In this guide
Use this material to examine your own work. Confirm current requirements, forms and dates with IStructE before applying.
Your two schemes need meaningful differences. A single change to an otherwise repeated scheme gives you little basis for the appraisal and limits the marks available.
Developing two viable options
Use significant differences in stability system, framing and grid, foundation type, materials, load path and construction method. Changing one alone is insufficient. A second scheme should remain viable and offer a credible alternative you could discuss with a client.
Working from the brief
- Identify the controlling constraints, such as span, ground, programme, access or reuse.
- Develop scheme A and record its approach in the six categories above.
- Develop scheme B with three or four significant changes. Check that those changes preserve viability.
- Sketch stability for both. An unstable proposal is an automatic fail.
- Check both against the brief before proceeding.
Appraising the schemes
Discuss relative merits and recommend one option with reasons. A tick-and-cross comparison alone is insufficient. Sustainability must be a criterion, alongside other factors relevant to the brief:
- Economics and structural efficiency, including effects on service routing, storey height and cladding.
- Programme, construction sequence and restrictions such as outages.
- Construction and demolition safety, specialist skills, equipment and temporary works. Consider dismantling, especially for post-tensioned structures.
- Location, transport, availability of materials and skilled labour.
- Maintenance access and safety.
Weight the criteria according to the project. For example, a remote site and an art gallery have different priorities. Finish with a clear recommendation.
In section 1a
Look for
- Change three or four of the six difference categories between schemes
- Sketch and label the stability system for both schemes explicitly
- Keep both schemes buildable
- Choose appraisal criteria from this brief, not from a generic list
- Make sustainability a real criterion, with a reason attached
Watch for
- Present the same frame in two materials and call them distinct
- Propose an obviously impractical scheme to knock down
- Leave stability implicit anywhere
- Produce a tick-and-cross table instead of an appraisal
- Forget to state which scheme you recommend
A method that produces distinct schemes
- 01
Find the constraint that dominates the brief
Span, ground conditions, programme, access, or an existing structure to reuse. It should drive your first scheme rather than being accommodated afterwards.
- 02
Design scheme A around it
Then write down its stability system, framing and grid, foundation type, material, load path and construction method: the six categories the instructions use.
- 03
Change three or four of the six for scheme B
Not one. If changing them breaks viability, that is a finding about the problem, and it belongs in your appraisal.
- 04
Sketch the stability of both, explicitly
Ignoring stability is an automatic fail, so settle it before spending time anywhere else.
- 05
Check both against the brief's stated constraints
A scheme that breaches a constraint the question told you to maintain is not viable, however elegant it is.
Official sources
Selected publisher pages were rechecked in September 2026. Other source records were last checked in July 2026. Open the latest official document before relying on a requirement.