
43(3) 0 – 1 – 1 B 90 2 – 1 0 2 C :
45 – 2 1 – – B 91 – – 1 1 2 C
Rule 5: b0c0e0 ? fA
if (shape; turtle) and (regularity; regular) and (range;
material)
Table 6 then (category of crack cause; concrete material)
Minimal decision algorithm
 Rules for construction work
Rule Related reducts (duplicate Q-reduct of Decision Decision rules Rule 6: a0b0 ? fB
reducts in parentheses) P REDQ(P) attributes if (time of formation; several hours 1 day) and (shape;
(Q)
U abcde f P?Q
turtle)
then (category of crack cause; construction work)
1 1 0 – – –0 A a0e0 ? fA
:
2 2,3,8,10 1 – – –0 A a1e0 ? fA
3 5(3(1)) 1 2 – 0– A a1b2d0 ? fA Rule 15: a1e2 ? fB
4 12,13(1) – – 1 20 A c1d2e0 ? fA if (time of formation; several days) and (range; structure)
5 17 – 0 0 –0 A b0c0e0 ? fA then (category of crack cause; construction work)
6 30,31(1),51,52 0 0 – –– B a0b0 ? fB
 Rules for service and environmental factors
7 32,33(1),34(1),35(2) 0 – 0 0– B a0c0d0 ? fB
(30(1),31(2)) Rule 16: c0d1e0 ? fC
8 42,43(34,35) 0 2 – – – B a0b2 ? fB if (regularity; regular) and (cause of concrete deformation;
9 45 – 2 1 – – B b2c1 ? fB expansion) and (range; material)
10 47,53(43(3),51(2)) 0 – 1 – 1 B a0c1e1 ? fB then (category of crack cause; service and environmental
11 49 – – 1 2 2 B c1d2e2 ? fB
factors)
12 50,55(3) 1 – 1 2 – B a1c1d2 ? fB
13 54(31,33,35(1)) 0 – – – 2 B a0e2 ? fB :
14 56(55(2)) – 0 – 2 1 B b0d2e1 ? fB Rule 23: c1d1e2 ? fC
15 59 1 – – – 2 B a1e2 ? fB if (regularity; irregular) and (cause of concrete deformation;
16 65,74(1) – – 0 1 0 C c0d1e0 ? fC
expansion) and (range; structure)
17 68,77(1) – – 0 2 0 C c0d2e0 ? fC
18 75,76(74) – 2 – 1 – C b2d1 ? fC
then (category of crack cause; service and environmental
19 85 2 1 1 0 1 C a2b1c1d0e1 ? fC factors)
20 87 – 1 1 1 1 C b1c1d1e1 ? fC
21 88,89(2) 2 0 1 – 2 C a2b0c1e2 ? fC 3.4. Case study and evaluation of applicability
22 90(88(1)) 2 – 1 0 2 C a2c0d1e2 ? fC
23 91(89(1)) – – 1 1 2 C c1d1e2 ? fC
In this section, we show the application of the rough set based
minimal decision algorithm in determining the category of crack
In Table 4, we also represented the core of condition attribute P causes for the cracks actually diagnosed by the experts and evalu-
with respect to decision attribute Q (COREQ(P)) for the consistent ate the applicability of this decision algorithm. The application
 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211
examples and the corresponding diagnosis results were extracted
from the technical manuals published by Japanese Concrete Insti-
tute [12]. Five types of cracks, that is, four wall cracks and one slab
crack, generated in four structures were chosen as application
examples.
3.4.1. Case 1: cracks on a concrete wall
Features of cracks. After 4 weeks of concrete placement, cracks
were found on the wall as shown in Fig. 3a. The cracks in the mid-
dle region are 0.3 mm width and penetrated the wall. The range of
the cracks is estimated to be member level and the cause of con-
crete deformation seems to be neither contraction nor expansion.
The regularity of the cracks is not certain, but it seems to be some-
what on the irregular side.
Diagnosis by the rough set based minimal decision algorithm. From
the above crack features, it is evident that the time of crack forma-
tion (a) is several tens of days, the shape (b) is penetrate, cause of
concrete deformation (d) is settlement  bending  shear, and the
range (e) is member, and the resulting condition attributes can
be expressed as a2b2d2e1. The decision rule which satisfies these
features does not exist in the decision algorithm in Table 6. Among
the unused crack features, the regularity (c) is second evident fea-
ture and it can be regarded as irregular with the high possibility, so
the resulting condition attributes become a2b2c1d2e1. The decision
rule which satisfies these features is Rule 9; that is, b2c1 ? fB.
Therefore we can judge that the category of given cracks is con-
struction work (B).
It can be seen from the above diagnosis that, in diagnosing the
above cracks, shape (b) and regularity (c) are used as essential fea-
tures, but time of formation (a) cause of concrete deformation (d)
and range (e) are not essential features.
Diagnosis by an expert. An expert diagnosed the given cracks as the
‘‘improper treatment of work joint (B10)” and the category of this
crack cause is construction work (B), which is identical to that de-
rived from the rough set based decision algorithm.
3.4.2. Case 2: cracks on the side wall of a concrete box structure
Features of cracks. Regular cracks of 2–5 m intervals were found on
the side wall of concrete box structures as shown in Fig. 3b. The
cracks were found during the removing of forms about 2 weeks
after concrete placement, and from the shape of cracks the time
Fig. 3. Example of crack cases.
209
of crack formation is estimated not just after concrete placement
but at least several days after concrete placement. The width of
the cracks is in the range of 0.2–1 mm, and most of the cracks ex-
tended both to the upper and lower work joints. It is uncertain
whether the cracks penetrate but it seems to be somewhat on
the penetrate side. It is estimated that the cause of concrete defor-
mation was contraction and the range of the cracks are at member
level.
Diagnosis by the rough set based minimal decision algorithm. From
the above crack features, it is evident that regularity (c) is regular,
cause of concrete deformation (d) is contraction, and range (e) is
member, so the resulting condition attributes can be expressed
as c0d0e1. The decision rule which satisfies these features does
not exist in the decision algorithm in Table 6. Among the unused
crack features, time of crack formation (a) and shape of crack (b)
are second evident features and it can be regarded as several days
and penetrate, respectively, with the high possibility, so the result-
ing condition attributes become a1b2c0d0e1. The decision rule
which satisfies these features is Rule 3, that is, a1b2d0 ? fA. There-
fore we can judge that the category of given cracks is concrete
material (A).
It can be seen from the above diagnosis that, in diagnosing the
above cracks, time of formation (a), shape (b) and cause of concrete
deformation (d) are essential features, but regularity (c) and range
(e) are not essential features.
Diagnosis by an expert. An expert diagnosed the given cracks as due
to the ‘‘heat of hydration of cement (A2)” and the category of the
cause of this crack is concrete material (A) which is identical to that
derived from the rough set based decision algorithm.
3.4.3. Case 3: cracks on exterior wall of 2 stories building
Features of cracks. Cracks were found on two stories RC building on
August after 1 years of building completion as shown in Fig. 3c. The
1st floor was used as office area and air cooling was performed, and
2nd floor was used as warehouse and there was no air cooling.
Cracks of 1st floor were generated vertically both on the middle
of each wall and corners of opening on inner side of exterior wall
and not penetrated the wall. Cracks of 2nd floor were on the whole
triangular shaped and 80% of them penetrated the wall. It is esti-
mated that major cause of concrete deformation is expansion.
The cracks of 1st floor show regularity on each wall, so the range
210 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211
of cracks can be regarded as member level, and the cracks of 2nd
floor show regularity on the whole building, so the range of cracks
can be regarded as structure level.
Diagnosis by the rough set based minimal decision algorithm. The
cracks of 1st and 2nd floor need to be diagnosed separately for they
showed peculiar features of their own. From the above crack fea-
tures of 1st floor, it is evident that time of crack formation (a) is
more than several tens of days, shape (b) is surface, regularity (c)
is regular, cause of concrete deformation (d) is expansion, and
range (e) is member, so the resulting condition attributes can be
expressed as a2b1c0d1e1. The decision rule which satisfies these fea-
tures does not exist in the decision algorithm in Table 6. Therefore
we cannot judge the category of crack causes for the cracks with
the given features.
From the above crack features of 2nd floor, it is evident that
time of crack formation (a) is more than several tens of days, shape
(b) is penetrate, regularity (c) is regular, cause of concrete deforma-
tion (d) is expansion, and range (e) is structure, so the resulting
condition attributes can be expressed as a2b2c0d1e2. The decision
rules which satisfies these features are Rule 18 and Rule 22, that
is, b2d1 ? fC and a2c0d1e2 ? fC, respectively. Therefore we can judge
that the category of cracks of 2nd floor is service and environmen-
tal factors (C).
It can be seen from the above diagnosis that, in diagnosing
cracks of 1st floor there is no essential features, but cracks of 2nd
floor have two sets of essential features, one is time of formation
(a), regularity (c), cause of concrete deformation (d) and range
(e), and the other is shape (b) and cause of concrete deformation
(d).
Diagnosis by an expert. An expert diagnosed that the cracks of 1st
floor were generated mainly due to the ‘‘differences in temperature
and humidity between member surfaces (C2)” and the category of
the cause of this crack is service and environmental factors (C), and
the cracks of 2nd floor were generated by the expansion of both the
roof slab and the whole structure due to high temperature of sum-
mer weather, and the cause of this crack can be regarded as
‘‘change of external temperature and humidity (C1)”, the category
of which is service and environmental factors (C) which is identical
to that derived from the rough set based decision algorithm.
3.4.4. Case 4: cracks on the floor slab
Features of cracks. After 3 weeks of concrete placement, cracks
were found on the upper side of floor slab as shown in Fig. 3d.
Some cracks were generated along the short edge of the beam
and the others were generated diagonally on four corners, and half
of the cracks penetrated the slab. Similar crack patterns were
found on neighboring floor slabs. It is estimated that the cause of
concrete deformation is contraction and the range of the cracks
is at member level.
Diagnosis by the rough set based minimal decision algorithm. From
the above crack features it is evident that time of crack formation
(a) is more than several tens of days, shape (b) is penetrate, regu-
larity (c) is regular, cause of concrete deformation (d) is contrac-
tion, and range (e) is member, so the resulting condition
attributes can be expressed as a2b2c0d0e1. The decision rule which
satisfies these features does not exist in the decision algorithm in
Table 6. Therefore we cannot judge the category of crack causes
for the cracks with the given features.
Diagnosis by an expert. An expert diagnosed that if there does not
prominent construction faults, it is estimated that ‘‘shrinkage of
concrete (A9)” is the major cause of cracks, and that it is necessary
to scrutinize construction records, because ‘‘overtime mixing (B2)”
and ‘‘segregating during pumping (B3)” are dominant causes of
promoting shrinkage of concrete.
3.5. Evaluation of applicability
We generated the decision algorithm for consistent decision
making with the minimal set of attributes. In determining the cat-
egory of crack causes using the generated decision algorithm, we
do not have to consider non-essential attributes, whether their
attribute values are evident or not, but for essential attributes
the diagnosis is impossible without knowing their attribute values.
By minimizing the essential attributes, however, the diagnosis can
be processed more easily.
For the five types of cracks generated in four structures, it was
possible to find the category of crack causes for three of them, but
impossible for two of them. Rough set based decision algorithm
does not always ensure to reach the conclusion with the given fea-
tures, but accommodates the decision making by using minimal
essential attributes. And if attributes and their attribute values
are identical to those of decision rules derived by rough set based
decision algorithm, it is sure to produce the consistent decision
making.
4. Summary and conclusions
This study presents a new approach to rough set theory in
determining the category of crack causes with insufficient and
imprecise crack characteristics of concrete structures. A rough set
based minimal decision algorithm was generated and the applica-
bility of this decision algorithm was evaluated by case studies. The
results of our study and related discussion can be summarized as
follows:
In the realm of crack diagnosis, an expert’s experiential knowl-
edge plays an important role, though the knowledge, in itself, is not
precise and moreover sometimes inconsistent. Along with the
problems of the expert’s knowledge, the crack features gathered
from inspection also have the problems of imprecision, ambiguity
and insufficiency. By applying rough set theory, we were able to
generate a decision algorithm which requires minimal crack char-
acteristics and hence helped to overcome the problems of the ex-
pert’s knowledge by using the core part of the knowledge, and
accordingly secures flexibility against the uncertainty and imper-
fection of investigated data.
In determining the category of crack causes, the importance of
each crack feature could be acquired by calculating the degree of
each feature’s influence on consistent decision making. Among
the five crack features, that is, time of formation, shape, regularity,
cause of concrete deformation, and range, it turned out that ‘‘time
of formation” had the most important influence on decision mak-
ing, and from this result we can conclude that in investigating
crack features, time of crack formation should be checked as accu-
rately as possible to increase the reliability of the decision.
This study extracted a decision algorithm from existing knowl-
edge and generated decision rules for 3 of 4 crack categories but
could not generate decision rules for the remaining category of
‘‘structure and applied loads”, for there does not exist consistent
decision rules corresponding to this category. This is because the
crack features of ‘‘structure and applied loads” were roughly de-
fined and had duplicated characteristics with other categories.
Therefore, to generate decision rules which cover all the categories
and hence to enhance the exactness and reliability of diagnosis, it
is necessary to refine the existing knowledge and reinforce rational
new knowledge to the existing knowledge.
The proposed approach has its own limits in application in
views of flexibility, for it treats crack symptoms on a binary basis.
 Y.M. Kim et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 202–211 211

If fuzzy concept is used in this area, it is expected that the flexibil- [3] Pawlak Z. Rough sets. Int J Comput Inform Sci 1982;11:341–56.
[4] Chao CJ, Cheng FP. Fuzzy pattern recognition model for diagnosing cracks in RC
ity of application to be more improved.
Structures. J Comput Civil Eng ASCE 1998;12(2):111–9.
[5] Cheng HD, Chen JR, Clazier C, Hu YG. Novel approach to pavement cracking
Acknowledgements detection based on fuzzy set theory. J Comput Civil Eng ASCE
1999;13(4):270–80.
[6] Kim YM, Kim CK, Hong GH. Fuzzy set based crack diagnosis system for
This research (05HaksimC03) was financially supported by the reinforced concrete structures. Comput Struct 2007;85:1828–44.
Ministry of Construction & Transportation of South Korea, Korea [7] Attoh-Okine N. Rough set application to data mining principles in pavement
Institute of Construction and Transportation Technology Evalua- management database. J Comput Civil Eng ASCE 1997;11(4):231–7.
[8] Kaname F, Tu BH. A rough set approach to information retrieval. Rough sets in
tion and Planning, and the Regional Research Centers Program knowledge discovery, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag; 1998. p. 166–77.
(Bio-housing Research Institute) granted by the Korean Ministry [9] Furuta H, Hirokane M, Mikumo Y. Extraction method based on rough set
of Education & Human Resources Development, and the authors theory of rule-type knowledge from diagnostic cases of slope-failure danger
levels. Rough sets in knowledge discovery, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag;
are grateful to the authorities for their support. 1998. p. 178–92.
[10] Yao YY, Wong SKM, Lin TY. A review of rough set models. Rough sets and data
References mining. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1997. p. 47–75.
[11] Architectural Institute of Korea. Repair and rehabilitation of concrete
structures. AIK, 1997.
[1] Kim YM, Kim CK, Hong SG. Fuzzy based state assessment for reinforced
[12] Japanese Concrete Institute. Investigation of concrete cracks and guide to
concrete building structures. J Eng Struct 2006;28(9):1286–97.
repair and rehabilitation. JCI, 1980.
[2] Pawlak Z. Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer
Academic Publishers; 1991.