In-Situ Data-Driven Time-Dependent Durability Forecasting of Prefabricated Components Made with Recycled Aggregate Concrete
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
2.2. Component Manufacturing
2.3. Simulation of Coupled Effect of Loading and Environment
2.4. Experimental Testing
2.4.1. Crack Testing
2.4.2. Residual Flexural Performance Testing of Beam Components
2.4.3. Chloride Content Testing
2.4.4. Steel Reinforcement Corrosion Measurement
3. Results
3.1. Surface Crack Propagation of Components
3.2. Spatial Distribution of Chloride Ions
3.3. Reinforcement Corrosion Degree
3.4. Relationship Between Residual Flexural Capacity and Corrosion Degree of Tensile Longitudinal Reinforcement
4. Data-Driven Durability Prediction
4.1. Data-Driven Prediction Framework and Feature Vector Design
4.2. SVR and RFR Prediction Model Construction and Hyperparameter Optimization
4.2.1. Construction of Support Vector Regression (SVR) Mechanism
4.2.2. Construction of Random Forest Regression (RFR) Mechanism
4.2.3. Model Hyperparameter Optimization and Cross-Validation
- Specimen-Grouped Cross-Validation: Rather than naive random splitting, hyperparameter optimization for both the SVR and RFR models strictly implemented a Leave-One-Beam-Group-Out (specimen-grouped) cross-validation protocol. Under this scheme, all spatial measurement points ( grid locations along the span and across depths) originating from the same physical beam were clustered and assigned together exclusively to either the training or the validation fold. This prevents the learning algorithms from interpolating between neighboring spatial points on the same physical member during tuning.
- Blind Test Holdout: Two complete, physically independent 80-month exposure beam specimens ( spatial points across all response variables) were quarantined entirely from the cross-validation and hyperparameter selection pipelines, serving as an untouched blind test benchmark to rigorously evaluate forward spatiotemporal extrapolation. This strict separation between model development and final predictive validation adheres to established data-driven evaluation methodologies for concrete durability and strength prediction [34].
4.3. Feature Importance Analysis of Durability Influencing Factors Based on RFR
4.3.1. Principle of Feature Importance Calculation
4.3.2. Quantitative Decoupling of Dominant Factors Influencing Long-Term Durability Degradation of Components
4.4. Time-Dependent State Forward Extrapolation and Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Assessment
4.4.1. Comparative Analysis of Full-Life-Cycle Extrapolation Performance Between SVR and RFR
4.4.2. Material-Specific Time-Dependent Deduction of Residual Flexural Capacity of Components
4.4.3. Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Assessment and Operation & Maintenance Decision-Making
5. Conclusions
- Experimental Observations (0–80 Months): Natural atmospheric and sustained loading tests demonstrated that RAC100 beams experienced accelerated chloride ingress, higher localized rebar section loss, and pronounced spatial cracking compared to conventional concrete, primarily driven by multiple weak interfacial transition zones (ITZs) and porous adhered mortar under tension.
- Surrogate Interpolation & Feature Sensitivity: Under specimen-grouped cross-validation, the SVR surrogate effectively captured spatial durability fields (). Feature importance over the dynamic 0–80 month timeline revealed a transition from early stress/boundary dominance ( and spatial location contributing ) to long-term sensitivity governed by the composite RAC mix design ( contributing 36.8%), reflecting systemic material coupling.
- Physics-Constrained Projections & Maintenance Scenarios: Integrating physical boundary constraints and section equilibrium prevented unphysical extrapolation artifacts. Multi-stage inspection updates narrowed the projected total service life () of RAC100 to a median of 34.5 years (corresponding to an RUL of 27.8 years at the 80-month inspection). These projections outline illustrative maintenance scenarios, suggesting inspection alerts around years 18–20 prior to accelerated deterioration, which should be periodically updated with in-situ monitoring data.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xiao, J.Z.; Li, W.G.; Fan, Y.H.; Huang, X. An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011). Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 364–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Akbulut, Z.F.; Guler, S.; Yavuz, D.; Avcı, M.S. Toward sustainable construction: A critical review of recycled aggregate concrete properties and future opportunities. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 23, e05133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Xiao, J.; Poon, C.S.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ye, T.; Duan, Z.; Peng, L. Fundamental behavior of recycled aggregate concrete–overview II: Durability and enhancement. Mag. Concr. Res. 2022, 74, 1011–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Abdo, A.; El-Zohairy, A.; Alashker, Y.; Badran, M.A.E.; Ahmed, S. Effect of Treated/Untreated Recycled Aggregate Concrete: Structural Behavior of RC Beams. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ignjatović, I.S.; Marinković, S.B.; Tošić, N. Shear behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2017, 141, 386–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Chen, B.; Zhao, Y.; Peng, L. Long-term performance of recycled aggregate concrete beams exposed to 10 years of loading and chloride environments. Eng. Struct. 2025, 333, 120140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yan, Y.; Si, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, X. Durability of Nano-Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete under Load and Chloride Ingress. Materials 2022, 15, 6194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.; Yang, Z.; Lai, H.; Sub, H.; Du, J. Corrosion-induced cracking and flexural behavior of recycled aggregate concrete beams with carbonated recycled coarse and fine aggregates. Structures 2025, 81, 110377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yi, G.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Chen, B. Corrosion Characteristics and Flexural Performance of Carbonated Recycled Aggregate Concrete Beams in Corrosive Environments. Buildings 2025, 15, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhao, X.Y. Mesoscale modeling of recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial compression and tension using discrete element method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 268, 121116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhang, Z.; Zhao, R.; Zhao, R. Mesoscale simulation of chloride ion diffusion in five-phase recycled aggregate concrete. Int. Core J. Eng. 2025, 11, 173–186. [Google Scholar]
- Villagrán-Zaccardi, Y.A.; Zega, C.J.; Di Maio, A.A. Chloride Penetration and Binding in Recycled Concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2008, 20, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Du, X.L.; Jin, L.; Ma, G.W. A meso-scale numerical method for the simulation of chloride diffusivity in concrete. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2014, 85, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rong, G.; He, T.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xie, W. A review on chloride transport model and research method in concrete. Mater. Res. Express 2023, 10, 042002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wang, J.; Xu, Q. The combined effect of load and corrosion on the flexural performance of recycled aggregate concrete beams. Struct. Concr. 2023, 24, 544–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wang, J.; Su, H.; Du, J.; Yu, J. Corrosion-induced cracking of recycled aggregate concrete beams under static load. Struct. Build. 2023, 176, 800–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Xiang, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, Z.; Deng, J.; Cui, H.; Sun, G. Highly efficient resistance to chloride ion penetration and enhanced compressive strength in cement coupled with cationic polymer grafted nano-silica. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 478, 141420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Liang, C.F.; Lu, N.; Ma, H.W.; Ma, Z.M.; Duan, Z.H. Carbonation behavior of recycled concrete with CO2-curing recycled aggregate under various environments. J. CO2 Util. 2020, 39, 101185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Chinzorigt, G.; Lim, M.K.; Yu, M.; Lee, H.; Enkbold, O.; Choi, D. Strength, shrinkage and creep and durability aspects of concrete including CO2 treated recycled fine aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 136, 106062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhao, P.; Xu, G.; Wang, Q.; Tang, G. Influence of sustained load on corrosion characteristics of reinforced concrete beams under galvanostatic accelerated corrosion. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 215, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wang, J.; Su, H.; Du, J. Corrosion depth of steel bars in recycled aggregate concrete beams under static load. Struct. Build. 2024, 177, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Fu, C.; Jin, N.; Ye, H.; Jin, X.; Dai, W. Corrosion characteristics of a 4-year naturally corroded reinforced concrete beam with load-induced transverse cracks. Corros. Sci. 2017, 117, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Coronelli, D.; Hanjari, K.Z.; Lundgren, K. Severely corroded RC with cover cracking. J. Struct. Eng. 2013, 139, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhu, W.; François, R.; Coronelli, D.; Cleland, D. Effect of corrosion of reinforcement on the mechanical behaviour of highly corroded RC beams. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 544–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhao, Y.X.; Dong, J.F.; Wu, Y.Y. Steel corrosion and corrosion-induced cracking in recycled aggregate concrete. Corros. Sci. 2014, 85, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gamil, Y. Machine learning in concrete technology: A review of current researches, trends, and applications. Front. Built Environ. 2023, 9, 1145591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wattanapanich, C.; Imjai, T.; Sridhar, R.; Garcia, R.; Thomas, B.S. Optimizing recycled aggregate concrete for severe conditions through machine learning techniques: A review. Eng. Sci. 2024, 31, 1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Raju, M.R.; Ahmad, S.I.; Hasan, M.M.; Hasan, N.M.S.; Islam, M.M.; Basit, M.A.; Hossain, I.T.; Santo, S.A.; Alam, M.S.; Rahman, M. Machine learning for predicting strength properties of waste iron slag concrete. Heliyon 2025, 11, e42133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Bahmani, H.; Mostafaei, H.; Santos, P.; Ferrández, D. Concrete Material Variability and Machine Learning Model Performance: A Comprehensive Review. Buildings 2026, 16, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yang, Y.; Zhu, T.-T.; Zhao, X.; Luo, H.; Liu, B.-Y.; Kong, T.-T.; Tao, J.; Zhang, F. Improved Prediction of Freeze–Thaw Resistance of Steel-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete in Cold-Region Tunnels Based on Machine Learning. Buildings 2026, 16, 1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Safa, M.; Shariati, M.; Ibrahim, Z.; Toghroli, A.; Petkovic, D. Potential of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for evaluating the factors affecting steel-concrete composite beam’s shear strength. Steel Compos. Struct. 2016, 21, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zhu, W.; François, R. Structural performance of RC beams in relation with the corroded period in chloride environment. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 1757–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Shariat, M.; Shariati, M.; Madadi, A.; Wakil, K. Computational Lagrangian Multiplier Method by using for optimization and sensitivity analysis of rectangular reinforced concrete beams. Steel Compos. Struct. 2018, 29, 243–256. [Google Scholar]
- Shariati, M.; Mafipour, M.S.; Mehrabi, P.; Ahmadi, M.; Wakil, K.; Trung, N.T.; Toghroli, A. Prediction of concrete strength in presence of furnace slag and fly ash using Hybrid ANN-GA (Artificial Neural Network-Genetic Algorithm). Smart Struct. Syst. 2020, 25, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shariati, M.; Armaghani, D.J.; Khandelwal, M.; Khorami, M. Assessment of longstanding effects of fly ash and silica fume on the compressive strength of concrete using extreme learning machine and artificial neural network. J. Adv. Eng. Comput. 2021, 5, 50–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Safa, M.; Trung, N.T.; Fazli, A.S.; Zandi, Y.; Shariati, M.; Wakil, K.; Khorami, M. Moment rotation prediction of precast beam to column connections using extreme learning machine. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2022, 639–647. [Google Scholar]
- Taffese, W.Z.; Sistonen, E. Machine learning for durability and service-life assessment of reinforced concrete structures: Recent advances and future directions. Autom. Constr. 2017, 77, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Vu, K.; Stewart, M.G.; Mullard, J. Corrosion-induced cracking: Experimental data and predictive models. ACI Struct. J. 2005, 102, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Safa, M.; Sari, P.A.; Shariati, M.; Suhatril, M.; Trung, N.T.; Wakil, K.; Khorami, M. Development of neuro-fuzzy and neuro-bee predictive models for prediction of the safety factor of eco-protection slopes. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2020, 550, 124046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sharifi Ghalehnoei, M.; Javanmardi, A.; Izadifar, M.; Ukrainczyk, N.; Koenders, E. Finite element analysis of shear reinforcing of reinforced concrete beams with carbon fiber reinforced polymer grid-strengthened engineering cementitious composite. Buildings 2023, 13, 1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]














| Coarse Aggregate Type | Water Absorption (%) | Crushing Value (%) | Clay Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCA | 1.2 | 11.3 | 4.00 |
| NCA | 0.2 | 8.0 | 2.71 |
| Parameter/Indicator | NAC (0%) | RAC50 (50%) | RAC100 (100%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| OPC (kg/m3) | 400 | 400 | 400 |
| RCA (kg/m3) | 0 | 563 | 1125 |
| NCA (kg/m3) | 1125 | 563 | 0 |
| NFA (kg/m3) | 648 | 648 | |
| Mixing Water (kg/m3) | 177.6 | 177.6 + 5.63 | 177.6 + 11.25 |
| Effective w/c ratio (w/ceff) | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
| Slump (mm) | 165 ± 8 | 155 ± 10 | 150 ± 12 |
| Fresh Density (kg/m3) | 2350 ± 15 | 2305 ± 20 | 2260 ± 22 |
| 28 d Compressive Strength (MPa) | 31.1 ± 1.8 | 27.7 ± 2.1 | 25.7 ± 2.3 |
| 28 d Elastic Modulus (GPa) | 31.5 ± 1.2 | 28.2 ± 1.5 | 24.6 ± 1.7 |
| 28 d Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa) | 2.95 ± 0.21 | 2.52 ± 0.24 | 2.18 ± 0.26 |
| Steel Reinforcement Type | Diameter (mm) | Yield Strength (MPa) | Ultimate Strength (MPa) | Elastic Modulus (MPa) | Elongation (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile reinforcement | 12 | 349 | 508 | 202,000 | 22.6 |
| Erection and stirrup rebars | 8 | 318 | 497 | 214,000 | 20.8 |
| Beam Type | Main Crack Count | Mean Crack Spacing (mm) | Mean Crack Width (mm) | Maximum Crack Width (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAC | 6 | 115 | 0.59 | 2.04 |
| RAC50 | 7 | 102 | 0.38 | 1.35 |
| RAC100 | 10 | 97 | 0.30 | 1.31 |
| Concrete Type (Rr) | Exposure Age (t) | Evaluated Structural Units | Spatial Coordinate Points (Ncoord) | Chloride Profile Samples | Rebar Corrosion Segments | Surface Crack Records |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAC (0%) | 0, 20, 80 months | 4 beams (2 pairs) + companion blocks | 14 grid lines (x = 50–1350 mm) | 56 powder samples | 56 cut segments | 56 crack records |
| RAC50 (50%) | 0, 20, 80 months | 4 beams (2 pairs) + companion blocks | 14 grid lines (x = 50–1350 mm) | 56 powder samples | 56 cut segments | 56 crack records |
| RAC100 (100%) | 0, 20, 80 months | 4 beams (2 pairs) + companion blocks | 14 grid lines (x = 50–1350 mm) | 56 powder samples | 56 cut segments | 56 crack records |
| Total | — | 12 beams + control blocks | 42 grid trajectories | 168 observations | 168 observations | 168 observations |
| Model | Hyperparameter | Search Domain | Search Scale & Steps | Scoring Function | Optimal Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVR | Penalty factor (Cpenalty) | [10−1, 102] | log10 grid (15 steps) | Mean RMSE | 16 |
| Kernel parameter (γ) | [10−2, 101] | log10 grid (15 steps) | Mean RMSE | 0.1 | |
| Insensitive loss factor (ε) | [10−3, 0.5] | log10 grid (10 steps) | Mean RMSE | 0.01 | |
| RFR | Number of trees (nestimators) | [50, 500] | Linear step = 25 | Mean RMSE | 300 |
| Maximum tree (depth max_depth) | [3, 20] | Integer step = 1 | Mean RMSE | 8 | |
| Min leaf samples (min_samples_leaf) | [1, 10] | Integer step = 1 | Mean RMSE | 2 |
| Target Output | Model | R2 | RMSE | MAE | Bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chloride C(x,y,t) | SVR | 0.912 ± 0.024 | 0.038 ± 0.005% | 0.029 ± 0.004% | +0.002 ± 0.003% |
| RFR | 0.895 ± 0.029 | 0.043 ± 0.006% | 0.033 ± 0.005% | −0.003 ± 0.004% | |
| Corrosion ρc (x,t) | SVR | 0.926 ± 0.018 | 1.42 ± 0.18% | 1.08 ± 0.12% | +0.08 ± 0.11% |
| RFR | 0.908 ± 0.022 | 1.61 ± 0.21% | 1.24 ± 0.15% | −0.11 ± 0.14% | |
| Crack width w(x,t) | SVR | 0.884 ± 0.031 | 0.046 ± 0.007 mm | 0.035 ± 0.005 mm | +0.004 ± 0.005 mm |
| RFR | 0.871 ± 0.035 | 0.051 ± 0.008 mm | 0.039 ± 0.006 mm | −0.005 ± 0.006 mm |
| Target Metric | Concrete Type/Sub-Group | Sample Count (N) | SVR Train R2 | SVR Test R2 | SVR Test RMSE | SVR Test MAE | RFR Train R2 | RFR Test R2 | RFR Test RMSE | RFR Test MAE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chloride C(x,y,t) | NAC (0%) | 8 test/28 train | 0.934 | 0.925 | 0.027% | 0.021% | 0.951 | 0.898 | 0.033% | 0.026% |
| RAC50 (50%) | 10 test/28 train | 0.921 | 0.909 | 0.032% | 0.024% | 0.946 | 0.885 | 0.039% | 0.029% | |
| RAC100 (100%) | 10 test/28 train | 0.916 | 0.897 | 0.038% | 0.029% | 0.942 | 0.871 | 0.044% | 0.034% | |
| Tensile Zone | 18 test/54 train | 0.928 | 0.916 | 0.034% | 0.026% | 0.948 | 0.891 | 0.041% | 0.031% | |
| Shear/Comp. Zone | 10 test/30 train | 0.92 | 0.902 | 0.029% | 0.022% | 0.945 | 0.876 | 0.037% | 0.027% | |
| All Combined | 28 test/84 train | 0.924 | 0.911 | 0.033% | 0.025% | 0.947 | 0.886 | 0.039% | 0.030% | |
| Corrosion ρc (x,t) | NAC (0%) | 8 test/28 train | 0.942 | 0.931 | 1.26% | 0.94% | 0.962 | 0.906 | 1.48% | 1.12% |
| RAC50 (50%) | 10 test/28 train | 0.933 | 0.918 | 1.42% | 1.05% | 0.955 | 0.894 | 1.63% | 1.25% | |
| RAC100 (100%) | 10 test/28 train | 0.925 | 0.904 | 1.59% | 1.19% | 0.949 | 0.879 | 1.84% | 1.41% | |
| Tensile Zone | 18 test/54 train | 0.938 | 0.922 | 1.49% | 1.11% | 0.958 | 0.898 | 1.74% | 1.33% | |
| Shear/Comp. Zone | 10 test/30 train | 0.927 | 0.909 | 1.34% | 0.98% | 0.952 | 0.884 | 1.52% | 1.15% | |
| All Combined | 28 test/84 train | 0.934 | 0.918 | 1.44% | 1.06% | 0.956 | 0.893 | 1.66% | 1.26% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Li, J.; Kong, W. In-Situ Data-Driven Time-Dependent Durability Forecasting of Prefabricated Components Made with Recycled Aggregate Concrete. CivilEng 2026, 7, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng7030055
Li J, Kong W. In-Situ Data-Driven Time-Dependent Durability Forecasting of Prefabricated Components Made with Recycled Aggregate Concrete. CivilEng. 2026; 7(3):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng7030055
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Jia, and Weikang Kong. 2026. "In-Situ Data-Driven Time-Dependent Durability Forecasting of Prefabricated Components Made with Recycled Aggregate Concrete" CivilEng 7, no. 3: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng7030055
APA StyleLi, J., & Kong, W. (2026). In-Situ Data-Driven Time-Dependent Durability Forecasting of Prefabricated Components Made with Recycled Aggregate Concrete. CivilEng, 7(3), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng7030055
