Phase 7 · Pass the examination

The Chartered Membership Examination

The five sections, what each is worth, and what the examiners say they are looking for in each.

Who this is for:Chartered Member candidates

Two schemes, a client letter, full design calculations, drawings with details, and a method statement — one hundred marks across five sections.

Section 1a carries the most marks, and most of the marks lost there are lost on the word distinct.

The five sections

Institution of Structural Engineers

Section 1a — prepare two distinct, viable and sustainable solutions for the proposed structure, then recommend one, using sustainability as a key criterion.
Section 1b — suggest amendments to the brief that reduce material usage, written as a letter or an email.
Section 2c — prepare sufficient design calculations to establish the form, size and approximate A1–A3 carbon footprints of all the principal structural elements including the foundations.
Section 2d — prepare drawings and critical details for estimating purposes.
Section 2e — prepare a construction method statement for your own scheme.

Section 1a — two schemes and a recommendation: 40marksTwo distinct, viable and sustainable solutions, then a recommendation.
Section 1b — professional communication: 10marksAmendments to the brief that reduce material usage, as a letter or email.
Section 2c — design calculations and carbon: 22marksForm, size and approximate A1–A3 carbon for all principal structural elements.
Section 2d — drawings and critical details: 20marksA minimum of three critical details would ordinarily be expected.
Section 2e — construction method statement: 8marksTailored to the candidate's own scheme; a generic response is not acceptable.

From Exam Guidance and Instructions — Chartered Membership Examination, Institution of Structural Engineers.

"Distinct" is a technical word here

Section 1a carries the most marks, and most of the marks lost there are lost on the word distinct.

The instructions list the kinds of difference that make two schemes genuinely different: stability system, framing and grid, foundation type, materials, load path, and construction method. Then they say the thing candidates miss — changing just one of these is not enough. Higher marks go to candidates who present as many significant differences as they can while keeping both schemes viable.

For a bridge question the bar is set explicitly: each scheme should be a different form of bridge structure, with different spans or different load paths to the foundations. Changing only the material is not enough.

There is a matching warning: do not go so far that one scheme is obviously impractical just so you can dismiss it in the appraisal. Examiners have seen that, and a straw-man scheme costs marks in both 1a and the appraisal.

The appraisal is worth about as much as the letter

Within section 1a, the recommendation is generally allocated around 8 marks — roughly the same as the entire professional communication in 1b. It deserves the same care, and it is not a tick-and-cross table.

The instructions ask you to review and critically appraise and give reasons. Things worth weighing, chosen for this brief rather than in general: economics and structural efficiency; programme and construction sequence; safety during construction and demolition; location, access and material transport; maintenance; robustness; adaptability. Sustainability must be one of your criteria, not an afterthought at the end.

2c: judgement about how much to check

Section 2c asks for the form, size and carbon of all principal structural elements. The examiners expect you to decide which members those are — typically five to seven elements, depending on the question.

On the depth of checking: for most members, bending and shear alongside a span-to-depth deflection check will be adequate, and extra marks are available for recognising where an additional check is genuinely needed — web buckling under a concentrated load, for instance. There is no requirement to run multiple load cases, and repetitive or simple calculations are not required.

Design guides may justify a size once you have established the design parameters, but they must not be your primary source of member sizing.

Carbon, done simply

The Institution gives the method plainly:

Embodied carbon (kgCO₂e) = mass (kg) × embodied carbon factor (kgCO₂e/kg)

Industry-average factors are recommended, though other suitable values may be used. The Institution's How to Calculate Embodied Carbon document and its free online embodied carbon course are the intended preparation.

2d and 2e

Drawings need not be to scale but should be in proportion and dimensioned, covering plans and sections including foundations, with elevations where they are needed to convey the scheme. Part plans are acceptable where the structure is symmetrical, and one plan can represent a number of identical floors. A minimum of three critical details would ordinarily be expected — cantilever connections, major splices, retaining wall details and the like.

The method statement must be tailored to your scheme, must include all activities required to build it, and must address health and safety. A generic response is not acceptable.

Where the marks are, and where the time goes

Queensferry's arithmetic from the published marks and the 420-minute writing day — a starting point only. The Institution publishes an indicative timetable in the Exam Preparation Guidance, and advises building your own from your own mocks. Reading, thinking and checking time all have to come out of these figures.
	Marks	Roughly, at 4.2 minutes per mark
1a — two schemes and a recommendation	40	About 2¾ hours
1b — client letter	10	About 40 minutes
2c — calculations and carbon	22	About 1½ hours
2d — drawings and details	20	About 1½ hours
2e — method statement	8	About 35 minutes

Queensferry's arithmetic from the published marks and the 420-minute writing day — a starting point only. The Institution publishes an indicative timetable in the Exam Preparation Guidance, and advises building your own from your own mocks. Reading, thinking and checking time all have to come out of these figures.

The Chartered paper, in summary

Worth doing

Make the two schemes differ in three or four respects, not one
Keep both schemes genuinely buildable
Show stability explicitly for both
Decide which five to seven members are principal elements, and say so
Recognise where an extra check governs, and say why
Attempt all five sections, however short the last one has to be

Avoid

Present one scheme in two materials
Design every beam in the building
Run multiple load cases when the worst case will do
Draw to construction standard when estimating standard is asked for
Write a generic method statement
Re-open the scheme decision after lunch