3D Modeling of Galvanic Corrosion and Seismic Vulnerability in Chloride-Exposed Reinforced Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings in coastal seismic regions are exposed to coupled deterioration processes driven by chloride-induced corrosion and earthquake loading. This interaction is particularly critical along the Mexican Pacific coast, where persistent marine exposure coincides with high seismic hazard. This study quantifies the influence of corrosion on seismic collapse probability by explicitly modeling the coupled mechanisms of moisture transport, chloride ingress, and electrochemical potential distribution in RC members. A three-dimensional mechanistic framework is adopted to capture the spatial variability of corrosion, including galvanic interactions between passive and active reinforcement regions. A representative scenario is examined in which a corner column remains in continuous contact with seawater, promoting localized chloride accumulation and sustained corrosion activity. The resulting non-uniform section loss is incorporated into nonlinear structural models subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences. The results show that corrosion-induced heterogeneity, amplified by galvanic coupling between passive and active zones, accelerates strength and stiffness degradation. Compared to conventional uniform corrosion assumptions, this effect leads to a significant increase in early collapse probability. These findings emphasize the need to account for coupled transport and electrochemical processes, as well as localized exposure conditions, in the seismic assessment of RC structures in aggressive coastal environments.

Moisture transported through reinforced concrete elements and described by various models expressed by canonical equations, served as a basis for the authors' description of chloride penetration into the interior of reinforced concrete elements.

In particular, corner columns of buildings exposed to increased environmental impacts and loaded several dozen times more than other elements of the building's spatial frames were selected for calculations.

All calculations were performed for dynamic loads.

The work is very interesting, the analyses are insightful, and the use of numerical methods and the accompanying constitutive equations are the authors' personal contribution to the field of seismic issues and corrosion hazards of reinforced concrete structures.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings in coastal seismic regions are exposed to coupled deterioration processes driven by chloride-induced corrosion and earthquake loading. This interaction is particularly critical along the Mexican Pacific coast, where persistent marine exposure coincides with high seismic hazard. This study quantifies the influence of corrosion on seismic collapse probability by explicitly modeling the coupled mechanisms of moisture transport, chloride ingress, and electrochemical potential distribution in RC members. A three-dimensional mechanistic framework is adopted to capture the spatial variability of corrosion, including galvanic interactions between passive and active reinforcement regions. A representative scenario is examined in which a corner column remains in continuous contact with seawater, promoting localized chloride accumulation and sustained corrosion activity. The resulting non-uniform section loss is incorporated into nonlinear structural models subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences. The results show that corrosion-induced heterogeneity, amplified by galvanic coupling between passive and active zones, accelerates strength and stiffness degradation. Compared to conventional uniform corrosion assumptions, this effect leads to a significant increase in early collapse probability. These findings emphasize the need to account for coupled transport and electrochemical processes, as well as localized exposure conditions, in the seismic assessment of RC structures in aggressive coastal environments.

Moisture transported through reinforced concrete elements and described by various models expressed by canonical equations, served as a basis for the authors' description of chloride penetration into the interior of reinforced concrete elements.

In particular, corner columns of buildings exposed to increased environmental impacts and loaded several dozen times more than other elements of the building's spatial frames were selected for calculations.

All calculations were performed for dynamic loads.

The work is very interesting, the analyses are insightful, and the use of numerical methods and the accompanying constitutive equations are the authors' personal contribution to the field of seismic issues and corrosion hazards of reinforced concrete structures.

 

Response

The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive and encouraging comments.

We are grateful for the recognition of the novelty and relevance of the proposed numerical approach, as well as for highlighting the contribution of the constitutive modeling to the study of the coupled effects of corrosion and seismic performance in reinforced concrete structures.

We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment that the manuscript is technically sound and well presented. No specific modifications were requested, but we have nonetheless carefully revised the manuscript to further improve clarity and consistency.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- To emphasize the importance of reinforcement corrosion on the performance levels of reinforced concrete structures, examples from experimental studies in the existing literature should be provided, particularly those focusing on reinforced concrete frames.

2- I believe that supporting or updating the references presented in the study with more recent literature would improve the overall readability and scientific relevance of the manuscript.

3- Corrosion is considered one of the key factors contributing to the damage of structures under seismic loading. In this context, I recommend incorporating findings and observations from recent destructive earthquakes, particularly those related to corroded reinforced concrete structures.

(e.g. , https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06859-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2024.101718 )

4- In Section 2.1.1, it should be clarified whether the proposed models are affected by aggressive environmental conditions.

5- The boundary conditions for each model should be defined more clearly.

6- The authors should clarify according to which standards the member dimensions presented in Section 2.5.1 were determined.

7- While defining the concrete cover of the structural elements in the designed system, it should be specified whether any distinction was made between interior and exterior exposure conditions.

8-  The conclusion section should be expanded to include discussions on the applicability of the considered models under real-world conditions.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1- To emphasize the importance of reinforcement corrosion on the performance levels of reinforced concrete structures, examples from experimental studies in the existing literature should be provided, particularly those focusing on reinforced concrete frames.

Response

The authors thank the reviewer for this helpful recommendation. The reference list has been updated and expanded with 32 recent contributions to better reflect the current state of research on corrosion and seismic effects in reinforced concrete structures.

By incorporating these studies, the revised manuscript establishes a clearer link between observed structural behavior and the assumptions of the proposed numerical framework, reinforcing the relevance of corrosion effects in performance-based seismic assessments.
All corresponding additions have been highlighted in blue in the revised version.

 

2- I believe that supporting or updating the references presented in the study with more recent literature would improve the overall readability and scientific relevance of the manuscript.

Response

The authors thank the reviewer for this helpful recommendation. The reference list has been updated and expanded with 32 recent contributions to better reflect the current state of research on corrosion and seismic effects in reinforced concrete structures.

These updates improve the scientific depth and readability of the manuscript by situating the present work within the most recent developments in the field. The newly incorporated references have been carefully integrated into the introduction and discussion to enhance context and continuity.
The corresponding changes are indicated in blue in the revised manuscript.

 

3- Corrosion is considered one of the key factors contributing to the damage of structures under seismic loading. In this context, I recommend incorporating findings and observations from recent destructive earthquakes, particularly those related to corroded reinforced concrete structures.

(e.g. , https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06859-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2024.101718 )

Response.

The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion. We fully agree that incorporating observations from recent destructive earthquakes enhances the practical relevance of the study, particularly in relation to corrosion-induced deterioration in reinforced concrete structures.

Following the reviewer’s recommendation, the manuscript has been revised to include a discussion of observed damage in corroded reinforced concrete systems based on recent seismic events. The references suggested by the reviewer have been carefully reviewed and incorporated. In addition, a broader set of recent and relevant studies (32 new references) has been included to provide a more comprehensive overview of experimentally and empirically observed corrosion–seismic interactions. All newly added references have been properly cited and integrated into the manuscript.

These additions strengthen the connection between the proposed numerical framework and real structural behavior, and further support the importance of accounting for corrosion effects in seismic vulnerability assessments.

The corresponding modifications have been marked in blue in the new version of the manuscript.

4- In Section 2.1.1, it should be clarified whether the proposed models are affected by aggressive environmental conditions.

Response

The authors thank the reviewer for this relevant observation. Section 2.1. has been revised to clarify the extent to which aggressive environmental conditions are incorporated into the proposed formulation.

In the present study, chloride ingress is modeled through a localized exposure condition, specifically at the bottom region of a corner column, representing a critical zone of the structure subjected to direct contact with chloride sources. Therefore, the introduction of chlorides is not uniformly applied over all boundaries, but rather concentrated in this representative area.

However, the global transport model is fully sensitive to environmental conditions across the entire three-dimensional domain of the structure. In particular, variations in temperature and relative humidity are imposed on all external surfaces and directly influence moisture transport, evaporation processes, and, consequently, the redistribution of chlorides within the concrete.

This combination allows the model to capture both localized aggressive exposure and the broader environmental influence on coupled moisture–chloride transport. The corresponding clarification has been incorporated into Section 2.1.1 and highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

 

5- The boundary conditions for each model should be defined more clearly. 

Response

The boundary conditions for each model have been clarified in the revised manuscript. To improve readability and facilitate comparison between cases, all boundary conditions have been systematically summarized in Table 2. Additionally, the corresponding descriptions in the text have been revised to ensure consistency with the table and to provide clearer explanations of the modeling assumptions. 

6- The authors should clarify according to which standards the member dimensions presented in Section 2.5.1 were determined.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for this comment. The member dimensions correspond to a reinforced concrete building originally designed in accordance with the CFE Earthquake Design Manual (CFE-EDMM, 2016), which is widely used for structural design in Mexico. Additionally, the structural configuration and member sizes are adopted from a previously published study by the authors (Jaimes et al., 2025), where the same prototype building was used to assess seismic vulnerability under strong-motion sequences. This ensures that the geometry is both code-compliant and representative of typical mid-rise office buildings located in coastal seismic regions of the Mexican Pacific. This clarification has been added in Section 2.5.1 & 2.6.2 of the revised manuscript.

7- While defining the concrete cover of the structural elements in the designed system, it should be specified whether any distinction was made between interior and exterior exposure conditions.

Response 

Thank you for this important comment. The previous version of the manuscript did not explicitly clarify this aspect. In the revised manuscript, Section 2.5.2 has been expanded to specify that a distinction was made between interior and exterior exposure conditions when defining the concrete cover. The corresponding assumptions and their implications for durability and corrosion exposure are now clearly described

8- The conclusion section should be expanded to include discussions on the applicability of the considered models under real-world conditions.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, the Conclusions section has been expanded to explicitly discuss the applicability of the proposed multi-physics framework under real-world conditions. In particular, we now identify the types of exposure scenarios for which the model is most relevant (e.g., persistent marine contact and strong chloride gradients), and we discuss key practical considerations, including input data requirements (e.g., moisture boundary conditions and electrochemical parameters) and computational cost. We also highlight how the framework can support engineering practice through scenario-based assessments, inspection prioritization, and resilience-oriented design. These additions aim to better position the model in practical structural assessment and decision-making contexts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SUMMARY  
An interesting article is submitted for review. It is important for modern construction and the science of building structures. The main issue of this article is three–dimensional modeling of galvanic corrosion and seismic vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides. 
This article contains scientific novelty and practical significance. The applied methods are relevant and up-to-date. The authors use a three-dimensional mechanistic model and consider a representative scenario in which the corner column is in constant contact with seawater, contributing to the local accumulation of chlorides and sustained corrosion activity. 
The results show important new scientific data. New scientific knowledge has been gained about the effect of corrosion on the likelihood of seismic collapse by explicitly modeling the interrelated mechanisms of moisture transport, chloride penetration, and electrochemical potential distribution in reinforced concrete elements.
The article is written on a topical topic and is devoted to important issues. It is based on modern methods and important results have been obtained. The article has good quality illustrations. References to literature relate to the subject of the Buildings magazine and to the topic of the article.
However, there are flaws in the article that need to be fixed. Here are the notes. 

COMMENTS
1. The annotation needs to be rewritten. It looks complicated and cumbersome. I would like the authors to show not only the relevance of this research in the abstract, but also to formulate specific scientific problems. From a practical point of view, galvanic corrosion and seismic vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides are a problem. However, it is important to show what the scientific deficit is in terms of theoretical knowledge about these processes, mechanisms, and characteristics.
2. The result of the article is also unclear in the abstract. The authors formulated what was obtained, but it is unclear how much the probability of an early collapse increases in the identified effect compared to traditional assumptions. How is the decrease in strength and stiffness accelerated? There should be specific quantitative gains and numerical characteristics.
3. The authors made a mistake by providing only 3 keywords. This is very small for this article. You must submit at least 7 keywords, otherwise this article will be impossible or difficult to find in the search.
4. The Introduction section should have provided more literature. It is necessary to analyze the literature related to the chloride attack on concrete and reinforced concrete. Many scientific articles have been published on this topic in recent years. In addition to the chloride attack, it would also be interesting to see a study of the effect of the type of concrete structure under conditions of sulfate attack. It would be good to add at least 15 literature sources over the past 5 years in order to more broadly reveal the current state of this problem.
5. I would also like to see more clearly formulated scientific and applied problems, goals and objectives of the research, as well as in the abstract.
6. The methodological scheme of the study is missing. The authors need to provide a detailed flowchart reflecting the varying experimental factors and verifiable theoretical provisions, as well as the final characteristics to be determined, reflecting the vulnerability of reinforced concrete structures to galvanic corrosion and seismic impacts. 
7. The authors have provided several drawings, for example 1, 3 and 4. But it would be more correct to present more informative images or photographs of the studied objects. The authors should work on the graphic accompaniment of this article. 
8. I would like the authors to show more clearly the catastrophic consequences of undesirable phenomena such as corrosion and seismic vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides. The illustrative support of the article should be enhanced.
9. The Results and Discussion section should be divided among themselves. In discussing the results obtained, detailed comparative tables of the results obtained should be presented in comparison with other results of previously known works. It would be interesting to see a comparison with the work on experimental laboratory studies of chloride corrosion of reinforced concrete or modeling work. In such a comparative table, I would like to see the main differences, uniqueness, originality, novelty, advantages, disadvantages and remaining deficits of the results obtained. 
10. In the Conclusions section, the conclusions should be numbered and the scientific results presented sequentially, first, and then applied to specific construction cases.
11. There is also a comment on the list of references. Many of the articles are dated rather outdated dates, older than the last 10-20 years. It would be correct to additionally analyze the latest literature. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

An interesting article is submitted for review. It is important for modern construction and the science of building structures. The main issue of this article is three–dimensional modeling of galvanic corrosion and seismic vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides.
This article contains scientific novelty and practical significance. The applied methods are relevant and up-to-date. The authors use a three-dimensional mechanistic model and consider a representative scenario in which the corner column is in constant contact with seawater, contributing to the local accumulation of chlorides and sustained corrosion activity.
The results show important new scientific data. New scientific knowledge has been gained about the effect of corrosion on the likelihood of seismic collapse by explicitly modeling the interrelated mechanisms of moisture transport, chloride penetration, and electrochemical potential distribution in reinforced concrete elements.
The article is written on a topical topic and is devoted to important issues. It is based on modern methods and important results have been obtained. The article has good quality illustrations. References to literature relate to the subject of the Buildings magazine and to the topic of the article.
However, there are flaws in the article that need to be fixed. Here are the notes. 

COMMENTS
1. The annotation needs to be rewritten. It looks complicated and cumbersome. I would like the authors to show not only the relevance of this research in the abstract, but also to formulate specific scientific problems. From a practical point of view, galvanic corrosion and seismic vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides are a problem. However, it is important to show what the scientific deficit is in terms of theoretical knowledge about these processes, mechanisms, and characteristics. 

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, one sentence has been added to the abstract to explicitly highlight the underlying scientific gap and clarify the research problem addressed in this study. Specifically, we now emphasize the lack of mechanistic frameworks capable of consistently linking chloride transport, electrochemical heterogeneity (including galvanic interactions), and structural seismic response within a unified formulation. This addition clarifies the missing theoretical linkage in existing approaches while preserving the original structure and flow of the abstract.

Additionally, and aligned with comments from another reviewer, the Conclusions section has been expanded to clarify the applicability of the proposed framework under real-world conditions and to further contextualize this knowledge gap from an engineering perspective. These revisions improve clarity and better position the contribution of the study within current theoretical and applied research.

2. 
   The result of the article is also unclear in the abstract. The authors formulated what was obtained, but it is unclear how much the probability of an early collapse increases in the identified effect compared to traditional assumptions . How is the decrease in strength and stiffness accelerated? There should be specific quantitative gains and numerical characteristics. 

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, the results have been clarified by explicitly quantifying the increase in collapse probability associated with galvanic corrosion. Specifically, the abstract and Section 3.4 now include quantitative comparisons showing that, for moderate seismic intensity levels, collapse probability increases from near-zero values in the uncorroded and non-galvanic cases to approximately 0.6–0.9 under galvanic corrosion after two years of exposure.

Additionally, the discussion has been expanded to clarify the physical mechanism behind this behavior. It is now explicitly stated that the observed section loss (up to ~46%) leads to a significant reduction in axial load capacity, stiffness, and confinement effectiveness of the affected column, which in turn increases interstory drift demands and accelerates structural degradation.

These modifications provide the quantitative and physical interpretation requested by the reviewer and have been incorporated in the abstract, Section 3.4, and the conclusions of the revised manuscript.

 

3. 
   The authors made a mistake by providing only 3 keywords. This is very small for this article. You must submit at least 7 keywords, otherwise this article will be impossible or difficult to find in the search .

Response.-

Thanks a lot for this comment, now 7 keywords have been included in the new version of the manuscript.

Chloride-induced corrosion

Reinforced concrete structures

Seismic vulnerability

Galvanic corrosion

Non-uniform corrosion

Collapse probability

Modeling

 

 

 

4. The Introduction section should have provided more literature. It is necessary to analyze the literature related to the chloride attack on concrete and reinforced concrete. Many scientific articles have been published on this topic in recent years. In addition to the chloride attack, it would also be interesting to see a study of the effect of the type of concrete structure under conditions of sulfate attack. It would be good to add at least 15 literature sources over the past 5 years in order to more broadly reveal the current state of this problem.

Response 

The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion.  A broader set of recent and relevant studies (32 new references) has been included to provide a more comprehensive overview of experimentally and empirically observed corrosion–seismic interactions. All newly added references have been properly cited and integrated into the manuscript.

These additions strengthen the connection between the proposed numerical framework and real structural behavior, and further support the importance of accounting for corrosion effects in seismic vulnerability assessments.

The corresponding modifications have been marked in blue in the new version of the manuscript.

5. I would also like to see more clearly formulated scientific and applied problems, goals and objectives of the research, as well as in the abstract. 

Response
The reviewer raises an important point. In response, the manuscript has been revised to more clearly formulate the scientific and applied problems, as well as the main research objective. In particular, the abstract has been updated by adding a sentence that explicitly highlights the underlying scientific gap, namely the lack of consistent multi-physics formulations linking chloride transport, electrochemical heterogeneity (including galvanic interactions), and seismic structural response. This addition clarifies both the scientific problem and the motivation of the study while preserving the original structure of the abstract. In addition, the Conclusions section has been reorganized to distinguish more explicitly between fundamental scientific findings and their practical engineering implications, further reinforcing the connection between theoretical development and applied relevance.

 

6. The methodological scheme of the study is missing. The authors need to provide a detailed flowchart reflecting the varying experimental factors and verifiable theoretical provisions, as well as the final characteristics to be determined, reflecting the vulnerability of reinforced concrete structures to galvanic corrosion and seismic impacts.

Response. The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, a methodological flowchart has been incorporated as appendix to clearly illustrate the multi-physics framework adopted in this study. The diagram summarizes the sequence of processes, including moisture transport, chloride ingress, electrochemical potential distribution, corrosion initiation and progression, and the resulting reinforcement section loss.

Additionally, the flowchart explicitly shows how corrosion-induced degradation is integrated into the structural model, followed by nonlinear dynamic analysis under mainshock–aftershock (MS–AS) sequences and the evaluation of collapse probability. This addition clarifies the coupling between physical deterioration mechanisms and seismic vulnerability assessment, improving the overall clarity of the methodology

 

7. The authors have provided several drawings, for example 1, 3 and 4. But it would be more correct to present more informative images or photographs of the studied objects. The authors should work on the graphic accompaniment of this article. 

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment regarding the graphical content of the manuscript. We would like to clarify that the structural configurations presented in Figures 1, 3, and 4 correspond to representative reinforced concrete building models designed to reflect typical construction practices in coastal regions of Mexico, rather than specific existing structures. Therefore, no direct photographs of studied objects are available. The graphical material included in the manuscript was intentionally developed to clearly illustrate the geometry, boundary conditions, and coupled multi-physics processes considered in the analysis. In this context, schematic representations were preferred to ensure clarity and reproducibility of the modelling framework.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and will consider incorporating more detailed visual elements or illustrative references in future work to further enhance the graphical presentation, particularly in studies involving real structures or field data.

8. I would like the authors to show more clearly the catastrophic consequences of undesirable phenomena such as corrosion and seismic vulnerability in reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides. The illustrative support of the article should be enhanced. 

Response:

The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised manuscript, the catastrophic implications of corrosion-induced deterioration have been emphasized more clearly in both Section 3.4 and the conclusions. Specifically, the discussion now explicitly relates the observed levels of section loss to the potential for premature instability of critical load-bearing elements, including the possibility of soft-story mechanisms and rapid progression toward global collapse.

Additionally, the interpretation of Fig. 19 has been reinforced in the text to highlight the abrupt shift in collapse probability toward high-risk regions under galvanic corrosion conditions, even at moderate seismic intensity levels. A concluding statement has also been included to explicitly underline the potentially catastrophic consequences of localized galvanic corrosion in critical structural components.

These modifications improve the clarity of the structural implications and strengthen the connection between the numerical results and their engineering significance.

9. 
   The Results and Discussion section should be divided among themselves. In discussing the results obtained, detailed comparative tables of the results obtained should be presented in comparison with other results of previously known works. It would be interesting to see a comparison with the work on experimental laboratory studies of chloride corrosion of reinforced concrete or modeling work. In such a comparative table, I would like to see the main differences, uniqueness, originality, novelty, advantages, disadvantages and remaining deficits of the results obtained. 

Response.
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The authors agree that separating the Results and Discussion sections can improve clarity in many studies. However, in the present work, the results are closely linked to the interpretation of coupled multi-physical processes (moisture transport, chloride ingress, electrochemical potential, and structural response). For this reason, the Results and Discussion have been intentionally presented together, allowing each result to be immediately interpreted within its physical and modeling context.

 

Given the strong interdependence between the different components of the proposed framework, separating these sections would lead to repetition and potentially hinder the readability of the manuscript. Instead, the current structure ensures a continuous and coherent presentation of the results alongside their corresponding physical interpretation.

To further improve clarity, the manuscript has been revised to enhance the organization within the section, with clearer transitions and emphasis on key findings.

On the other hand, in the results section a comparative table (Table 2) has been incorporated into the revised manuscript, summarizing representative modeling approaches from the literature, including their key characteristics, governing variables, and modeling assumptions.

 

This comparison allows for a clear identification of the main differences between existing approaches and the present work. In particular, the table highlights that most previous models consider partially coupled processes and simplified geometries (typically one- or two-dimensional), while electrochemical aspects are often treated in a limited manner. 

 

Based on this analysis, the uniqueness and novelty of the present work are emphasized through the simultaneous integration of moisture transport, chloride diffusion, and electrochemical potential and current distributions within a fully three-dimensional framework. This enables the representation of spatial variability, galvanic effects, and realistic structural geometries, which are not addressed in previous studies.

 

The advantages and remaining limitations of existing approaches are discussed in the manuscript, providing a structured comparison with prior work. While direct comparison with experimental results is limited due to the multi-scale and coupled nature of the proposed model, relevant experimental and modeling studies have been referenced to support the adopted assumptions and trends.

 

Indeed, just before the Conclusions section a paragraph was added to talk about limitations, disadvantages and remaining deficits.

 

 

 

 

 

10. In the Conclusions section, the conclusions should be numbered and the scientific results presented sequentially, first, and then applied to specific construction cases.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, the Conclusions section has been reorganized into a numbered format to improve clarity and readability. The conclusions are now presented sequentially, first outlining the main scientific findings of the study and subsequently their implications for practical engineering applications and construction scenarios.

This revised structure makes the progression from fundamental results to applied considerations more explicit, facilitating interpretation and better highlighting both the theoretical contributions and their relevance to real-world conditions. These changes improve clarity and facilitate interpretation without altering the original content of the conclusions.

11. There is also a comment on the list of references. Many of the articles are dated rather outdated dates, older than the last 10-20 years. It would be correct to additionally analyze the latest literature. 

Response 

The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion.  A broader set of recent and relevant studies (32 new references) has been included to provide a more comprehensive overview of experimentally and empirically observed corrosion–seismic interactions. All newly added references have been properly cited and integrated into the manuscript.

These additions strengthen the connection between the proposed numerical framework and real structural behavior, and further support the importance of accounting for corrosion effects in seismic vulnerability assessments.

The corresponding modifications have been marked in blue in the new version of the manuscript.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors appear to have carefully addressed the suggested revisions and completed the necessary amendments. Therefore, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account the reviewer's comments and made the necessary adjustments to the manuscript. The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements in both scientific and visual aspects.
The reviewer no longer has any comments, and the manuscript can be published in the journal as it is.