Structural Design
Wrong grid, wrong system, or wrong spans -- and every discipline downstream pays for it in redesign, delay, and cost. Structural decisions set the constraints that the rest of the project inherits.
Why Structural Design Matters
Structural decisions lock in constraints that every other discipline inherits. Grid layout, spans, load paths, and system selection shape what architecture can achieve and where MEP can route.
- Oversized members drive up material cost, foundation loads, and construction weight for no structural gain
- Undersized sections fail checking, forcing redesign mid-programme and delaying every discipline waiting on the structure
- Structural grids chosen without MEP coordination create routing conflicts that are expensive to resolve
- Late changes to spans or load paths disrupt fabrication, formwork planning, and construction sequencing
What We Deliver
System Selection and Sizing
- RC, steel, and composite systems selected for buildability and cost, not just code compliance
- Load paths and lateral stability designed to Eurocode and ACI
- FE modeling for complex geometry where simplified methods are insufficient
- Member sizing optimized against material cost and construction method
Drawing Production
- Structural drawings, bar schedules, and rebar detailing produced for construction
- Connection and foundation details issued for construction
- Drawings coordinated with architectural and MEP sets before issue
- Revisions tracked and propagated from model updates
Cross-Discipline Coordination
- Clash detection against MEP and architectural models via Navisworks
- Coordination meetings with architects and MEP engineers on a fixed cycle
- Review of contractor method statements and construction sequencing
- Interface issues logged, assigned, and resolved before drawings are issued
Review and Optimization
- Material and framing alternatives evaluated for cost and programme impact
- Third-party design verification where required
- Constructability review against local methods and available materials
- Value engineering that reduces cost without compromising structural intent
How Structural Decisions Are Controlled
Every structural decision constrains what architecture can do, where MEP can route, what construction can sequence, and what the project will cost. Fixed review cycles, coordinated models, and tracked issues keep those decisions governed.
- System selection reviewed against architectural intent and MEP requirements before design proceeds.
- Grid and span decisions checked for downstream impact on routing, headroom, and construction method.
- Design changes tracked through the model with impact assessment before approval.
- Code compliance (Eurocode, ACI) verified at each design stage, not only at final submission.
- Handover packages prepared with the documentation and data that contractors need to build without ambiguity.
Canopy Framework
Upstream Intervention
System type, grid layout, and load paths are locked early. Once concrete is poured, changing them is either impossible or ruinously expensive. We front-load coordination so structural decisions hold through construction.
“Catch it on paper, not on site.”
Learn more about our approachHow Teams Coordinate
Every structural change affects architecture and MEP. Coordination runs on a fixed cycle so interface conflicts are resolved before they reach issued drawings.
- Structural model federated with architecture and MEP; clashes flagged per cycle
- Coordination reviews scheduled weekly with resolution owners assigned
- Design changes impact-assessed before approval and model update
- Reports issued with marked-up sections and tracked action items
Selected Case Study
Structural coordination on a logistics facility under real site and programme constraints.
Case Study
Advanced Structural Design & Steel Engineering
Owner-side structural design for a logistics facility on soft clay, covering foundations, long spans, and erection sequence.
Structural design for a logistics facility on soft clay was fragmented across foundation and superstructure disciplines. A coordinated structural approach was imposed, aligning load analysis, material selection, and fabrication detailing. Structural decisions were aligned across the project.
Executive Summary
Soft clay soil conditions required a structural system capable of limiting settlement while supporting long-span steel framing. The project lacked a consistent approach between foundation and superstructure design, leading to risk of overdesign, cost increase, and delays. A hybrid reinforced concrete and steel system was introduced, aligning foundation capacity with long-span superstructure requirements. Structural loads, detailing, and fabrication were coordinated, stabilizing foundations and enabling erection.
Project Snapshot
- Client
- DHL Thailand
- Location
- Samut Prakan, Thailand
- Site Area
- Approx. 2,500 sqm
- Contract Value
- USD 3.2 million
- Duration
- 12 months (design & construction)
- Services Delivered
- Structural Engineering Design, Value Engineering, Pile Foundation Design, Steel Detailing (Shop Drawings), Construction Oversight, Load Analysis (Wind / Seismic)
The Challenge
The context, constraints, and risks shaping the project from the start.
The project required a structural system capable of performing on soft clay soil while delivering large column-free spans under an aggressive construction schedule.
Complexity
- Soft clay soil requiring deep foundations
- Long-span, column-free zones for logistics operations
- Construction timeline incompatible with conventional RC superstructure
What Was at Stake
A conventional reinforced concrete approach would have increased foundation loads, slowed construction, and delayed handover.
How Chenla Stepped In
The targeted actions we took to resolve the core issues.
A hybrid RC-steel structural system was imposed, combining pile-supported reinforced concrete foundations with a steel superstructure for long spans and rapid erection.
Key Actions
- Rationalized load paths across grid and service loads before member sizing
- Enforced value engineering during design to reduce material use
- Structured the superstructure around a 30-meter long-span steel truss, eliminating internal columns
- Standardized bolt-and-nut connections for prefabrication and erection
- Coordinated structural interfaces with architectural and MEP
Framework in Action
The Canopy Framework™ principles most active on this project.
The engineering principles later formalized into internal methods can be seen here. Detailed load analysis and iterative value engineering during design reduced steel quantities and shortened the construction schedule. Structural issues were resolved during design rather than on site.
Upstream Intervention
“Catch it on paper, not on site.”
Solution Highlights
What Chenla delivered to address the project's challenges.
Hybrid RC-Steel Strategy
RC foundations provided stability on soft soil, while steel framing enabled long spans.
Long-Span Structural Frame
A 30-meter truss eliminated internal columns.
Value-Engineered Steel Frames
Material usage was reduced through analysis.
Prefabrication & Assembly
Bolt-and-nut detailing enabled faster on-site erection.
Outcomes
What changed for the client as a direct result of our intervention.
Operational Results
- Reduced steel quantities through value engineering
- Reduced structural weight
- Structural frame completed approximately 8 months faster
Client Benefits
- Reduced foundation loads on soft soil
- Increased usable warehouse floor area
- Lower material and construction costs
PROJECT DOCUMENTATION & OUTPUTS
Long-Span Structural Section
Section showing the long-span steel truss and roof.
Start with a structural review
Share your drawings or concept. We will identify where structural decisions need coordination and how our team can support.