Case Study

Fabricated steel silos: ongoing engineering support across design, review and live queries

Initially brought in for 3D CAD expertise, I went on to provide broader ongoing mechanical engineering input across drawing production, design review, manufacturability input, structural assessment, and live technical queries.

Retainer

Industrial manufacturing

Ongoing engineering input

Senior technical judgement

Typical example of a storage silo installation

Situation

The client needed ongoing engineering input across a live flow of design, detailing, review, and technical problem-solving work. What began as targeted 3D CAD work gradually widened into a broader role covering drawing production, design review, manufacturability input, structural assessment, and day-to-day technical queries.

The real problem

The tasks changed from week to week, but the underlying need was consistent: dependable senior engineering input that could be applied across live work without repeated briefing, outsourcing, or loss of context. The client needed someone who could step into evolving technical issues, improve the quality of design output, and provide practical judgement where the work did not fit neatly into a fixed-scope package.

Constraints

Bespoke output: Advice and deliverables had to be matched to the project context, the intended reader’s technical level, and what was actually needed to move the issue forward.
Proportionality: Responses had to be practical and proportionate to live project needs, ranging from judgement calls to more structured drawings, mark-ups, calculations, or technical notes.
Minimised waste: Support had to be delivered efficiently and proportionately, so the monthly hours allowance was used where it added the most value.

Client:

Manufacturer of large fabricated steel silos

Role:

Mechanical engineering consultant

Period:

2023 - Present

Scope:

Engineering decision support +
Design review +
Small bounded technical tasks

Acceptance basis:

Client review + approval
against live project needs

Highlights

Improved the quality and usability of engineering output

Simplified and rebuilt CAD so models were more practical to use, review, and build from
Produced clearer drawing information and more dependable release material for manufacture

Added senior judgement across live project decisions

Involved in design reviews, technical queries, and manufacturability questions as work evolved
Helped resolve issues in context, rather than treating each one as a disconnected standalone task

Provided senior engineering oversight across changing needs

Covered a mixed spread of review, delivery, and problem-solving work as priorities shifted
Gave the client access to experienced engineering input without needing equivalent permanent in-house capacity

Spun larger defined tasks out into separate packages

Where clearer, more bounded tasks emerged, these could be separately scoped and delivered outside the ongoing retainer arrangement
This kept the retainer focused on judgement-led work, allowing bigger delivery tasks to be handled with clearer definition and control

Outcome

Over time, the relationship improved both the quality of engineering output and the way live technical work was handled. CAD became more usable, drawing information became clearer and more dependable for manufacture, and evolving issues could be resolved with better continuity and context. The client also had a more practical route for handling mixed engineering needs as they arose, rather than forcing everything into an informal answer or a full standalone package.

What this enabled

The client gained access to senior engineering input across a changing mix of live project needs, without having to mirror that capability permanently in-house. Ongoing support could cover judgement-led queries and smaller bounded tasks, while larger defined packages could still be separated out and delivered under clearer scope and control. This created a more flexible and better-matched way to underpin active project delivery.

Business Perspective

The work was generally very well received, with regular positive feedback on the usefulness and quality of output, and the value of having a dependable senior engineering hand available as live issues arose.

Based on archived project emails

Contact

If you need to solve a problem and you’d like to explore whether I can help, drop me an email:

What to include

To help me give you a useful reply, please mention…

What you’re building or dealing with (one or two sentences)
What’s going wrong, what decision you’re trying to make, or where the brief still feels unclear
Key constraints (budget, timescale, materials, interfaces, standards)
What information you already have (CAD, drawings, photos, etc)
Desired outcome (e.g. clearer brief, options report, CAD, calcs, FEA)
Any deadlines and why they exist (so I can reality-check them)

Attachments

Attachments are welcome:

All enquiries and attachments are treated as confidential by default
If attachments are over 2MB, please use a file-sharing service such as Dropbox or WeTransfer and include a download link.

What happens next?

I’ll usually reply with a quick fit-check…

If it's a fit, I will:

Tell you whether and how I can help
Give you some options for how we could move forward
Ask for the minimum info needed to clarify and scope it

If it's not a fit, I will:

Say so, and tell you why
Suggest an alternative route, if appropriate

Email me directly at:

hello@frugaldesign.co.uk

Compose email