Esame di Stato Ingegnere common mistakes
Esame di Stato Ingegnere · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the structural design problem the candidate jumps straight to sizing sections and reinforcement before writing the limit-state verification scheme, then discovers the chosen static scheme (e.g. treating a beam as simply supported when the connection is moment-resisting) is inconsistent with the results.
Exam time pressure pushes candidates toward producing numbers early, and many have practised only routine textbook schemes, so they default to the most familiar model instead of reading the actual geometry and restraints described in the text.
What to do instead
Spend the first 10-15 minutes writing an explicit solution outline: structural model and its justification, loads and combinations per NTC 2018, list of SLU/SLE verifications with the relevant formulae, then numerical work. Keep the outline on the answer sheet so the examiner sees the logical chain even if arithmetic is incomplete.
The candidate applies seismic load combinations and behaviour factors without checking the ductility class, the regularity conditions, or the analysis method permitted for the structure, mixing an equivalent static analysis with a q-factor that presupposes a dissipative design.
Seismic design is often memorised as a formula set rather than as a decision tree; candidates recall q values and spectra but not the preconditions that make them admissible.
What to do instead
Build a one-page decision tree for seismic design: ductility class, regularity in plan and elevation, analysis method (linear static, linear dynamic, non-linear), q-factor, and required detailing. Practise stating the preconditions aloud before any calculation.
In the geotechnics question the candidate computes bearing capacity or retaining wall stability using characteristic soil parameters without distinguishing total and effective stress, and without checking the groundwater level effect on the wall or on uplift.
Soil mechanics problems look like plug-in formula exercises, and candidates conflate undrained and drained conditions or forget that water pressure acts independently of the effective stress analysis.
What to do instead
Always draw the pore pressure diagram first and label the analysis as drained or undrained before selecting parameters. For retaining works, run separate checks for overturning, sliding, bearing and global stability, and verify each with the correct partial factors from the geotechnical load combination table.
The candidate solves a hydraulics or hydrology exercise with a single formula (e.g. Chezy-Manning for uniform flow, or the rational method) without verifying the underlying assumptions such as steady uniform flow, fully rough turbulent regime, or a catchment time of concentration shorter than the storm duration.
Hydraulics is taught through formula recall, and candidates rarely practise justifying applicability; the exam text often contains cues about non-uniform or unsteady conditions that go unnoticed.
What to do instead
For each hydraulic problem, write one sentence stating the flow regime and the hypothesis of the chosen formula, then check the Reynolds or Froude number and the relative roughness. In hydrology, compute the time of concentration and compare it with the design rainfall duration before choosing the method.
In the road design exercise the candidate designs the vertical alignment or the horizontal curve without checking coordination between plan and profile, and without verifying stopping sight distance against the actual curve radius and gradient.
Candidates treat plan and profile as independent exercises and memorise minimum radii as numbers rather than as consequences of sight distance and friction.
What to do instead
After drafting the alignment, run an explicit sight-distance check at the critical points (crest vertical curves, horizontal curves with obstructions, combined curves), and state the design speed used. Show the coordination check as a distinct step in the answer.
The building physics question is answered with the thermal transmittance calculated for the bare wall, ignoring thermal bridges, surface resistances, and the difference between steady-state and periodic performance, or the candidate confuses the requirements for new construction with those for renovation.
Candidates calculate U-values from layer thicknesses and conductivity but skip the boundary conditions and the regulatory minimum requirements, which are the actual object of the question.
What to do instead
Always state internal and external surface resistances, list thermal bridges with their linear transmittance, and cite the applicable minimum requirement (limit values, nearly zero-energy building obligations) separately for new build and major renovation. Distinguish U-value from periodic thermal transmittance and from summer overheating checks.
In the electrical systems question the candidate sizes a protective device or a cable cross-section without verifying coordination between the protective device and the cable current-carrying capacity, and without checking the disconnection time against the touch voltage limit in the adopted earthing system.
Electrical design is peripheral to most civil engineering curricula, so candidates rely on rough rules of thumb and skip the coordination and protection checks that the question is actually testing.
What to do instead
Learn the standard verification chain for a circuit: design current, protective device rating, cable capacity with correction factors for installation and grouping, voltage drop, and disconnection time versus the earth fault loop impedance for the given earthing arrangement (TN, TT, IT). Write each step explicitly.
The urban planning question is answered by describing general principles of sustainable development instead of identifying the specific instrument of the plan (e.g. the zoning category, the implementation instrument, the environmental assessment procedure) and the legal hierarchy that governs the decision.
Planning topics invite generic prose, and candidates are unsure of the current national and regional framework, so they write around the question rather than applying the instrument.
What to do instead
Prepare a compact map of the Italian planning hierarchy from national law to the municipal structural and operational plan, with the associated environmental assessment and landscape authorisation steps. In the answer, name the instrument, the procedure, and the competent authority in the first paragraph, then explain.
In the safety question the candidate lists hazard types but does not produce the risk assessment logic required: no identification of the specific hazard, no evaluation of exposure, no selection of the hierarchy of preventive and protective measures, and no reference to the roles and obligations of the client, coordinator and contractor.
Safety is often revised as a list of personal protective equipment, while the exam tests the methodological framework and the allocation of duties under the consolidated safety legislation.
What to do instead
Structure every safety answer around the risk assessment sequence (hazard identification, exposure and severity evaluation, prevention before protection, collective before individual measures) and explicitly assign duties to the figures involved. For site-related questions, distinguish the safety and coordination plan from the operational safety plan.
In the administrative law and procurement question the candidate confuses the phases of a public contract (programming, design, tender, execution) and applies the wrong threshold, the wrong procedure, or the wrong remedy when describing a dispute over an award.
Procurement rules are numerous and have changed repeatedly, so candidates mix remembered versions and skip the threshold and procedure check that determines the correct answer.
What to do instead
Maintain a single updated summary table of contract value thresholds, admissible procedures, publication requirements and standstill periods, plus the remedies available before and after contract signature. In the answer, state the contract value bracket first, then derive the procedure from it.
The candidate answers the professional ethics item by describing what a good professional would do in general terms, without identifying the specific duty breached, the applicable deontological rule, and the disciplinary or civil consequence that follows.
Ethics is perceived as common sense, so candidates do not study the code of conduct as a set of binding norms and fail to connect behaviour to consequences.
What to do instead
Study the code of conduct article by article and practise mapping short scenarios to the specific rule, the duty involved (competence, independence, confidentiality, fairness), and the possible outcome (disciplinary sanction, civil liability, criminal liability where relevant). Answer in that three-part structure.
In the applied mathematics or numerical methods question the candidate reports a computed result without estimating its order of magnitude, checking convergence or conditioning, and without stating the units and the precision of the input data.
Candidates treat numerical exercises as arithmetic and do not habitually perform sanity checks, so sign errors, unit errors and ill-conditioned systems pass unnoticed.
What to do instead
End every calculation with an explicit verification step: order-of-magnitude estimate, check of boundary conditions or equilibrium, sensitivity to input precision, and consistent units. For iterative methods, state the convergence criterion and the achieved residual.