Some cases from our Panel of Consultants/Quantity Surveyors.
Example 1 – Overdesigned Excavation Support for a Shallow Trench
"Sometimes we engineer a RM500 solution for a RM50 problem."
Situation
A contractor proposes:
Soldier piles, Steel walers, Struts, Continuous instrumentation
for a 2.0 m deep excavation in stiff residual soil with plenty of working space.
Yet the geotechnical report already classifies the soil as stable with temporary unsupported slopes of approximately 1V:1H (45°).
Simple Comparison
Excavation depth = 2.0 m
Using a battered slope:
Horizontal setback = 2.0 m
Excavated width
Original trench = 1.0 m
Total width = 1 + 2 + 2 = 5.0 m
If sufficient site space exists, no temporary retaining system is required.
Approximate costs
Temporary retaining system
Bored piles, Steel, Crane, Welding, Removal ≈ RM120,000
Battered excavation
Extra excavation volume - for 20 m length
Additional soil
Triangle each side
½ × 2 × 2 = 2 m²
Both sides = 4 m²
Volume = 4 × 20 = 80 m³
Even at RM40/m³ - extra excavation cost ≈ RM3,200 (Huge cost difference)
Lesson
We should always ask:
"Is the simplest safe solution already sufficient?"
Complexity should never replace engineering judgement.
Example 2 – Concrete Slab Thickness Increased Instead of Improving Reinforcement ("More concrete doesn't always mean a stronger floor.")
Suppose an industrial floor is cracking.
The immediate reaction:
Increase slab thickness from 150 mm to 250 mm.
But the investigation reveals:
poor reinforcement detailing, inadequate contraction joints, poor curing
Increasing thickness addresses none of these.
Concrete Quantity
Building =20 m × 30 m
Area = 600 m²
Option A
250 mm slab
Volume = 600 × 0.25 = 150 m³
Option B
150 mm slab
Volume = 600 × 0.15 = 90 m³
Difference = 60 m³
Concrete at RM350/m³
Additional concrete cost = 60 × 350 = RM21,000
Yet the cracking problem may still occur because the real causes remain:
Reinforcement location, joint spacing, curing, subgrade preparation
Lesson
A thicker slab is not necessarily a better slab. Sometimes correcting the construction methodology delivers far greater value than adding more material.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that engineering isn't about designing the most complicated solution, it's about identifying the most appropriate one. (so goes to Risk Assessment and Mitigation)
Complexity often creates additional cost, time, and risk. Good engineering starts by understanding the root cause of the problem before proposing a solution.
The best engineers I have worked with share one common habit: they always ask, "Can this be done more simply without compromising safety, quality, or performance?"
Simplicity, when backed by sound engineering judgement, is often the mark of experience not a lack of sophistication.