Expertise · Albert Pamonag Engineering Consultancy
Albert Pamonag is a Principal Structural Engineer at Albert Pamonag Engineering Consultancy in the Philippines, and most of his work is on existing buildings. On one seismic evaluation of a concrete building, the client already had a fix in mind: a fast, non-invasive wrap that is widely marketed for retrofit. He ran the comparison instead of arguing the point, and the comparison changed what the client decided to build.
In Albert Pamonag's own words.
"A model is an argument, not an answer."
Performance-based design is a conviction for me: I want to know how a structure behaves, not just whether it passes. With existing buildings, I put evidence over assumption. They get real data, not optimistic inputs.
Running the comparison instead of arguing it
On an ASCE 41 evaluation of an existing RC building, the governing deficiency was drift. The expected fix — the one already in the client's head. CFRP wrapping. It is fast, non-invasive, and high modulus, and it iswidely marketed for seismic retrofit.
My judgment was that it would not solve this particular problem. CFRP adds almost nothing to flexural stiffness, so it does not reduce drift. What it improves is confinement and shear capacity. So I ran the comparison instead of arguing it. Wrapping left drift essentially unchanged, while concrete jacketing of the same columns gave a stiffness increase on the order of four to six times per column and brought the building within its target performance objective.
The second call was procedural but just as important. Because jacketing is a global intervention, the existing analysis could not simply be patched. Under ASCE 41-17 §1.5.6, adding stiffness invalidates prior results, so the model was re-run in full. The outcome was a retrofit that met the objective, and a client who understood why the cheaper option would have bought no measurable improvement.
Respecting the building as it actually is
Most of my work is on existing structures, where the drawings are incomplete and the as-built rarely matches. Material tests, NDT, and site verification aren't optional extras. They're what separates an assessment from a guess.
The same goes for the model. MIDAS will always return a number, and the engineer's job is to know whether that number is defensible. So every model gets checked before any result leaves my desk: equilibrium, mass, modal participation, and a hand calculation on the governing member. The software is fast enough that the only real risk left is trusting it too early.
Q. When did a result become more than a pass or a fail?
The first time I ran a nonlinear pushover in MIDAS on an existing building and watched the hinges form in sequence. Up to that point, analysis had answered one question: does it pass? Suddenly I could see where the structure would give first in what order. I could also see how much reserve was left after the first hinge. The deliverable stopped being a verdict and became a description of behaviour. That is the whole basis of how I practice now.
The second shift came later, through the API. Once I could drive models programmatically, a model stopped being a one-off artefact. It became something repeatable: parametric runs, batch post-processing, consistent output across a team. Both changes point the same direction. Less clicking, more thinking about behaviour.
In the end, concrete jacketing brought that building within its target, not the expected wrap. We share Albert Pamonag's habit of letting a comparison make the case. Behind it is a conviction we hold as well: a model earns trust rather than being given it.