{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02679528403001072, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00964630225080386, 'mean_word_length': 5.3108108108108105, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
T. Paulay's Discussion of “A Design-Oriented Approach to Strength Distribution in Single-Story Asymmetric Systems with Elements Having Strength-Dependent Stiffness”

The first concern is with the objectives of strength allocation in asymmetric systems. One objective is to minimize deck rotation, and hence the difference in displacement demands on parallel elements; the other is to control displacement ductility demand on the critical element. We will refer to these as objective A and objective B, respectively, in this reply. While they are both desirable objectives, it is important to recognize that they cannot be achieved simultaneously from a single strength allocation strategy in general. As an example, a strength allocation with a strength eccentricity eV= +0.029A would lead to low deck rotation, and to control displacement ductility of the critical element E1 would require a strength distribution having eV=−0.029A.