IStructE · Resources
Short exercises
A hundred and sixty drills — client letters, critical details, calculations, foundations and method statements.
Who this is for:Candidates at any stage
The sections of the paper fail independently, so practise them independently — fifteen to twenty-five minutes at a time.
Why drills, and not only full papers
A full mock costs you a day, and you will sit a handful of them. Most candidates' weakness is concentrated in one or two sections, and a full paper is an expensive way to rediscover that.
These are short. A detail is fifteen minutes. A client letter is twenty-five. A calculation is twenty. You can do one in a lunch break, and the feedback is immediate: either you produced something usable in the time, or you did not.
Where candidates are usually weakest
- Critical details. The commonest failure is drawing three typical details rather than three critical ones. The fifty detail exercises here are all chosen at junctions where something is actually being resolved.
- The client letter. Ten marks that candidates either rush or over-write. The thirty communication exercises each contain a brief with something genuinely worth challenging.
- Method statements. Eight to ten marks, thirty minutes, and the section most often left unstarted. Twenty scenarios here, each with a constraint that should visibly shape the sequence.
- Foundations. Named explicitly in both the calculations and the drawings, and the first thing to be squeezed when time runs short.
Use the clock
Each exercise carries a time. Start it. The point is not to produce your best work — it is to find out what you can produce in the time the examination will actually give you, which is the thing candidates consistently overestimate.
Short exercises
160 drills for the parts of the paper that fail independently. Twenty minutes each, against a clock.
A four-storey office where the client has asked for a 9 m clear span throughout, on a site with no unusual constraints.
Write to the client proposing amendments that reduce material usage while keeping the office plan usable.
25 minA specific span reduction, the mechanism of the saving, and an honest statement of what it costs in flexibility.
A warehouse brief specifying 15 m clear internal height where the racking supplier needs only 11 m.
Write to the client identifying the saving available and what has to be confirmed before it can be taken.
25 minA challenge to a brief figure, supported by whom it must be checked with.
A residential block where the architect's layout places apartments on a grid incompatible with the parking below.
Write to the architect and client explaining the transfer structure implied and proposing an alternative.
20 minCost of the transfer expressed in material terms, and a proposal that respects the accommodation schedule.
A school extension where the brief requires a fully glazed elevation on the stability line.
Write to the client setting out the consequence and offering two ways to keep most of the glazing.
25 minThe stability problem stated plainly, and options rather than a refusal.
A bridge brief that specifies a particular deck material without giving a reason.
Write to the client asking what lies behind the specification and setting out what else is possible.
20 minA question asked before an answer is proposed — a legitimate and often strong move.
A retail building where the client wants a column-free 30 m shopfront.
Write proposing an amendment that reduces the span while preserving the retail frontage.
25 minUnderstanding of what the client actually needs from the frontage, as opposed to what they asked for.
A brief specifying a 60-year design life where the building is on a lease with 25 years to run.
Write to the client on the material consequences of the design life and what a shorter life would permit.
20 minDesign life connected to durability, specification and carbon.
A leisure centre where the pool hall span has been set by an aspiration for future expansion.
Write proposing that the expansion allowance be reconsidered, with the saving quantified.
25 minFuture-proofing weighed honestly rather than dismissed.
A brief requiring a flat roof with a 1.5 kN/m² allowance for future plant that has no identified use.
Write to the client on the cost of the allowance and what a defined plant zone would save.
20 minTurning a blanket allowance into a located one.
A site with an existing single-storey building the client intends to demolish.
Write setting out what retention or partial retention could offer, and what would need to be established.
25 minReuse proposed with a route to verification, not as an aspiration.
A brief with a 300 mm floor zone allowance that forces a shallow, heavily reinforced slab.
Write proposing an increase in the floor zone and explaining what it buys.
20 minThe relationship between depth, reinforcement quantity and carbon.
An industrial building where the client has specified a mezzanine over the whole footprint but expects to fit out only half.
Write proposing a phased mezzanine and setting out what must be designed in now.
25 minDistinguishing what must be provided now from what can be deferred.
A brief specifying a basement for plant that could be accommodated at roof level.
Write comparing the two and recommending one.
20 minExcavation carbon and cost against roof-level constraints, with a recommendation.
A footbridge brief requiring a 1 in 20 ramp gradient where 1 in 15 would be compliant and much shorter.
Write to the client on the material and cost consequence of the chosen gradient.
25 minA brief requirement challenged against the standard it derives from.
A client who has asked for the structure to be 'as sustainable as possible' with no further definition.
Write asking the questions needed to make that instruction actionable.
20 minTurning an aspiration into criteria that can decide between schemes.
A hospital extension where the brief requires the structural grid to match the existing building exactly.
Write setting out where matching helps and where it costs, and proposing a partial departure.
25 minSelective compliance argued rather than wholesale acceptance or rejection.
A brief with an imposed floor loading of 5.0 kN/m² throughout an office building.
Write proposing a zoned loading strategy and quantifying the saving.
20 minLoading treated as a design variable rather than a given.
A car park where the client wants the top deck usable for events.
Write on the structural implications of the crowd loading and dynamic response, and propose a limited-area alternative.
25 minDynamic behaviour raised, and a proportionate proposal.
A residential brief requiring all apartments to have identical layouts on an irregular site.
Write proposing limited layout variation to suit the structure.
20 minA trade the client can evaluate, expressed in their terms.
A brief with a stated programme that the proposed in-situ scheme cannot meet.
Write setting out the conflict and offering two routes through it.
25 minThe conflict stated early and clearly, with the decision left with the client.
A client asking why the foundations cost so much on a site with soft ground.
Write explaining the ground conditions and their consequence in terms a non-engineer can use.
20 minExplanation without jargon, and without condescension.
An exhibition building where the brief asks for a removable roof panel over the whole roof area.
Write proposing a defined removable zone instead, and explaining why.
25 minScoping a requirement down to what is actually needed.
A brief specifying deep beams to achieve a service zone the services engineer has not yet confirmed.
Write asking for the service zone to be confirmed and setting out the consequences of each option.
20 minManaging a dependency rather than assuming it.
A tall residential building where the brief fixes a 2.6 m floor-to-floor height.
Write on the interaction between floor-to-floor height, structural depth and services, and propose a resolution.
25 minA coordinated proposal rather than a structural one in isolation.
A client who wants to reuse steel from a building being demolished on an adjacent site.
Write setting out what would have to be established before the steel could be used.
20 minEnthusiasm tempered by traceability, testing and standards.
A brief requiring a piled foundation where a raft may be feasible.
Write proposing a ground investigation scope that would allow the cheaper option to be considered.
25 minProposing to buy information as a way of saving material.
A client asking whether the building could be one storey taller.
Write setting out what would change structurally and what would need re-checking.
20 minA clear list of consequences, and what cannot be answered without more work.
A brief that places heavy plant at the centre of a long-span roof.
Write proposing that the plant be relocated and quantifying the benefit.
25 minLoad position treated as a design variable.
A client concerned that a lower-carbon scheme will cost more.
Write addressing the cost question honestly, including where the assumption is wrong.
20 minNot overclaiming; conceding where carbon does cost money.
A brief for a building on a constrained site where the client has assumed a tower crane can be used.
Write setting out the access constraint and proposing a scheme suited to it.
25 minConstruction method fed back into the brief rather than accepted downstream.
Everything here is stored in this browser only. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is analysed, and clearing your browser data will delete it — so export anything you want to keep.
What is in the bank
| Kind | How many | Time each |
|---|---|---|
| Client letters | 30 | 20–25 minutes |
| Critical details | 50 | 15 minutes |
| Calculations | 40 | 20–25 minutes |
| Foundations | 20 | 20 minutes |
| Method statements | 20 | 25 minutes |
160 exercises in total. Each carries a note on what a marker would be looking for, hidden until you have made your attempt.
After each attempt
Did I finish inside the time?
The examination is a time-management problem before it is anything else, and the only way to find out is to be timed.
Would a stranger understand what I produced?
Legibility is a marking criterion, and it is the first thing to go under pressure.
Did I answer this brief, or a generic version of it?
Marks are not awarded for generic answers — the examiners state it plainly.
Related pages and tools
- Practice briefsSeventy-seven original briefs across the Chartered, Incorporated, supplementary and energy papers.
- Critical detailsThree at minimum, chosen because they are critical to your scheme — not because they are the ones you can draw.
- Client letterTen marks for proposing amendments to the brief that reduce material usage, in a letter or email.
- Method statementAround thirty minutes for a sequence that builds your scheme safely — and a generic answer scores nothing.