One of the biggest challenges nowadays when dealing with critical AAR-affected infrastructure is to determine the induced expansion and damage attained to date in the different locations of the structure (i.e. diagnosis), to forecast its potential for further distress over time (i.e. prognosis), as well as its potential structural implications. There are a number of prognosis techniques that have been developed in the past decades which are currently being used worldwide. Yet, most of these approaches use residual expansion procedures based on accelerated laboratory tests performed on cores extracted from damaged structures. However, the majority of the results gathered from these tests have been found to be inaccurate when compared to the swelling behavior of the respective structure in the field and several potential issues have been raised with respect to the test setup and alkali leaching. This work aims to evaluate the efficiency of the various commonly used laboratory setups to assess the residual expansion of AAR-affected concrete. Three different setups (i.e. 38°C and 100% RH; 38°C and soaked in 1M NaOH and; 38°C and wrapped in 0.7M NaOH) and two types of reactive aggregates (fine and coarse) were selected for this research. Expansion is monitored over time and four damage degrees (i.e. 0.05%. 0.12%, 0.20% and 0.30%) are selected for further chemical, microscopic (DRI) and non-destructive tests. Results demonstrated that the 1 M NaOH protocol is much more aggressive than the other two setups. Furthermore, it provides the samples with a unique damage pattern that is different from field affected concrete. Finally, the proposed setup shows to be reliable in providing tested samples with similar deterioration mechanisms than expected. Yet, more efficiency in the reaction kinetics and understanding of the alkalis exchange from the system is still required.