Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Full length article

Development of prediction models for evaluation of alkali-silica

reaction in concrete
Farhad Aslani *, Jiacheng Yu, Yifan Zhang, Afsaneh Valizadeh
Materials and Structures Innovation Group, School of Engineering, The University of Western Australia, WA, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and expansion induced are one of the major concerns over durability
Alkali-silica reaction alkali-silica expansion of concrete structures. It causes an increase in internal stresses and hence deteriorating me­
Back-propagation neural network chanical properties, reducing load capacity, and compromising structures’ serviceability. Factors
BPNN
governing ASR include water-to-cement ratio, alkali content, the content of reactive aggregate,
exposure temperature, relative humidity, etc. Previous prediction models for ASR expansion focus
on the measurements under particular conditions and these models are suffering from the neglect
of effects of some factors. This study aims to propose a back-propagation neural network (BPNN)
model to predict ASR by considering both mix compositions and environmental conditions. In this
paper, by adopting two different training functions, namely Levenberg-Marquardt function (LM)
and Bayesian regularisation backpropagation (BR), two models of LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN were
developed and proposed. To achieve this, a database containing 168 pairs of data from 25 studies
was established, its data includes water-to-cement ratio, cement content, alkali fraction, content
of non-reactive and reactive fine/coarse aggregate, temperature, and relative humidity. Results
indicate that both LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN models can produce reasonable estimates for ASR
expansion at 180 days with MSE and R of 0.00209%, 0.002753%, 0.926 and 0.912, respectively.
Results reveal that fraction of reactive fine/coarse aggregate is dominant on ASR expansion while
alkali content and humidity have a significant correlation with expansion. Water-to-cement ratio,
cement content, and content of non-reactive fine/coarse aggregate have low impact on ASR
expansion based on the results.

1. Introduction

Concrete, deemed to be the most used construction material worldwide owing to its outstanding mechanical strength, adequate
durability, and considerable cost-effectiveness. It is also vulnerable to several durability deteriorations which will shorten its service
life and lead to potential problems with structural safety or even cause catastrophic safety issues. Durability of concrete is defined as
the ability to resist weathering action, chemical attack, abrasion, or other processes of deterioration to remain its original form, quality
and serviceability when exposed to its intended service environment [1]. Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is one of these severe deterio­
ration phenomena, which is the predominant type of Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) and has been identified as one of the critical
factors threatening the concrete’s durability and existing as a potential hazard to structural stability and safety.
ASR was first identified and studied by Stanton (1940) in the USA, and thereafter this reaction and its effect have been reported in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: farhad.aslani@uwa.edu.au (F. Aslani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02465
Received 26 April 2023; Received in revised form 29 August 2023; Accepted 9 September 2023
Available online 9 September 2023
2214-5095/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

more than 50 countries worldwide [2]. ASR takes place between the reactive constituents supplied by the aggregates and the alkali (K+
and Na+) and hydroxyl (OH− ) ions available in the interstitial concrete pore solution [3]. This chemical reaction produces hygroscopic
alkali-silica gel which has a strong water absorption and absorbs environmental moisture from cement paste, leading cement paste to
expand and induce internal stresses in concrete and thus indirectly causing distress to concrete. These stresses can initiate and
propagate micro- and macro- cracks in concrete, triggering loss in serviceability and longevity. As a result, concrete structures will be
vulnerable to various forms of damage along with a reduction in strength (i.e., loss of compressive, tensile, etc), modulus of elasticity,
stiffness, and increases in permeability and porosity [2,4,5]. Several studies investigating the effects of ASR on the mechanical
properties of concrete have been carried out through experiments, numerical modelling, analytical analysis, etc. Most of these studies
have agreed that ASR causes degradation in a few physical and mechanical properties of concrete, such as modulus of elasticity,
compressive strength and split tensile strength, etc [3–5].
Factors affecting ASR and associated volumetric expansion include the type of reactive aggregate (rock type [4–7], reactivity [4,7,
8], and size [9–12]), alkali content [10,13–15], and exposure conditions consisting of temperature and moisture [16,17]. However, it
should be noted that since these factors are affecting ASR at different levels and previous models such as empirical relationships
between degradation in mechanical properties and volumetric expansion just indicate the relationship in a particular condition [11,
18–20] or present a moderate curve as a lower bound [21], as a result, inspecting the impact of each influencing factor affecting ASR
expansion and gaining insight into ASR effect and corresponding deterioration of concrete has become vital.
Over the past few years, extensive attempts of estimating various properties of concrete such as compressive strength, tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity, and other physical properties of concrete or concrete structure using machine learning algorithms have
been made. Results from previous literature have confirmed that machine learning algorithm can produce comparatively accurate
estimates for certain properties of concrete [21–29]. Of these available machine learning algorithms, the artificial neural network
model (ANN) is one of the most used models in the concrete field and has drawn extensive attention to estimating concrete properties.
ANN has also been used to gain insight into ASR effects and associated properties such as modulus of elasticity [21], ASR expansion of
concrete containing nano-silica [30], etc. Yang et al. [31] proposed their neural network for predicting ASR expansion for time up to
730 days using parameters including silica content, size and fraction of reactive aggregates, environment conditions, geometry of
specimens, and age, etc. However, from the considerations of varied geometry requirement by different standards, different extends of
effect of reactive fine and coarse aggregates, and limited data availability for aggregate size, this paper aims to develop a prediction
model that is able to estimate ASR expansion at 180 days using parameters including water-to-cement ratio, alkali content, the content
of reactive aggregates, the content of non-reactive aggregates, exposure temperature, relative humidity and backpropagation neural
network model (BPNN).

2. Data collection and parameters affecting ASR expansion

2.1. Data collection

Alkali-silica reactivity of aggregates creates potential problems if no preventative measures are used. Standards used to screen
aggregates for potential alkali-silica reactivity are ASTM C 1260 [32] and ASTM C 1293 [33]. Table 1 summarises the main specifi­
cations of each test method. Both tests are accelerated test methods, meaning that the tests put the materials in conditions that increase
the rate of reaction compared to the rate at which it would occur in the field [34]. However, ASTM C 1260 may classify good aggregates
as reactive. ASTM C 1260 is severe compared to ASTM C 1293 because of the high temperature and the high concentration of hy­
droxide used in the test. A more realistic, yet still accelerated test is ASTM C 1293 [34]. It is considered to be more representative of
actual field conditions since the test is performed on concrete specimens, unlike ASTM C 1260 which is performed on mortar speci­
mens. Therefore, in this study, the database involves experimental results related to ASTM C 1293 as it is regarded as one of the most
recent and approved ASTM long-term methods [35]. However, it should be noted that ASTM C 1293 or concrete prism test (CPT) has a
few significant limitations such as long duration up to one year after and leaching of alkalis, which negatively influences the results
reliability in moderately reactive aggregates [36–38]. In this study, a database containing 169 sets of data from 25 different previous
literature on ASR expansion of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concretes was compiled. Data includes expansion at different ages, mix
design parameters, size and contents of reactive and non-reactive aggregates, and exposure condition [5–7,9,11,14–16,34,39–54]. The
summary of the database was compiled in Table 2 where w/c is water-to-cement ratio; C is cement content; NaOeq is fraction of sodium

Table 1
Specifications of standard testing method for aggregate reactivity.
Test method Procedure Sample material and Maximum
dimensions expansion limits

ASTM C1260 [32] Specimens stored in a solution of NaOH 1 N at 80 ± 2 ℃ for 14 days. Expansion Mortar 0.10% at 14 days
measures at defined ages. 25 × 25 × 285 mm
ASTM C1293 [33] The alkalis (NaOH) are added to obtain a total alkali content of 1.25% Na2Oeq (by Concrete 0.05% after 1 year
RILEM AAR-3 [55] mass of cement). Specimens are stored in water at 38 ± 2 ℃ 75 × 75 × 285 mm
RILEM AAR-4 [56] The alkalis (NaOH) are added to obtain a total alkali content of 1.25% Na2Oeq (by Concrete 0.05% after 12 or
mass of cement). Specimens are stored in water at 60 ± 2 ℃. 75 × 75 × 285 mm 24 weeks

2
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

Table 2
Summary of the database.
Parameters Min Max Mean S. D

w/c 0.37 0.61 0.49 0.05

C, kg/m3 314.00 537.60 424.75 48.56
Na2Oeq, % 0.62 2.16 1.29 0.28
FNR 0 3.03 1.27 0.75
FR 0 2.52 0.59 0.78
CNR 0 3.57 1.00 0.91
CR 0 3.57 1.13 1.17
T, ℃ 38.00 60.00 42.62 8.74
RH, % 30.00 100.00 93.24 14.91
Expansion @ 180days, % 0 0.61 0.13 0.13

oxide equivalent; FNR and FR are non-reactive fine aggregate to cement, and reactive fine aggregate to cement ratios, respectively;
CNR and CR are non-reactive coarse aggregate to cement ratio and reactive coarse aggregate to cement ratio; T is exposure temper­
ature; RH is relative humidity; and Expansion @ 180 days is specimen expansion due to ASR at 180 days.

2.2. Water-to-cement ratio, w/c

Permeability is one of the most important factors governing concrete’s durability and is heavily related to water-to-cement ratio
(w/c). A low water content meaning low w/c ratio is well recognised for forming a relatively high-strength mixture while water
deficiency has a negative impact on its workability [57,58]. Fig. 1(a) presents the distribution of w/c in the database and (b) illustrates
the relationship between expansion at 180 days against w/c ratio with linear fitting. As indicated by Fig. 1(b), a negative correlation
between ASR expansion and w/c was observed. This phenomenon of lower w/c causing more expansion is consistent with the
conclusion made by Bérubé et al. [49]. However, findings from other literature are contradictory to this conclusion that lower w/c
conducts to a lower ASR expansion since lower w/c results in a lower internal RH hence a greater extent of self-desiccation, higher
ionic concentration in pore solution leading to a lower relative diffusion coefficient which would slow the path of water uptake [8,57].

2.3. Cement content (C) and fraction of sodium oxide equivalent (Na2Oeq)

High alkali-content cement (> 0.60% Na2Oeq) has been deemed as one of the major factors triggering ASR expansion because
Portland cement is the main source of alkalis and accompanying pore solution alkalinity [57,59]. Some studies claimed that cement
containing alkali content falling within 0.45–0.60% may initiate the reaction. In contrast, Figueira et al. [57] argued that the use of
low-alkali cement alone would not be sufficient to prevent ASR. Wigum et al. [60] pointed out that the best way to prevent ASR would
be the imposition of a threshold value for the active alkali content of concrete. Hence, cement content and alkali content in sodium

90 0.7 y = - 0.3358x+0.2986
R2 = 0.015

80
0.6

70
0.5

60
0.4
50

0.3
40

30 0.2

20
0.1

10
0.0

0
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65
w/c w/c
(a) (b)

Fig. 1. (a) Histogram of w/c distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against w/c ratio with fitting.

3
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

oxide equivalent were considered in this study and compiled in the database. Fig. 2 presents the data distribution of cement content C
and linear fitting with ASR expansion at 180 days. Fig. 3(b) illustrates the linear relationship between Na2Oeq and ASR expansion at
180 days.

2.4. Reactive fine aggregate content, FR and FNR

One of the main factors triggering ASR is the presence of reactive aggregates to alkali theoretically, any aggregate having silica in
its constitution has the potential to participate in ASR [57]. Several researchers have found that the degradation of mechanical
properties also was at different levels according to different reactive aggregate types and nature which vary in size, rock type and alkali
reactivity level [7,13,42,46]. The alkali reactivity of aggregates is determined by their geological origin, mineralogical composition,
and texture. Reactive aggregates (e.g., opal, tridymite, cristobalite, acid volcanic glass) contain reactive forms of silica that can react
quickly with sodium and potassium hydroxides while aggregates such as chalcedony, cryptocrystalline quartz and strained quartz react
slowly [57]. The reactivity of the aggregate is commonly assessed through an accelerated mortar bar test or concrete prism test on
standard mix design and aggregate grading based on the measured expansion at specific accelerated conditions and durations [21,57].
The pessimum effect, defined as the balance between the alkali reactivity and the alkali hydroxide concertation of a pore solution,
has received a lot of attention in the last two decades [10,61,62]. It has been concluded that expansion decreased when the content of
the reactive aggregate in the concrete was increased or decreased from that proportion [57]. It was also discovered that the expansion
of a particular fraction of reactive aggregates was maximum at a specific grain size. The effect of particle size on reactive aggregates as
well as the pessimum effect for a variety of aggregates in a wide interval of particle sizes has been discussed in several studies [6,9,10,
39,58].
Fig. 4(b) presents the linear fitting for expansion at 180 days against non-reactive fine aggregate content to cement ratio (FNR) and
indicates a negative relationship between these two factors. This contradiction may be raised by neglecting the reactive aggregate
content associated with and potentially uniform data distribution. Fig. 5(b) illustrates an expected trend of more reactive aggregate
causing more serious ASR expansion. However, this observation might be distorted due to the significantly non-uniform distribution of
data.

2.5. Reactive coarse aggregate content, CR and CNR

As aforementioned in the previous section, to mitigate ASR effects, one of the possible options is through increasing non-reactive
aggregate content and reducing the content of reactive aggregates. Sanchez et al. [7] tested aggregate combinations of polymictic
sand/polymictic gravels, fine polymictic sand/high-purity fine-grained limestone, fine polymictic sand/plutonic rock, and found that
polymictic sand/polymictic gravels exhibited slowest expansion development at early ages among all combinations. It is attributed to
the effect of ASR expansion relying on not only the content of reactive aggregate content but also factors such as exposure temperature,
relative humidity, type and concentration of the solution in contact with silica, chemical composition, level of crystallinity, etc [57]. To
precisely estimate ASR expansion at a given age, this study also involves factors of the ratio of content of reactive coarse aggregate to

50 0.7
y = -0.0005x+0.3585
R2 = 0.0413
0.6
40

0.5

30 0.4

0.3

20
0.2

10 0.1

0.0
0
300 350 400 450 500 550 300 350 400 450 500 550
C (kg/m3) C (kg/m3)
(a) (b)

Fig. 2. (a) Histogram of cement content C distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against C with fitting.

4
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

0.7
y = 0.034x+0.0905
R2 = 0.0057
100
0.6

80 0.5

0.4
60

0.3

40
0.2

0.1
20

0.0
0
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Alkali content(%) Alkali content(%)
(a) (b)

Fig. 3. (a) Histogram of alkali content Na2Oeq distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against Na2Oeq ratio with fitting.

0.7
y = - 0.0683x + 0.2211
30 R2 = 0.1661
0.6

25
0.5

20 0.4

15 0.3

0.2
10

0.1
5

0.0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
FNR FNR
(a) (b)

Fig. 4. (a) Histogram of non-reactive fine aggregate content to cement ratio (FNR) distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against FNR with fitting.

cement (CR) and ratio of the content of non-reactive coarse aggregate to cement (CNR). Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 present data distributions and
linear fittings for both CNR and CR, respectively.

2.6. Exposure temperature, T

Exposure temperature is one of the critical factors governing ASR and ASR expansion, its effects have been comprehensively studied
and investigated. Results from previous literature have shown that the rate of expansion was greatly affected and accelerated by
diversifications of temperature and changes in the formation of microstructure and the development of mechanical strength were also
investigated in these studies [16,63,64]. Ueda et al. [64] concluded that a storage temperature of 30 ℃ or 40 ℃ for specimens pro­
moted ASR expansion. Gautam et al. [6] conducted a series of experiments to investigate the effect of temperature elevation on ASR
damage on concrete and concluded that the expansion of the Accelerated Concrete Prism Test specimens was 3.22 times faster than of

5
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

0.7 y = 0.0758x+0.0899
R2 = 0.2184
100
0.6

80 0.5

0.4
60

0.3

40
0.2

0.1
20

0.0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
FR FR
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. (a) Histogram of reactive fine aggregate content (FR) to cement ratio distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against FR with fitting.

70 0.7
y = - 0.0669x + 0.2016
R2 = 0.2333
60 0.6

0.5
50

0.4
40

0.3
30

0.2
20

0.1
10

0.0

0
0 1 2 3 4 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
CNR CNR
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. (a) Histogram of reactive coarse aggregate content (CNR) to cement ratio distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against CNR with fitting.

the CPT specimens with an increase of 12 ℃ temperature from 38 to 50 ℃. It has been reported that the main determining factor for
the ASR expansion is the hydrostatic pressure generated by the microscopic structures in cement and it decreases with the further
increase of temperatures [63]. Furthermore, despite the fact that researchers have tried to establish the relationship between the
elevated temperature and the expansion, the exact model is yet to be proposed and there still are several significant questions that
remain unanswered [63]. Fig. 8(a) shows the data distribution of exposure temperature. It should be noticed that the majority of data
gathered is 38 ℃ as required by the testing requirement per standards and this may lead to the lack of variations in the data series of
temperatures from the aspect of analytical analysis. Meanwhile, Fig. 8(b) indicates that expansion induced by ASR does not have
significant correlation with exposure temperature. This behaviour might be attributed to a) the lack of variation in temperature data
obtained in the database, hence, exhibiting no or weak correlation between the two variables statistically; b) the correlation obtained
from linear fitting is circumscribed because of the neglecting of effects of other governing parameters which will be affecting ASR

6
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

0.7
y = 0.0571x+0.0701
80 R2 = 0.2812
0.6
70

0.5
60

50 0.4

40 0.3

30
0.2

20
0.1

10
0.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
CR CR
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. (a) Histogram of reactive coarse aggregate content (CR) to cement ratio distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against CR with fitting.

0.7 y = - 0.0001x+0.1395
140 R2 = 7E-05

0.6
120
0.5

100
0.4
80
0.3
60
0.2

40
0.1
20
0.0
0
40 45 50 55 60 35 40 45 50 55 60
T (℃ ) T (℃ )
(a) (b)

Fig. 8. (a) Histogram of exposure temperature (T) distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against T with fitting.

simultaneously. On the other hand, this also reveals the potential for pioneer researchers to investigate the effects of multiple variables
on ASR by control variable.

2.7. Relative humidity, RH

Relative humidity (RH) is also vital for ASR since it provides extra moisture that will ignite and accelerate ASR where water is a
critical media and acts as a transporter of alkali ions in cement matrix [65], and the water effect associated with RH has been
comprehensively studied by researchers [16,57,58,65,66]. Larive et al. [66] claimed that water appears to have a double effect on ASR
by acting as a reactive agent that influences the expansion rate at the time of formation of the reaction product and as a transport agent
of different reactive species. The reaction and expansion may be constrained or stopped by reducing the exposure to water. However,

7
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

the expansion will be re-developed at a rapid pace after the concrete has preserved the necessary relative humidity (RH). It also has
been reported that high humidity (80% ~ 85%) is critical to trigger the reaction and hence the development of expansion [59]. The
study also reported that ASR or expansion of a mixture with highly reactive aggregate might not exist if it is exposed to a low RH.
Moreover, Multon et al. [67] also conducted experiments on ASR expansion with delaying water supply and concluded that later water
supply causes new ASR expansion in concrete if the maximum expansion potential has not been reached due to lack of available water.
Meanwhile, studies also pointed out that high alkali content in cement will also lower the threshold of RH that initiates ASR and hence
expansion. Fig. 9(a) shows that the majority of experimental data is falling between 95% and 100% because specimens under this
range of RH are most susceptible to ASR and expansion. Fig. 9(b) shows the correlation between ASR expansion and relative humidity
as concrete suffers more through ASR expansion at a high RH and this is agreed with the conclusions from previous literature.

3. Previous prediction models

In order to understand the mechanisms behind this reaction and expansion, allow to evaluate the current states of existing concrete
structures, as well as improve the overall stability of these existing structures, estimating ASR and associated expansion has become
tremendously important. Few prediction models have been proposed based on different purposes to satisfy the demand [21]. On the
other hand, models such as Lattice discrete model and regression model based on ASR strains at different days will not be able to
estimate the strain at later ages considering the effects of mix proportion and fraction and silica/alkali content, reactive fine or coarse
aggregates, etc.

3.1. Lattice discrete particle model

Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM) proposed by Cusatis et al. [68] is one of the most studied and reliable models for
concrete-related aspects. Discrete compatibility and equilibrium equations were used to formulate the governing equations of the
LDPM computational framework. LDPM originated from Discrete Particle Model (DPM) and Modelling and Analysis of the Response of
Structures (MARS) computational environment that incorporates long-range contact capabilities typical of the classical formulation of
Discrete Element Methods (DEM) [68]. This feature is significant in simulating pervasive failure and fragmentation. In LDPM, the
deformation of the lattice/particle system is described by particle rigid body kinematics, and the displacement jump, ⟦uc⟧, at the
centroid of each facet is used to define measures of strain in Eq. (1).

nT ⟦uC ⟧ lT ⟦uC ⟧ mT ⟦uC ⟧

eN = ; eL = ; eM = (1)
l l l
In which, l is the interparticle distance; and n, l, m are unit vectors defining a local system of reference attached to each facet. Then,
in the elastic regime, the normal and shear stresses are proportional to the corresponding strains as:
tN = EN eN ; tM = Eγ eM ; tL = Eγ eL (2)

100 0.7 y = 0.0014x+0.008

R2 = 0.0258

0.6

80

0.5

60 0.4

0.3

40

0.2

20 0.1

0.0

0
20 40 60 80 100 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
RH (%) RH (%)
(a) (b)

Fig. 9. (a) Histogram of relative humidity (RH) distribution; (b) expansion @ 180 days against RH with fitting.

8
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

where EN =E0, Eγ = αE0, E0 =effective normal modulus and α is shear-normal coupling parameter. To account for ASR in LDPM, Eq. (3)
the volume variation of the ASR gel due to water imbibition can be used to calculate the radius variation of each aggregate particle of
initial radius r = D/2:
3Mi
Δr = ( + r3 )1/3 − r (3)
4πρw

Then an incompatible ASR strain, e0N can be calculated to be applied to the LDPM system assuming that strain additivity holds:

eN = etN + e0N (4)

where e0N = (Δr1 + Δr2 − δc )/l, and Δr1 , Δr2 are the radius change of the two aggregate particles sharing a generic facet, and etN is the
stress-depend normal strain calculated according to the LDPM constitutive equation. The proposed model can also account for the
influence of pessimum aggregate size, which is commonly defined as the aggregate size that generates the most expansion over a fixed
time interval. LDPM has been successfully applied in modelling ASR, such as Alnaggar et al. [69] proposed a novel approach entitled
ASR-LDPM, which is able to predict accurately the expansion, cracking distribution induced by ASR under varying alkali contents and
temperature effect over both space and time. However, LDPM still needs to be verified by performing numerical simulations and
comparing numerical results with experimental data.

3.2. ASR decay model

Islam et al. [70] proposed an ASR decay model (ADM) based on a regression model which was well suited with the mortar
expansion over the ASTM C 1260 (accelerated mortar bar test) duration to predict the ultimate mortar expansion and time to reach
50%, 75%, 90% and 95% of the ultimate mortar expansion of each aggregate group for the 1.0 N, 0.5 N and 0.25 N NaOH solutions.
The expansion data under the 1.0 N, 0.5 N, and 0.25 N NaOH solutions are shown in Eqs. (5) – (7):

For 1.0N NaOH : Expult = 0.902(Exp28 )− 1.18

(Exp56 )2.20 (5)

For 0.50N NaOH : Expult = 1.100(Exp28 )− 0.45

(Exp56 )1.38 (6)

For 0.25N NaOH : Expult = 0.605(Exp28 )− 1.18

(Exp56 )2.10 (7)
Utilising the mortar expansions measured at the test durations of 14 and 28 days, alternative regression models are shown in Eqs.
(8) – (10):

For 1.0N NaOH : Expult = 0.915(Exp14 )− 1.39

(Exp28 )2.28 (8)

For 0.50N NaOH : Expult = 0.718(Exp14 )− 1.40

(Exp28 )2.12 (9)

For 0.25N NaOH : Expult = 51.13(Exp14 )0.52 (Exp28 )1.24 (10)

where Expult is the ultimate mortar expansion; Exp14, Exp28 and Exp56 are the mortar expansions at 14, 28 and 56 days respectively.
The prediction models were also applied to the database that was established in this study, which gave results with poor accuracies.
Poor estimates might be attributed to that ADM was developed specifically based on ASTM C 1260, whichparticularly requires detailed
aggregate reactivity data.

4. Model configuration and development

4.1. Model configuration

This study aims to develop and propose a prediction model that can produce relatively accurate estimates using mix deign pa­
rameters as well as environmental variables such as exposure temperature and relative humidity. To handle such a complicated
problem, a back-propagation neural network model (BPNN) was chosen to achieve the objective. BPNN model is consisted of three
layers, namely input layer, hidden layer, and output layer. Layers are connected by numerous neurons (or cells). The connections
between neurons in different layers can be expressed as
∑n
( ))
yj = f ( wji xi + bji (11)
j=1

where wji is the weighting between neurons i in upper layer and neuron j in lower layer, xi is the output from neuron i, bji is the bias
between neurons i and j, f is the activation function (transfer function) that is used to map inputs from previous layer to a given range, yj
is the output from neuron j [22]. In this paper, the activation function selected for hidden layer is tangent sigmoid function as

9
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

2
f (x) = 2x
− 1 (12)
1 + e−
In training process, iteration loop will be broken when mean squared error (MSE) is less than the pre-defined training goal, and
training stops [22].
∑
n
MSE = 1/n (yi − ŷi )2 (13)
i=1

where yi and yˆi are the predictions from model and labels, respectively.
In this study, two types of training functions were used to compare the performances. Levenberg-Marquardt training algorithm
(LM) is one of the most used training algorithms nowadays due to its fast computation speed, convergence, and generalisation capacity
[21,28,71]. LM’s superiority is mainly attributed to its early stopping technique which is used to prevent overfitting. Another
commonly used training function is named Bayesian regularisation backpropagation (BR) which is based on Levenberg-Marquardt
backpropagation but with introducing a L2 regularization term to prevent overfitting [22]. With this function, the validation pro­
cess was performed with data from the training set to tune other hyperparameters.
Hyperparameters to be tuned for BPNN model comprise learning rate and number of hidden neurons in each hidden layer. The
BPNN to be further studied is selected to be single hidden layer with numerous hidden neurons. Learning rate is defined as step size at
each iteration while moving toward a global minimum of a loss function. Specifically, the learning rate is a configurable hyper­
parameter used in the training of neural networks with a small positive value. In this study, learning rate ranging from 0.001 to 0.01
was selected as the margin for tuning the relatively best learning rate. Similarly, number of hidden neurons in hidden layer ranging
from 7 to 20 was decided for typicality. To determine the relatively best learning rate and number of hidden neurons, the database was
supposed to be split into training set, validation set, and test set at a ratio of 70%, 15%, and 15% as required by the model. However,
due to the limited size of database, this partition might cause significant information loss and hence cause under-fitting and weak
estimation. In this case, the database was split into training set and test set at a ratio of 70%/30%. Thus, k-fold cross-validation was
conducted to tune hyperparameters. According to the size of the database, 8-fold cross-validation was employed to tune the
hyperparameters.

4.2. Results for tuning hyperparameters

Each loop of cross-validation for both models with LM and BR was repeated 100 times at each learning rate of number of hidden
neurons to obtain the frequency distribution of where the minimum MSE is locating at. Fig. 10 shows the cross-validation results for a)
learning rate and b) number of hidden neurons. After 100 repeats, results indicated that a learning rate of 0.009 produced 35 times of
occurrence of minimum MSE for LM model while BR model with a learning rate of 0.005 gave the highest accuracy. Similarly, LM
model with 18 hidden neurons gave 16 times of minimum MSE and BR model with 11 neurons produced 13 times of lowest MSE.

40 18
BR BR
LM LM
35 16

14
30

12
25

10
Count

Count

20
8

15
6

10
4

5 2

0 0
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Learning rate Number of hidden neurons
(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Histogram of frequencies producing minimum MSE a) learning rate; b) number of hidden neurons.

10
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

Therefore, the learning rate and number of hidden neurons were set to be 0.009 and 18 for LM BPNN and 0.005 and 11 for BR BPNN
model.

4.3. Results and discussion

To assess the performance of models, each model was trained 20 times to obtain mean statistics. Results were summarised in
Table 3. Test results indicate that BR-BPNN could produce slightly more accurate estimates than LM-BPNN model since the lowest MSE
of BR-BPNN was 0.0029% and it was 23.68% less than that of LM-BPNN model. However, it should also be noticed that although BR-
BPNN model produced a relatively lower MSE under extreme condition, it also gave the largest MSE of 0.00452%, which is 5.8 times
higher than the maximum MSE obtained by LM-BPNN model. Moreover, LM-BPNN model also generated a relatively lower average
MSE of 0.0079% compared to BR-BPNN model (0.0134%) and less standard deviation for MSE, meaning LM-BPNN model could
produce more stable results with less variations. These observations can also be confirmed by the values of R. However, both models
can produce relatively good estimates since both models had low MSE and high R.
After training, the overall performance of both models was assessed by the test set data. Results can be viewed in Fig. 11. LM-BPNN
model had a MSE of 0.00209% and a R of 0.926 for test set data while MSE and R obtained for test set for BR-BPNN model were
0.002753 and 0.912, respectively. Results indicate that both models can produce reasonable predictions. Mathematical expressions of
both proposed LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN models can be viewed as Eq. (14) and (15) for LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN, respectively. Where the
first matrix (18 × 9 and 11 × 9) of both equations is the weightings between input layer and hidden layers, and the second 9 × 1 matrix
is the input values in the input layer. The third matrix (18 × 1 and 11 × 1) is the biases between input layers and 18 and 11 neurons in
the hidden layer respectively, and the next matrix (18 × 1 and 11 × 1) is the weightings between hidden layer and output layer. The
last real number of both equations is the bias of output layer of each model. In order to minimise the computation work, input data
needs to be mapped from 0 to 1 before the prediction is performed. And similarly, output values from each model should be mapped
back.
⎛⎡ ⎤
0.2173 2.3935 − 1.7368 − 1.5216 1.6528 − 0.4057 0.5794 1.1232 − 1.5524
⎜⎢ 1.7636 − 0.5903 0.2175 2.5423 − 0.9801 − 1.0581 2.0057 − 1.4257 0.6643 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.7505 0.5048 1.9644 − 0.9335 0.9654 1.8275 − 0.2403 − 0.6210 1.4816 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.6760 − 1.3914 1.1010 − 2.5517 1.8019 1.2011 0.5168 0.8885 − 1.7553 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.1219 − 0.0626 1.0622 − 1.1567 0.1732 0.1348 − 2.2201 − 0.5772 − 1.8856 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 2.2012 − 1.8615 1.3776 1.9988 − 1.9480 0.0851 0.4179 − 0.6935 0.2596 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.4616 − 1.6167 0.6981 0.2511 1.6462 1.8011 0.4089 − 1.6646 1.5984 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 0.4444 − 1.9339 − 0.4018 2.7976 − 0.2420 − 1.2077 − 0.0344 − 2.7411 0.9659 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 1.4836 − 1.3669 − 0.8118 0.5390 − 0.5451 − 0.7482 2.4272 2.1607 0.6256 ⎥
EXP180 = tansig⎜ ⎢
⎜⎢ − 0.6215 0.2943 − 0.4760 2.0180 − 4.2649 − 0.9930 2.3967 − 0.1921 − 0.0684 ⎥
⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 2.0643 0.7566 − 0.4908 2.5119 − 1.9081 − 1.9457 0.6616 1.6991 0.2081 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.3282 0.6397 − 0.6399 − 0.7857 − 0.6213 − 1.5678 − 1.9138 − 1.1925 2.3443 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.1983 − 0.3125 2.4884 0.5006 − 1.0907 0.8707 − 0.7331 2.7724 − 1.3830 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 0.0378 2.0033 − 2.0924 0.8226 1.3595 − 1.4665 − 1.0742 1.6288 0.5214 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 0.0353 0.8179 0.2845 − 0.9524 − 0.5823 − 2.0566 − 2.4850 − 1.4476 0.3138 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 0.7434 − 0.7920 − 1.8932 − 1.0300 2.0149 − 2.0659 1.1313 1.9471 0.5897 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎝⎣ 0.3953 1.1996 − 1.7096 1.7124 − 1.6065 1.8163 − 1.6734 − 0.3946 2.3973 ⎦
− 0.8820 − 0.1505 3.1280 1.4371 − 1.2523 − 0.7526 2.9913 0.5246 0.1495
⎛ ⎡ ⎤ ⎞ ⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎞T
3.2820 1.3867
⎜ ⎢ − 3.5640 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 1.0228 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜ w ⎢ 2.8998 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 0.0505 ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ c ⎥ ⎢ 2.8193 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 1.5195 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ C ⎥ ⎢ 2.9456 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 0.6500 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1.1978 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 1.9003 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
Na O
⎜⎢ 2 eq ⎥ ⎢ 1.1980 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 1.7469 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ FR ⎥ ⎢ 0.4371 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 1.0660 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − 0.1342 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 1.9381 ⎥ ⎟
×⎜ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ FNR ⎥ + ⎢ 0.1738 ⎥ ⎟ × ⎜⎢ − 2.0155 ⎥ ⎟ − 0.4552 (14)
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − 0.8418 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 1.2273 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ CR ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − 0.9098 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 0.6155 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ CNR ⎥ ⎢ − 2.2053 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 1.0495 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2.0087 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 0.7456 ⎥ ⎟
⎜⎢ T ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜⎣ ⎦ ⎢ − 2.5404 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 0.3040 ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎜ RH ⎢ 2.9561 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 0.9487 ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎝ ⎣ − 2.9752 ⎦ ⎠ ⎝⎣ − 1.1402 ⎦ ⎠
− 4.1355 − 1.4731

11
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

Table 3
Performance summary of LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN for 20 repeats with training set.
Statistical Parameters LM-BPNN BR-BPNN

MSE, % Max. 0.0109 0.0452

Min. 0.0038 0.0029
Mean 0.0079 0.0134
S. D 0.0019 0.0099
R Max. 0.9112 0.9185
Min. 0.7558 0.7238
Mean 0.8137 0.8132
S. D 0.0425 0.0593

⎛⎡ ⎤
− 0.5161 2.3112 − 1.9616 0.0646 − 2.0763 0.2188 − 0.3002 − 0.2325 − 2.2969
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 4.4914 1.2895 − 2.9292 − 0.7891 − 2.1116 − 1.5620 0.3702 − 0.1862 − 1.1191 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 0.2019 − 1.3139 0.2870 2.4192 − 0.1467 − 1.4775 1.8432 − 2.5510 − 2.4852 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 0.6549 1.0314 2.7754 − 0.2538 − 1.2756 − 0.5832 1.3457 0.8634 0.9281 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.7431 0.5815 0.1650 − 0.4562 0.1943 0.4752 − 0.4160 − 0.2563 0.8612 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
EXP180 = tansig⎜⎢ 0.5474 − 1.7060 − 0.7071 0.0389 2.9320 − 1.7410 0.5255 − 0.4865 − 1.3042 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 0.9346 1.7914 3.2596 − 1.0198 − 0.8341 0.7321 4.3763 0.0967 1.2756 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 0.4197 − 0.9316 − 0.0337 0.6376 − 3.3448 1.4673 − 0.2267 0.6334 − 0.5146 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ 1.6050 0.2704 2.1727 − 0.6390 0.4414 1.2306 − 1.6926 − 0.9546 0.7349 ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ ⎥
⎜⎢ − 1.1130 − 1.4119 − 0.5750 − 1.1402 0.6238 − 0.5397 − 0.9582 0.3429 − 1.6554 ⎥
⎝⎣ ⎦
− 3.0058 − 1.2798 − 0.7938 − 1.4193 1.0153 1.0209 − 1.8099 − 0.0165 − 2.8990
⎡ ⎤⎞ ⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎞T (15)
1.1476 2.8837
⎡ ⎢
⎤ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
w/c ⎢ − 0.7504 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 3.0317 ⎥ ⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ C ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − 0.2831 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 3.2049 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢
⎥⎟
⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢ Na2 Oeq ⎥ ⎢ − 0.9696 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 3.7207 ⎥ ⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥
⎢ FR ⎥ ⎢ − 0.1242 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ − 3.2714 ⎥ ⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢
⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢
⎥⎟
⎥⎟
×⎢ F
⎢ NR ⎥ ⎢
⎥ + ⎢ 2.2604 ⎥ ⎟ × ⎜⎢ 3.5196 ⎥ ⎟ − 1.6830
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ CR ⎥ ⎢ − 0.6009 ⎥ ⎥
⎟ ⎜⎢ 3.5429 ⎥ ⎟
⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥
⎢ CNR ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢
1.2147 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 2.4491 ⎥ ⎟
⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ T ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ − 1.6306 ⎥⎥
⎟ ⎜⎢ 2.5061 ⎥ ⎟
⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ ⎥⎟
RH ⎢ − 0.4934 ⎥ ⎟ ⎜⎢ 2.7828 ⎥ ⎟
⎣ ⎦ ⎠ ⎝⎣ ⎦⎠
1.8487 − 4.1424

5. Input variable contribution

Although BPNN is a powerful statistical modelling technique and has been successfully employed in the field of construction
materials, they provide insufficient information about the contributions of the input variables in the prediction process [72].
Therefore, this study tends to investigate the relative importance analysis to partition explained variance among various input vari­
ables, thus, having a better understanding of ASR and expansion.
Several studies have been conducted on the study contributions of input variables for ANN models and several methods have been
proposed for assessing the contribution of model inputs have been proposed. Olden et al. examined methods including Neural
Interpretation Diagram, Garson’s algorithm and sensitivity analysis, compared different methodologies for assessing variable
contribution in ANN, and proposed an approach named connection weight method which was proven to be able to produce the least
biased among others. The connection weights approach determines the relative contribution of ANN model inputs is demonstrated as
the following expression [73].

12
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

R=0.926 R=0.912

0.6
0.4

0.5

0.3
0.4
Estimates (%)

Estimates (%)
0.2 0.3

0.2
0.1

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Labels (%) Labels (%)
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Fitness plot for estimates against labels a) LM-BPNN; b) BR-BPNN.

∑
m
RI x = wxy wyz (16)
y=1

Where Rij is the relative importance of input neuron x; m denotes the number of the hidden neurons; z is output neurons; and
∑m
y=1 wxy wyz is sum of product of final weights of the connection from input neuron to hidden neurons with the connection from hidden
neurons to outputs neuron.
In order to determine the relative importance of each input variable in the network, the algorithm in this study uses the absolute
values of the products of the final weights of the connections based on the connection weights approach as illustrated in the following
equation.
⃒ ⃒
∑m ⃒wxy wyz ⃒
RI x = m ⃒
∑ ⃒ (17)
x=1 ⃒wxy wyz ⃒
y=1

It is important to note that this algorithm uses the absolute values when calculating variable contributions, and therefore the

BR-BPNN
LM-BPNN
RH

T
Input variables

CR

CNR

FR

FNR

Alkali content

w/c

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Relative contribution (%)

Fig. 12. Relative contribution of input variables of LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN.

13
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

Table 4
Difference in relative contribution of LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN.
LM-BPNN BR-BPNN

Input variables Mean relative contribution (S.D) Rank Mean relative contribution (S.D) Rank

w/c 10.58 (1.67) 6 10.62 (2.25) 5

C 11.43 (1.61) 4 10.16 (1.88) 7
Na2 Oeq 11.77 (1.63) 2 12.30 (2.89) 4
FNR 10.51 (1.29) 7 10.11 (2.84) 8
FR 12.33 (1.96) 1 12.82 (2.75) 2
CNR 10.38 (1.86) 8 10.37 (1.93) 6
CR 11.73 (1.63) 3 12.74 (2.38) 3
T 10.26 (2.07) 9 8.01 (1.83) 9
RH 11.02 (1.81) 5 12.86 (2.65) 1
Sum 100 100

direction of the relationship between the input and output variables are not provided. However, there will be an enhancement pro­
vided by the results obtained from the connection weights approach.
Results from the connection weights approach for calculating relative contributions of inputs variables of both models can be
viewed in Fig. 12. There is a similarity of the relative contributions from both models. It is clearly seen that the impact of 9 input
variables have similar relative importance levels for both models. However, as demonstrated in Fig. 12 and Table 4, it can be seen that
the impact of fine reactive (Rank 1 and 2) and coarse reactive (Rank 3 and 3) aggregate content is dominant on expansion induced by
ASR compared to the rest variables for both models. It also reflects the conclusion obtained by Multon et al. [9] as the size of reactive
aggregates significantly influences the measured expansions and this is also known as pessimum effect.
The size of reactive aggregates is an important variable that needs to be considered to measure the expansion induced by ASR in
various experiments. Nevertheless, it will be not a comprehensive evaluation, if the other influencing factors’ effects are neglected. For
both models, the contribution of the proportion of sodium oxide equivalent and relative humidity to the output is also significant,
which is consistent with the common conclusion from the literature. Other input variables, water-to-cement ratio, proportion of
cement, fine and coarse non-reactive aggregates and temperature also have certain impacts on the ASR-induced expansion but at lower
levels. As shown in Table 4, each input variables have a relatively high standard deviation, which means that in each training and
testing, the dominant variable can be different.

6. Conclusion

This study firstly proposes two types of BPNN models incorporating different training functions, namely LM and BR using mix
design parameters such as water-to-cement ratio, cement content, alkali content, non-reactive fine aggregate content, reactive fine
aggregate content, non-reactive coarse aggregate, content of reactive coarse aggregate, and environmental parameters including
exposure temperature and relative humidity; and evaluate the relative importance or contribution of each input variables by using
connection weights approach. The conclusions of this study can be summarised as:

• Data aggregation reveals that with an increasing water-to-cement ratio, ASR expansion is reversely proportional to the water-to-
cement ratio, meaning with more water content, ASR expansion reduces.
• Exposure temperature is deemed as one of the most critical factors affecting ASR expansion. However, regression results indicate a
weak correlation between ASR expansion and temperature. This is mainly attributed to the lack of variations in data due to the
temperature requirement of testing standards. Beside, this undesired behaviour may also be caused by the neglect of the effects of
other governing parameters.
• The database compiled shows non-uniform distributed data for relative humidity because most of the literature agrees that high
humidity will initiate and accelerate ASR and expansion induced and under a low humidity environment, specimen might exhibit
inertness to ASR or ASR and expansion development might be decelerated.
• The proposed LM-BPNN and BR-BPNN models are deemed to be able to produce reasonable estimates for expansion at 180 days
using mix design and environmental parameters. The LM-BPNN model gave a MSE and R of 0.00209% and 0.926 for the test set,
respectively while the BR-BPNN model gave a MSE and R of 0.002753% and 0.912, respectively. By comparing the results of
maximum, minimum, average, and standard deviation obtained from the training process, it can be noticed that BR-BPNN’s
performance is slightly weaker than LM-BPNN model. However, to further study the difference in overall performance between the
two models, more accurate evaluations should be performed in future study.
• By taking the advantage of the connection weights approach, the relative contribution of the input variables was assessed in this
study. Among the 9 input variables, the proportion of fine reactive and coarse reactive aggregate is dominant in expansion induced
by ASR compared to the rest variables for both models. In addition, the contribution of proportion of sodium oxide equivalent and
relative humidity to the output is also significant for both models. Water-to-cement ratio, proportion of cement, fine and coarse
non-reactive aggregates and temperature have certain impacts on the ASR-induced expansion but at lower levels.

14
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

[1] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, 4th ed.,, McGraw-Hill Education,, New York, 2014.
[2] Deschenes Jr. R.A. Mitigation and Evaluation of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) and Freezing and Thawing in Concrete Transportation Structures. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. [Ann Arbor]: University of Arkansas PP - United States – Arkansas; 2017.
[3] S. Diamond, A review of alkali-silica reaction and expansion mechanisms 1. Alkalies in cements and in concrete pore solutions, Cem. Concr. Res 5 (4) (1975)
329–345.
[4] O. Na, Y. Xi, E. Ou, V.E. Saouma, The effects of alkali-silica reaction on the mechanical properties of concretes with three different types of reactive aggregate,
Struct. Concr. 17 (1) (2016) 74–83.
[5] S.H. Diab, A.M. Soliman, M.R. Nokken, Changes in mechanical properties and durability indices of concrete undergoing ASR expansion, Constr. Build. Mater.
251 (2020), 118951.
[6] B.P. Gautam, D.K. Panesar, S.A. Sheikh, F.J. Vecchio, Effect of coarse aggregate grading on the ASR expansion and damage of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res 95
(2017) 75–83.
[7] L.F.M. Sanchez, B. Fournier, M. Jolin, D. Mitchell, J. Bastien, Overall assessment of Alkali-Aggregate Reaction (AAR) in concretes presenting different strengths
and incorporating a wide range of reactive aggregate types and natures, Cem. Concr. Res 93 (2017) 17–31.
[8] J. Lindgård, Ö. Andiç-Çakir, I. Fernandes, T.F. Rønning, M.D.A. Thomas, Alkali-silica reactions (ASR): Literature review on parameters influencing laboratory
performance testing, Cem. Concr. Res 42 (2) (2012) 223–243.
[9] S. Multon, M. Cyr, A. Sellier, P. Diederich, L. Petit, Effects of aggregate size and alkali content on ASR expansion, Cem. Concr. Res 40 (4) (2010) 508–516.
[10] S. Multon, M. Cyr, A. Sellier, N. Leklou, L. Petit, Coupled effects of aggregate size and alkali content on ASR expansion, Cem. Concr. Res 38 (3) (2008) 350–359.
[11] R. Esposito, C. Anaç, M.A.N. Hendriks, O. Çopuroğlu, Influence of the Alkali-Silica Reaction on the Mechanical Degradation of Concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28
(6) (2016).
[12] S. Poyet, A. Sellier, B. Capra, G. Foray, J.M. Torrenti, H. Cognon, et al., Chemical modelling of Alkali Silica reaction: Influence of the reactive aggregate size
distribution, Mater. Struct. Constr. 40 (2) (2007) 229–239.
[13] N. Smaoui, M.A. Bérubé, B. Fournier, B. Bissonnette, B. Durand, Effects of alkali addition on the mechanical properties and durability of concrete, Cem. Concr.
Res 35 (2) (2005) 203–212.
[14] C. Yüksel, A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, A. Beglarigale, H. Yazıcı, K. Ramyar, Ö. Andiç-Çakır, Influence of water/powder ratio and powder type on alkali–silica
reactivity and transport properties of self-consolidating concrete, Mater. Struct. Constr. 49 (1–2) (2016) 289–299.
[15] A. Abd-Elssamd Y. Le Pape, N.W. Hayes, and M. Guimaraes ZJM. Effect of Alkali-Silica Reaction Expansion Rate and Confinement on Concrete Degradation. ACI
Mater J. 117[1].
[16] B.P. Gautam, D.K. Panesar, The effect of elevated conditioning temperature on the ASR expansion, cracking and properties of reactive Spratt aggregate concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 310–320.
[17] G. Giaccio, M. Torrijos, J.M. Tobes, O.R. Batic, R. Zerbino, Development of alkali-silica reaction under compressive loading and its effects on concrete behavior
106 (2009) 223–230.
[18] S. Rahimi-Aghdam, Z.P. Bažant, Importance of creep and ASR gel diffusion in predicting ASR induced expansion, Hormig. Y. Acero 69 (2018) 3–14.
[19] Y. Kawabata, J.F. Seignol, R.P. Martin, F. Toutlemonde, Macroscopic chemo-mechanical modeling of alkali-silica reaction of concrete under stresses, Constr.
Build. Mater. 137 (2017) 234–245.
[20] V. Saouma, L. Perotti, Const. Model Alkali-Aggreg. React. (2007) 103.
[21] T. Nguyen, Y. Yu, J. Li, N. Gowripalan, V. Sirivivatnanon, Elastic modulus of ASR-affected concrete: An evaluation using Artificial Neural Network, Comput.
Concr. 24 (2019) 541–553.
[22] Y. Zhang, F. Aslani, Compressive strength prediction models of lightweight aggregate concretes using ultrasonic pulse velocity, Constr. Build. Mater. 292 (2021),
123419.
[23] C.J. Lin, N.J. Wu, An ann model for predicting the compressive strength of concrete, Appl. Sci. 11 (9) (2021).
[24] Y.A. Al-Salloum, A.A. Shah, H. Abbas, S.H. Alsayed, T.H. Almusallam, M.S. Al-Haddad, Prediction of compressive strength of concrete using neural networks,
Comput. Concr. 10 (2) (2012) 197–217.
[25] D.H. Kim, Neuro-control of fixed offshore structures under earthquake, Eng. Struct. 31 (2) (2009) 517–522.
[26] A. Öztaş, M. Pala, E. Özbay, E. Kanca, N. Çaǧlar, M.A. Bhatti, Predicting the compressive strength and slump of high strength concrete using neural network,
Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (9) (2006) 769–775.
[27] A.M. Diab, H.E. Elyamany, A.E.M. Abd Elmoaty, A.H. Shalan, Prediction of concrete compressive strength due to long term sulfate attack using neural network,
Alex. Eng. J. 53 (3) (2014) 627–642.
[28] I.B. Topçu, M. Saridemir, Prediction of properties of waste AAC aggregate concrete using artificial neural network, Comput. Mater. Sci. 41 (1) (2007) 117–125.
[29] Z.H. Duan, S.C. Kou, C.S. Poon, Prediction of compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete using artificial neural networks, Constr. Build. Mater. 40
(2013) 1200–1206.
[30] R. Tabatabaei, H. Sanjaria, M. Shamsadini, The use of artificial neural networks in predicting ASR of concrete containing nano-silica, Comput. Concr. 13 (2014)
739–748.
[31] L. Yang, B. Lai, R. Xu, X. Hu, H. Su, G. Cusatis, et al., Prediction of alkali-silica reaction expansion of concrete using artificial neural networks, Cem. Concr.
Compos 140 (April) (2023), 105073.
[32] ASTM International. ASTM C 1260–22: Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). 22AD;
[33] ASTM International. ASTM C 1293–20a Standard Test Method For Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction. 2020.
[34] C. Carlos, M. Mancio, K. Shomglin, J. Harvey, P. Monteiro, A. Ali, Accelerated Laboratory Testing for Alkali-Silica Reaction Using ASTM 1293 and Comparison
with ASTM 1260, UC Pavement Res Cent. (November) (2004) 72.
[35] M. Khalifeh, J. Todorovic, T. Vrålstad, A. Saasen, H. Hodne, Long-term durability of rock-based geopolymers aged at downhole conditions for oil well cementing
operations, J. Sustain Cem. Mater. 6 (4) (2017) 217–230.
[36] H. Konduru, P. Rangaraju, O. Amer, Reliability of Miniature Concrete Prism Test in Assessing Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Moderately Reactive Aggregates, Transp.
Res Rec. 2674 (4) (2020) 23–29.
[37] J.H. Ideker, B.L. East, K.J. Folliard, M.D.A. Thomas, B. Fournier, The current state of the accelerated concrete prism test, Cem. Concr. Res 40 (4) (2010)
550–555.

15
F. Aslani et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 19 (2023) e02465

[38] K. Folliard, J. Ideker, Thomas MDA, B. Fournier, Assessing aggregate reactivity using the accelerated concrete prism test, Proc. Seven-.-. CANMET/Acids Int
Conf. Recent Adv. Concr. Technol. (2004 1) 269–283.
[39] C.F. Dunant, K.L. Scrivener, Effects of aggregate size on alkali-silica-reaction induced expansion, Cem. Concr. Res 42 (6) (2012) 745–751.
[40] Giannini E. Field Studies of Mitigation Strategies for Alkali-Silica Reaction in Hardened Concrete. 2009;[January].
[41] F. Bektas, K. Wang, Performance of ground clay brick in ASR-affected concrete: Effects on expansion, mechanical properties and ASR gel chemistry, Cem. Concr.
Compos 34 (2) (2012) 273–278.
[42] G. Giaccio, R. Zerbino, J.M. Ponce, O.R. Batic, Mechanical behavior of concretes damaged by alkali-silica reaction, Cem. Concr. Res 38 (7) (2008) 993–1004.
[43] Giannini E.R., Folliard K.J. Stiffness damage and mechanical testing of core specimens for the evaluation of structures affected by ASR. 14th ICAAR. 2012;
[May].
[44] I. Yurtdas, D. Chen, D.W. Hu, J.F. Shao, Influence of alkali silica reaction (ASR) on mechanical properties of mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 165–174.
[45] I. Bavasso, U. Costa, T. Mangialardi, A.E. Paolini, Assessment of alkali-silica reactivity of aggregates by concrete expansion tests in alkaline solutions at 38 ◦ C,
Mater. (Basel) 13 (2) (2020).
[46] L.F.M. Sanchez, B. Fournier, M. Jolin, J. Bastien, Evaluation of the stiffness damage test (SDT) as a tool for assessing damage in concrete due to ASR: Test loading
and output responses for concretes incorporating fine or coarse reactive aggregates, Cem. Concr. Res 56 (2014) 213–229.
[47] M. Sargolzahi, S.A. Kodjo, P. Rivard, J. Rhazi, Effectiveness of nondestructive testing for the evaluation of alkali-silica reaction in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
24 (8) (2010) 1398–1403.
[48] Munir M.J. Role of test method in detection of alkali – silica reactivity of concrete aggregates, 2017.
[49] N. Smaoui, M.A. Bérubé, B. Fournier, B. Bissonnette, B. Durand, Evaluation of the expansion attained to date by concrete affected by alkali-silica reaction. Part I:
Experimental study, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 31 (5) (2004) 826–845.
[50] P. Rivard, F. Saint-Pierre, Assessing alkali-silica reaction damage to concrete with non-destructive methods: From the lab to the field, Constr. Build. Mater. 23
(2) (2009) 902–909.
[51] S. Multon, F.-X. Barin, B. Godart, F. Toutlemonde, Estimation of the Residual Expansion of Concrete Affected by Alkali Silica Reaction, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (1)
(2008) 54–62.
[52] M. Pathirage, F. Bousikhane, M. D’Ambrosia, M. Alnaggar, G. Cusatis, Effect of alkali silica reaction on the mechanical properties of aging mortar bars:
Experiments and numerical modeling, Int J. Damage Mech. 28 (2) (2019) 291–322.
[53] T. Ahmed, E. Burley, S. Rigden, A.I.A.-T. Abu-Tair, The effect of alkali reactivity on the mechanical properties of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. (2003).
[54] C. Yüksel, A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, A. Beglarigale, H. Yazici, K. Ramyar, Ö. Andiç Çakir, Alkali-silica reaction expansions and the extent of alkali leaching in
concretes containing basalt and waste glass as aggregate, Tek. Dergi/Tech. J. Turk. Chamb. Civ. Eng. 28 (2) (2017) 7865–7882.
[55] P.J. Nixon, I. Sims, RILEM Recommended Test Method: AAR-3—Detection of Potential Alkali-Reactivity—38 ◦ C Test Method for Aggregate Combinations Using
Concrete Prisms BT - RILEM Recommendations for the Prevention of Damage by Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in New Concrete Structu, in: P.J. Nixon, I. Sims
(Eds.), Dordrecht, Springer, Netherlands, 2016, pp. 79–97.
[56] Nixon P., Sims I. RILEM Recommended Test Method: AAR-4.1—Detection of Potential Alkali-Reactivity—60 ◦ C Test Method for Aggregate Combinations Using
Concrete Prisms. In 2016. p. 99–116.
[57] R.B. Figueira, R. Sousa, L. Coelho, M. Azenha, J.M. de Almeida, P.A.S. Jorge, et al., Alkali-silica reaction in concrete: Mechanisms, mitigation and test methods,
Constr. Build. Mater. 222 (2019) 903–931.
[58] V.G. Haach, G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Loureno, Influence of aggregates grading and water/cement ratio in workability and hardened properties of mortars, Constr.
Build. Mater. 25 (6) (2011) 2980–2987.
[59] M.A. Bérubé, B. Fournier, Canadian experience with testing for alkali-aggregate reactivity in concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos 15 (1–2) (1993) 27–47.
[60] B.J. Wigum, Examination of microstructural features of Norwegian cataclastic rocks and their use for predicting alkali-reactivity in concrete, Eng. Geol. 40 (3–4)
(1995) 195–214.
[61] Y. Kawabata, K. Yamada, The mechanism of limited inhibition by fly ash on expansion due to alkali–silica reaction at the pessimum proportion, Cem. Concr. Res
92 (2017) 1–15.
[62] X.X. Gao, S. Multon, M. Cyr, A. Sellier, Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) expansion: Pessimum effect versus scale effect, Cem. Concr. Res 44 (2013) 25–33.
[63] B. Li, L. Baingam, K. Kurumisawa, T. Nawa, L. XiaoZhou, Micro-mechanical modelling for the prediction of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) expansion: Influence of
curing temperature conditions, Constr. Build. Mater. 164 (2018) 554–569.
[64] T. Ueda, J. Kushida, M. Tsukagoshi, A. Nanasawa, Influence of temperature on electrochemical remedial measures and complex deterioration due to chloride
attack and ASR, Constr. Build. Mater. 67 (2014) 81–87.
[65] E.O. Fanijo, J.T. Kolawole, A. Almakrab, Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete structures: Mechanisms, effects and evaluation test methods adopted in the
United States, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (May) (2021), e00563.
[66] Larive C., Laplaud A., Coussy O. The role of water in alkali-silica reaction, 2000. 61–69 p.
[67] S. Multon, F. Toutlemonde, Effect of moisture conditions and transfers on alkali silica reaction damaged structures, Cem. Concr. Res 40 (6) (2010) 924–934.
[68] G. Cusatis, D. Pelessone, A. Mencarelli, Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM) for failure behavior of concrete. I: Theory, Cem. Concr. Compos 33 (9) (2011)
881–890.
[69] M. Alnaggar, G. Cusatis, G. Di Luzio, Lattice Discrete Particle Modeling (LDPM) of Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) deterioration of concrete structures, Cem. Concr.
Compos 41 (2013) 45–59.
[70] M.S. Islam, Prediction of ultimate expansion of ASTM C 1260 for various alkali solutions using the proposed decay model, Constr. Build. Mater. 77 (2015)
317–326.
[71] Y. Zhang, F. Aslani, B. Lehane, Compressive strength of rubberized concrete: Regression and GA-BPNN approaches using ultrasonic pulse velocity, Constr. Build.
Mater. 307 (March) (2021), 124951.
[72] O.M. Ibrahim, A comparison of methods for assessing the relative importance of input variables in artificial neural networks, J. Appl. Sci. Res 9 (11) (2013)
5692–5700.
[73] J.D. Olden, D.A. Jackson, Illuminating the “black box”: Understanding variable contributions in artificial neural networks, Ecol. Model. 154 (2002) 135–150.

16