In the construction industry, the term value engineering is used frequently and is often intended to give the project owner confidence that the design will be based on the least expensive acceptable methods. Before discussing this further, it is important to understand that building codes represent minimum requirements, not maximum standards. It is the engineer’s responsibility to design a project appropriately—never below code requirements, but above them when the project demands it.
Some engineers and contractors misinterpret this concept and claim that “designing to code” is equivalent to value engineering. We disagree. While minimum design may technically satisfy code requirements, each project has unique needs that must be considered.
A custom home must be designed to different standards than a rental property. What distinguishes these projects are the finishes, materials, and additional features incorporated during construction. For example the custom home is far more likely to include marble flooring, which requires stricter deflection criteria. Designing only to minimum code in such cases would be inappropriate and could lead to performance issues.
The following examples illustrate how some may label enhanced design as “over‑engineering,” when in reality the added considerations often come at zero or minimal additional cost compared to the long‑term value and performance they provide.
Example 1
The lateral (earthquake) load capacity of a wood shear wall is primarily based on the size and spacing of nails. A ½” thick plywood wall nailed with 8d nails at 6″ on center provides a load capacity of 260 plf, while using 10d nails at the same spacing increases the capacity to 286 plf—an increase of about 10%.
When a contractor bids on a project, they do not count the number or size of the nails. Based on their experience, they simply include a certain number of nail boxes. It is baffling why someone would specify a shear wall with 8d nails when it costs the client essentially nothing to achieve a stronger wall with 10d nails—unless the goal is to appear to provide value engineering.
Example 2
Consider a typical 2,000 sq. ft., two‑story house. If the floor is framed with 2×12 joists instead of 2×10, the cost difference will be roughly $2,000. With today’s construction costs, a 2,000 sq. ft. home may cost around $600,000, making the additional $2,000 only 0.34% of the total cost.
While a 2×10 floor system may be sufficient for carpeted floors, a 2×12 system provides significantly better performance for a minimal increase in cost.
Conclusion
Clear communication between consultants and the client is essential to understanding the intended use of the building. As mentioned above, a rental unit does not need to be designed to the same standards as a custom, owner‑occupied home. When higher performance is expected, designing only to minimum code is not value engineering—it is a missed opportunity to deliver long‑term quality at little or no additional cost.