Examiners' Report 2012: Chartered Membership Examination 2014 2 Chartered Membership Examination 2012 3
Examiners' Report 2012: Chartered Membership Examination 2014 2 Chartered Membership Examination 2012 3
Examiners' Report 2012: Chartered Membership Examination 2014 2 Chartered Membership Examination 2012 3
Overview
Questions
Feedback
10
12
14
15
Overview
15
Questions
15
Feedback
16
Section 1a
16
Section 1b
16
Section 2c
16
Section 2d
17
Section 2e
17
1
Examiners report 2012
The Examinations Panel, on behalf of the Institution, continues to review all aspects of the
Chartered Membership and Associate Membership examinations and their role in assisting
structural engineers to gain Chartered and Incorporated Engineer status within an
international professional structural engineering institution.
For the third year running, the Institution has provided personal feedback, in the form of
average marks awarded together with individual comments from Marking Examiners, to
unsuccessful candidates in order to highlight strengths and weaknesses within their scripts
and to assist them in preparing for re-sits the following year. The Examinations Panel has
noted an increase in the number of requests for feedback and it continues to be well received
by candidates.
The Panel once again highlights the important and perennial advice to all candidates taking
the examinations:
Candidates should attempt to answer all the sections of their chosen question.
Candidates must identify the key problems in their chosen question that must be
solved in order to gain a pass.
Candidates must communicate their understanding of these key issues and
demonstrate how to address them in their chosen solutions.
Candidates must answer the question set and not modify its requirements.
2
Examiners report 2012
765
397
35.3%
368
35.9%
35.6%
Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Feedback
Question 1: Conference hall and exhibition galleries
This question required a circular conference hall with three internal exhibition gallery floors.
The hall consisted of a large clear-span roof supported on raking columns around the
perimeter with the gallery floors suspended from the roof structure as the hall was required to
be column-free. Six remote cores containing the staircase and lifts were equally spaced
around the perimeter of the hall building; these could be designed as individual elements or
as part of the overall structural solution to provide stability.
The number of candidates attempting this question was disappointingly low which may be
attributed to the daunting combination of the physical size and geometry of the building
making it appear more complex that it actually was. The brief however was straightforward
and easy to follow and, crucially, offered various options for framing the roof which should
have meant it was not difficult to offer two clearly distinct and viable schemes. Most
candidates who attempted the question understood the constraints in the brief and dealt with
them appropriately.
Knowledge of basic scheme design and structural concepts appeared to be lacking in many
scripts. Some candidates struggled to put forward a coherent global structure, with some
offering individual elements which did not combine into a sensible overall structural
arrangement. Some candidates over-complicated the principal framing arrangement and,
where novel solutions were proposed, they were not followed through with sufficient detail to
justify their integrity. There were various suitable solutions to deal with the circular plan; they
included long-span trusses with a cable supported roof, trussed beams spanning from side to
side, or alternatively portalised frames or three-pinned arches. Some candidates suggested
an inappropriate mix of these various options.
3
Examiners report 2012
4
Examiners report 2012
Almost all candidates ignored the undercroft, and did not consider the lateral loads at ground
level. The sloping topography was generally dealt with by fill. Another common approach was
to use core walls, located immediately behind the glazing. While structurally sound, it ignored
the aesthetic impact on the structure.
Ground conditions were reasonably well considered. The implications of the ground water
table on bearing pressures in the gravel were generally recognised. Piling was the favoured
solution, but discussions on the types of pile were limited. Some candidates proposed a deep
cellar on piles: this would require piling and a deep excavation which is inefficient and would
need precautionary measures for the existing building, but this was frequently not mentioned.
Most candidates included sketches and preliminary sizing calculations, but there was
generally insufficient description of proposed schemes and a lack of clarity, especially for the
alternative scheme that candidates discarded for Part 2.
The letter was designed to test the candidates understanding of how lateral loads would
affect the building. A business letter format was generally satisfactorily adopted. Many
recognised the implications of the lateral & torsional transfer of wind loads.
Section 2
Too many candidates provided relatively trivial calculations whilst ignoring the stability of the
structure. Some noted that deflection could not be checked in the time available, when for
particular elements deflection would have been the controlling phenomenon. Candidates
tended to focus on superstructure elements and pile designs, where provided, were poor.
Drawings in 2(d) were less than satisfactory, perhaps reflecting a lack of regular direct
involvement in drawing production. Sometimes the structural form was not fully conveyed by
the drawings and these would therefore be inadequate for costing. Critical details were poor
with little comprehension of good detailing practice e.g. blinding concrete below foundations
and structure/envelope interfaces.
Method statements and programmes for 2(e) were mostly just acceptable where time
permitted. Often the method statement was too simplistic providing mostly generic
information on site safety rather than project-specific information. Some candidates did not
understand the sequencing for solutions with hangers, and few used sketches to illustrate
more involved sequencing.
6
Examiners report 2012
As usual, most candidates seemed to have left section 2(e) until the very last moment
because of poor time management. Hence the method statements were simply lists of
activities, and the key issue of how to achieve safe construction over water and near the
transmission lines was totally ignored.
Question 4: New arts school
The question required a three-storey building suspended around a central core, with a
basement. The question was straightforward and there were limited options for different loadpaths; however, the question was particularly unforgiving for those candidates who were
unable to provide engineering solutions to meet the challenge.
The common solutions were (i) large-span cantilever steel trusses at roof level, and (ii)
concrete cantilever transfer beams at level 2. Others offered included cantilever beams at all
levels, steel trusses at level 2, and multi-storey Vierendeel trusses in both steel and
concrete. Cores were generally of concrete.
When choosing concrete solutions, very few candidates undertook a satisfactory span/depth
check on the long-span cantilever beams.
The junction between the cantilevers and the core walls were critical, and it was necessary to
check and design for the large bending moments at these positions. In many cases the
connection details provided were wholly inadequate to resist the bending moments, and the
structure was not stable. Good candidates either brought the cantilever beams across the
core and used the cantilevers on the opposite side as a balance (and appreciated that the
layout had to be carefully thought out so that the beams would not obstruct the installation of
the lifts) or thickened the core walls locally to support the large bending moments. Some
candidates who correctly proposed primary cantilevers from the core with secondary
cantilevers off the primary ones to support the corners, often failed to appreciate the need for
back-spans for the secondary cantilevers.
Most candidates chose foundation solutions bearing into the rock, but a factor of safety was
needed on the stated bearing pressure which some did not include. The project called for a
deep basement near the sea, requiring a check on the stability of the building against both
wind and floatation.
In the letter, most candidates satisfactorily identified the structural issues involved with
adding a deeper basement, but some would have gained more marks if their presentation
had been better.
Some candidates quoted element sizes by reference to external documents or by guessing
at the size without justification. Candidates need to provide sufficient proof of adequacy of
their proposed structure.
Drawings often omitted sections and elevations. Good candidates presented a coherent set
of labeled plans, sections and critical details. Some candidates attempted to combine all
plans into a single multiple plan with sections not to scale and without critical details, and
these lost marks.
Many candidates put forward reasonable method statements, but some missed important
matters such as dewatering.
8
Examiners report 2012
10
Examiners report 2012
Part 2(c) was generally poorly carried out. Few managed to prepare calculations justifying all
aspects of their chosen structure. Loads were rarely properly laid out and computed. Some
elements of the structures were, by some, sized and designed to tables without properly
explaining what was involved. Calculations for foundations were limited, and no real
assessment was made of the effect on the existing footings.
A few candidates managed to cover all the basic elements, but most were struggling and
some managed hardly any calculations. The time available should be enough to prepare
analyses with basic bending, shear and deflection calculations for all the main elements.
Candidates need to be familiar with hand calculations and avoid reliance on computers.
Part 2(d) was rushed by most, with two or even three part-plans per layout. A few candidates
managed to show enough information for someone to take off quantities, but most just did
not get it all down.
Details were, by and large, inadequate or over-simplified. Details could have been provided
for the eaves, foundations, and opening-up of the slab, as well as general items such as
beam/column connections.
Part 2(e) was skimped by most. There were many statements about health and safety, but
little on matters that related how to properly and safely construct the structure. A number
were quite prepared to crane their piling rig into the courtyard, but clearly had no
comprehension of the size of rig required for the piles proposed or the magnitude of crane
this would necessitate. Breaking out the floor was not well described by most, though many
recognised the need for temporary support for the cut slab section.
Programmes varied, but nearly all were over-optimistic. A realistic period would be around 20
weeks.
The question was straightforward and should have been well within the capability of a
Chartered Engineer. However, candidates appear not to do enough real design in their
working lives to gather the experience and instinct that an engineer needs to resolve
structural problems quickly and effectively. The good candidates had this, but most gave the
impression they were not able to use innovation to resolve problems that fall outside a
standard framed solution.
11
Examiners report 2012
This year, many candidates lost marks due to insufficient attention given to their alternative
solution. Candidates are expected to critically assess both structural arrangements and
provide justification for their preferred solution. Marks were awarded to solutions that
considered in-place conditions, including snagging, and relevant temporary conditions,
loadout, transportation and installation, as these conditions influence the framing and
member sizing of the subsea package.
The letter in part 1(b) asked candidates to look at the implications of extending the east side
of the subsea package by 2m to incorporate an increase in the size of the flowline tie-in
porch. Marks were awarded to candidates who recognised an increase in weight, installation
hydrodynamic loads and the implications of loss of symmetry on the loadings, which affected
the lifting arrangement and piled foundation. Candidates are encouraged to produce simple
sketches to illustrate the influence of the issues raised and their structural resolution, while
maintaining the formality of a letter.
For part 2(c), candidates presented calculations that did not adequately cover the stated
design criteria. In particular, installation loads were poorly derived despite the specified
limitation of the installation vessel crane, and in some cases snagging loads were not
properly considered. Candidates are reminded that the magnitude of critical loadings will
govern the member sizing of the main structural and foundation elements, and these
loadings should be determined in a rational and clearly understandable manner. Candidates
should allocate sufficient time to consider design of the critical details such as lift points and
member connections. Candidates are also encouraged to reconcile their initial dead load
estimate with a final designed weight to confirm their calculations remain valid. The dead
weight versus buoyancy and inertial and drag loads is a significant input to determining crane
hook loads.
12
Examiners report 2012
In part 2(d), candidates are reminded of the importance of good quality sketches, drawn to
scale, to clarify their design submissions and to provide the detailing necessary to support a
viable arrangement. For a subsea package, the critical detailing comprises the connections
of the piles, lift points and member end connection details especially where welder access is
limited. Single-line diagrams are not as useful, as joint eccentricities are not apparent and
sensible design proportions cannot be verified by simple visual checks.
In the method statement in part 2(e) it was unnecessary to include aspects of the
construction and loadout as these did not form part of the question: some candidates
devoted valuable time to these subjects with no gain in marks. Important procedures in this
instance would be continued weather forecasting and monitoring, during both transportation
and particularly installation, lifting, subsea rigging retrieval, subsea package levelling and
piling. Candidates are encouraged to produce simple sketches to illustrate all significant
transportation and installation activities.
13
Examiners report 2012
14
Examiners report 2012