Structural Value Engineering

The Challenge

Steel prices had moved sharply during the tender period. By the time the structural package came back from the steelwork contractor, the budget was under severe pressure — and the project team faced a choice between value engineering the structure or accepting a significant cost overrun on a scheme that was already commercially tight.

The problem with structural value engineering done badly is that it looks the same as structural value engineering done well — until something goes wrong. Reducing member sizes to save steel tonnage is straightforward. Doing it without touching the load path, the deflection limits, the connection design, or the building regulation compliance requires a structural engineer who can read the whole picture, not just optimise individual elements in isolation.

The NOVTRIQ partners were appointed to carry out an independent review of the structural steelwork package — not as the original designer, and not as an advocate for any particular outcome. The brief was to find real savings, substantiated by calculation, that the project could take to procurement with confidence.

What We Did

• Full review of the original structural design and steel schedule against Eurocode 3 — verifying utilisation ratios and identifying over-designed elements
• Rationalisation of primary frame members — section size optimisation where utilisation ratios allowed, coordinated with connection design and fabrication efficiency
• Secondary steelwork review: roof and floor purlins, bridging, bracing systems — identifying cumulative savings in repetitive elements
• Connection design review — identifying where simplified connection details could reduce fabrication labour without affecting structural performance
• Foundation interaction assessment — checking that reduced superstructure loads did not create asymmetric ground bearing conditions
• Revised steel schedule and updated calculation package submitted for building control approval
• Attendance at contractor meetings to present and defend the revised design — ensuring the fabricator understood and accepted the changes

Where the Savings Came From

The original design had been produced under programme pressure, with conservative assumptions built in at multiple levels. When you compound conservatism — a cautious load estimate, an additional margin in the section design, a conservative connection detail — the result is a structure that performs well but carries significantly more steel than it needs.

The review identified three primary areas: oversized primary columns where the original wind load assumptions had been calculated for a more exposed site category than the actual location; roof beam sections that had been standardised to a single size for simplicity but where two-thirds of the spans could have used a lighter section; and secondary steelwork throughout the building where repetitive over-specification had accumulated into a significant tonnage.

None of the changes touched the safety factors or the code compliance. They simply removed the accumulated conservatism that had been introduced, layer by layer, under time pressure.

Outcomes

Projects delivered by NOVTRIQ partners and associates. Details reflect work as completed. Team composition evolves over time.