An engineering decision is a chain of evidence.
ProYA treats every design decision as the final link in an evidence chain that starts in the field and closes in the report. The designer does not testify for their own model; they document it so an independent reader can rebuild it.
The five stages below are not a “process diagram,” but a discipline. At every stage, what is assumed, what it is based on, and within what uncertainty range it is accepted are stated clearly.
Each stage is the evidence for the next.
- StageIAssessment
Reading the site, documenting what exists.
Design cannot be built on an unmeasured site. Building history, existing details, material data, and the structural damage map are documented first; where available, they are cross-read against old drawings.
Outputs- Measured survey & structural system scan
- RVS / rapid visual screening file
- Concrete core & rebar NDT plan
- Building history & intervention inventory
- StageIIModeling
Defining the model: material, geometry, boundary.
Field data becomes the model’s boundary condition. Effective stiffness, material parameters, mass distribution, and support idealizations are each defended separately — every assumption is written with a report reference.
Outputs- 3D structural model (SAP2000 · ETABS · OpenSees)
- Effective stiffness & material definition file
- Diaphragm model & soil-structure interaction
- Device macro-models (damper · isolator)
- StageIIIAnalysis
Analysis: validation in the time-history domain, alongside linear methods.
The method is selected according to the target performance; it starts with equivalent seismic load and is validated with NLTHA. The demand envelope is checked against the capacity envelope; the device hysteretic loop is tested at real scale.
Outputs- Modal response spectrum & equivalent seismic load
- Pushover curve
- NLTHA procedure with 11 record sets
- Damper hysteretic loop validation
- StageIVDecision
Design decision: intervention, device, economics.
The drift and demand envelope from analysis becomes a design decision. The strengthening strategy or device selection is matched to the performance target; alternatives are compared on a cost basis.
Outputs- Strengthening detail (jacketing · FRP · added shear wall)
- Device type & placement strategy
- Construction sequence & site work plan
- Cost & economic comparison matrix
- StageVReporting & Field
A rebuildable report, a design verified on site.
Every decision is defended with a reproducible report backed by code references; field supervision connects the design to execution. At closeout, the handover-to-operation file is delivered to the building owner.
Outputs- Design report with code references
- Calculation outputs & analysis archive
- Quality control plan (QA/QC) & site inspection
- Operational handover & closeout file
To defend a decision often begins with limiting it.
We apply these on every project.
- Every result must be reproducible by a third engineer.
- Assumptions should appear in the open lines of the report, not inside the model.
- Code references belong inline; the basis of the decision must be visible.
- Uncertainty must be given in the report as a range — and in a sentence.
We avoid these shortcuts.
- We do not treat the code minimum as the final target.
- We do not write “looks sufficient” reports; every page is a defense.
- We do not select NLTHA record sets by intuition; they are scaled to the target spectrum.
- We do not leave the design to site interpretation; the detail is verified in the field.
Let’s solve what is specific to your structure together, within this discipline.
Share your performance target; we will build the stage with our method and return with a reproducible report.