THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

Statically Indeterminate Structures;

- when a structure has too many external reactions and/or internal forces to be
determined with the equations of statics (including any equation of condition),
it is statically indeterminate. A load placed on one part of a statically
indeterminate or continuous structure will cause shears, moments and deflections
in the other parts of the structure. In other words, loads applied to a column
affect the beams, slabs and other columns and vice versa.
Advantages of Statically Indeterminate Structures;
- in comparing statically indeterminate structures with statically determinate
ones, the first consideration, to most, would pertain to cost. However, it is
impossible to make a statement favoring one type, economically, without
reservation. Each structure presents a different situation and all factors must
be considered economic or otherwise.

Savings in Materials;
- the smaller moments developed permit the use of smaller members. For bridges,
the material saving could possibly as high as 10 to 20%. The number of force
reversals occurring in railroad bridges keeps their maximum saving nearer to
10%.
A structural member of a given size can support more loads if it is part
of a continuous structure than it is simply supported. The continuity permits
the use of smaller members for the same loads and spans or increased spacing
of supports for the same size members. The possibility of fewer columns in
buildings or fewer piers in bridges may permit a reduction in overall costs.
Continuous structures of concrete or steel are cheaper without the
joints, pins and so on required to make them statically determinate, as was
frequently the practice in recent years. Monolithic reinforced-concrete
structures are erected so that they are naturally continuous and statically
indeterminate. To install the hinges and other devices necessary to make them
statically determinate would not only be a difficult problem but also very
expensive. Furthermore, if a building frame consisted of columns and simple
beams, it would necessary to have objectionable diagonal bracing between the
joints to make the frame stable and rigid.

Larger Safety Factors;

- statically indeterminate structures often have higher safety factors than
statically determinate ones. Structural designers know very well that when
portions of the structures are overstressed they will often have the ability
to redistribute portions of those stresses to less-stressed areas. Statically
determinate structures generally do not have this ability. Should the moment
in a statically determinate beam or frame reach the ultimate moment capacity
of the structure at a particular point, the structure will fail. This is not
the case for statically indeterminate structures. It can be clearly shown that
a statically indeterminate beam or frame normally will not collapse when its
ultimate moment capacity is reached at just one section. Instead, there is a
redistribution of the moments in the structure.

More Attractive Structures;

- it is difficult to imagine statically determinate structures having the
gracefulness and beauty of many statically indeterminate structures, such as
arches and frames, being erected today.

Greater Rigidity and Smaller Deflections;

- statically
indeterminate
structures
are
more
rigid
than
statically
determinate ones and have smaller deflections. Because of their continuity,

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

they are stiffer and have greater

(horizontal, vertical, moving, etc).

stability

Chapter 1

against

all

types

of

loads

Adaption to Cantilever Erection;

- the cantilever method of erecting bridges is of particular value where
conditions underneath (probably marine traffic or deep water) hinder the
erection of formworks. Continuous statically indeterminate bridges and
cantilever-type bridges are conveniently erected by the cantilever method.

Disadvantages of Statically Indeterminate Structures;

- a comparison of statically determinate and statically indeterminate structures
shows the latter have several disadvantages that make their use undesirable on
many occasions.

Support Settlement;
- statically indeterminate structures are not desirable where foundation
conditions are poor, because seemingly minor support settlements or rotations
may cause major changes in the moments, shears, reactions and bar forces.
Where statically indeterminate bridges are used despite the presence of poor
foundation conditions, it is occasionally felt necessary to physically measure
the dead-load reactions. The supports of the bridge are jacked up or down
until the calculated reaction is obtained, after which the support is built to
that elevation.

Difficulty of Analysis and Design;

- the forces in statically indeterminate structure depend not only on their
dimensions but also on their properties (moduli of elasticity, moments of
inertia and cross-sectional areas). This situation presents a design
difficulty. The forces cannot be determined until the members sizes are known
and the member sizes cannot be determined until their forces are known. The
problem is handled by assuming member sizes and computing the forces,
designing the members for these forces and computing the forces for the new
sizes and so on, until the final design is obtained. Design by this method
the method of successive approximations takes more time than the design of a
comparable statically determinate structure, but extra cost is only a part of
the total cost of the structure.

Development of Other Stresses;

- support settlement is not the only condition that causes stress variations in
statically indeterminate structures. Variation in the relative positions of
members caused by temperature changes, poor fabrication or internal
deformation of members of the structure under load may cause serious changes
throughout the structure.

Stress Reversals;
- generally, more force reversals occur in statically indeterminate structures
than in statically determinate ones. Additional material may be required at
certain sections to resist the different force conditions and to prevent
fatigue failures.

Method of Consistent Deformation;

- statically indeterminate structures can be analyzed by the direct use of the
theory of elastic deformations. Any statically indeterminate structure can be
made statically determinate and stable by removing the extra restraints called
redundant forces, that is, the force elements which are more than the minimum
necessary for the static equilibrium of the structure. The statically
Engr. I.R. Bonzon

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

determinate and stable structure that remains after the removal of the extra
restraints is called the primary structure. The original structure is then
equivalent to the primary structure subjected to the combined action of the
original loads plus the unknown redundant. The conditional equations for
geometric consistencies of the original structure at redundant points called the
compatibility equations, are then obtained from the primary structure by
superposition of the deformations caused by the original loads and redundant.
This method known as consistent deformations is generally applicable to the
analysis of any structure, whether it is being analyzed for the effects of
loads, support settlements, temperature changes or any other cases. However,
there is only one restriction on the use of this method: the principle of
superposition must hold.
EX. Analyze the propped beam shown.
Given:
E
=
15.0 GPa

50 kN

50 kN
C

2.0 x 108

R"
A

50 kN

MA

150

'

B
3 m

2 m

RA

RC

50

V'
C

5R C

"
M"
A

5R C

M'C

150

150

mm 4

28.4

M"
C
"
VC

43.2

21.6

RC

42

assume R C as the redundant force,

considering the applied loads,
(+) M A = 0;
50(3) - M'A = 0;

M'A

150.0 kN-m

R'A

50.0 kN

(+) Fy = 0;

R'A - 50 = 0;

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

considering the redundant force,

(+) M A = 0;

M"A

- R C (5) 0;

M"A

5 RC

R"A

RC

(+) Fy = 0;

R"A

RC -

= 0;

using conjugate beam method,

considering the applied loads,
'
' = M C

(150)(3)(4)

2EI

900
EI

kN-

m3
considering the redundant force,

"

"
MC

5R C(5)
2EI

(2)(5)
3

125R C
3EI

kN- m 3
from compatibility requirements,

' +

900
EI

"
+

= 0;

125R C
3EI

= 0;

RC

21.6 kN

MA

42.0 kN-m

RA

28.4 kN

considering the whole structure,

(+) M A = 0;
50(3) 21.6(5) - M A

= 0;

(+) Fy = 0;

R A + 21.6 - 50 = 0;
Engr. I.R. Bonzon

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

EX. Draw the shear and moment diagram for the beam shown.
50 kN

50 kN

10 kN/m
B

10 kN/m

2 m 2 m

R"
D

R"
A

D
4 m

77.5 kN

RC

52.5 kN

50 kN
1

0.5

0.5

10 kN/m

RC

RA

RD

0.5

0.5

1
50.64

35.31

15.31

29.69

5.33
10.31

34.69
54.69

38.74

assume R C as the redundant force,

considering the applied loads,
(+) M A = 0;
50(2) + 10(8)(4) - R'
D (8) = 0;

R'D

52.5 kN

R'A

77.5 kN

(+) M D = 0;

R'A (8) 50(6) 10(8)(4) = 0;

considering the redundant force,
(+) M A = 0;

R C (4) -

R"D

(8) = 0;

R"D

0.50

RC
(+) M D = 0;

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

R"A

Chapter 1

R"A

(8) - R C (4) = 0;

0.50

RC
using the applied loads,
0 x 2,

for segment AB;

10x2
2

77.5x -

0.5x

Mm

-2.5 x3 + 38.75 x2

10x2
2

77.5x -

0.5x

Mm

-2.5 x3 + 13.75 x2 + 50x

- 50(x 2)

10x2
2

77.5x -

0.5x 1(x 4)

Mm

2.5 x3 - 33.75 x2 + 60x + 400

'

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

-5 x2 + 27.5x + 100

-5 x2 + 27.5x + 100

-0.5x + 4

4 x 8,

for segment CD;

Mm

EI

- 50(x 2)

dx

2.5x3 38.75x2
dx +
EI

-5 x2 + 77.5x

2 x 4,

for segment BC;

1
EI

2.5x3 13.75x 2 50x

dx
EI

2.5x3 33.75x 2 60x 400

dx
EI

2.5x4
4

38.75x3
3

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

1
2.5x4

EI
4
1 2.5x4

EI
4

13.75x3
3

33.75x3
3

Chapter 1

25x2

30x2 400x

900
EI

kN- m 3

using the redundant force,

0 x 4,

for segment AC;

M

-0.5 R c x

-0.5x

Mm

0.25 R C x2
4 x 8,

for segment CD;

M

-0.5 R C x + R C (x 4)

0.5 R C x - 4 R C

-0.5x + 1(x 4)

0.5x 4

Mm

0.25 R C x2 - 4 R C x + 16 R C

"

Mm

dx

EI

0.25R C x 2
dx +
EI

RC
EI

0.25x3

0.25R C x2 4R C x 16R C
EI

RC
EI

0.25x3

2x2 16x

dx

10.67R C
kN- m 3
EI

from the compatibility requirements,

' -

"

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

900
EI

10.67R C
EI

Chapter 1

RC

= 0;

84.375 kN

RD

10.3125 kN

RA

35.3125 kN

ok

considering the whole structure,

(+) M A = 0;
50(2) + 10(8)(4) 84.375(4) - R D (8) = 0;
(+) M D = 0;

R A (8) + 84.375(4) - 50(6) - 10(8)(4) = 0;

Check;
(+) Fy = 0;
35.3125 + 84.375 + 10.3125 50 - 10(8)(4) = 0;

EX. Analyze completely the beam shown.

120 kN
A

120 kN

MA

B
4 m

MB

2 m

RA

RB

120 kN

V'
B

480 kN-m

120 kN

'
R'A
'
M'A

480

6R B

6R B

'
M'B

RB

M'A''

'
V'
B
''
V'
B

MB
MB

MB

M'B''

71.44

31.11

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

M'B

480

88.89

53.33
106.67

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

assume R B and M B as the redundant forces,

considering the applied loads,
(+) M A = 0;
120(4) - M'A = 0;

M'A

120.0 kN

480.0 kN-m

(+) Fy = 0;

R'A - 120 = 0;

R'A

considering the redundant force, R B ,

(+) M A = 0;
' - R (6) = 0;
M'A
B

F
(+)
y = 0;

'
M'A

R B - R'A' = 0;

0.167 R B

R'A'

RB

''
M'A

MB

considering the redundant force, M B ,

(+) M A = 0;
'' = 0;
M B - M'A

(0.5)(480)(4)
EI

'B = V'
B

'B = M'B

(0.5)(480)(4)(4.67)
EI

'
'B' = V'
B

(0.5)R B(6)(6)
EI

'B' = M'B'

(0.5)R B(6)(6)(4)
EI

''
'B'' = V'
B

6M B
EI

960
EI

kN- m 2

4480
EI

kN- m 3

18R B
EI

kN- m 2

72R B
EI

kN- m 3

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

6M B
EI

kN- m 2

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

'B'' = M'B''

Chapter 1

6M B(3)
EI

18M B
EI

kN- m 3

from the compatibility requirements,

'B +

'B' +

'B'' = 0;

-960 + 18 R B - 6 M B = 0;

eqn. 1

'B + 'B' + 'B'' = 0;

4480 - 72 R B + 18M B = 0;

eqn. 2

solving simultaneously,

RB

MB

88.89 kN

106.67 kN-m

considering the whole structure,

(+) M A = 0;
120(4) + 106.67 - M A - 88.89(6) = 0;

MA

53.33 kN-m

RA

31.11 kN

(+) M B = 0;

R A (6) 53.33 + 120(2) + 106.67 = 0;

50 kN
Check;

50 kN

100 kN

50 kN

C
31.11 + A88.89 B120 = 0;

50 kN

100 kN

ok

2 m 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 m

EX. Analyze completely the given beam shown.

50 kN

50 kN

100 kN

RB

RA

300

116.67 kN

'
R'A

'
R'
D

R'A''

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

'
VD

'
V'
A

''
VD

2.67R B

R'D''

''
V'
A

2.67RC
74.62

62.69
18.87

'''
VD

2.67RC

RC
18.44

31.13

31.56

37.74
37.31

233.33

V'
A

2.67R B

RB

RD
300

233.33 166.67

166.67

83.33 kN

RC

10
12.36

24.52
50.76

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

assume R B and A'

6 as the redundant forces,
considering the applied loads,
(+) M A = 0;
50(2) + 50(6) + 100(10) - R'
D (12) = 0;

R'D

116.67 kN

R'A

83.33 kN

(+) M D = 0;

R'A (12) 50(10) 50(6) 100(2) = 0;

A'1

(166.67)(2)

166.67 kN- m 2

A'2

(133.33)(4)

266.67 kN- m 2

A'3

(166.67)(4)

666.67 kN- m 2

A'
4

(66.67)(4)

133.33 kN- m 2

A'5

(233.33)(4)

933.33 kN- m 2

A'
6

(233.33)(2)

233.33 kN- m 2

2400.0 kN- m 2

A'T
(+) M A = 0;

166.67(1.33) + 266.67(4.67) + 666.67(4) + 133.33(7.33) + 933.33(8)

' (12) = 0;
+ 233.33(10.67) - VD

'
VD

1255.56

kN- m 2
(+) M D = 0;

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

11

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

V'
A (12) 166.67(10.67) 266.67(7.33) 666.67(8) 133.33(4.67)
- 933.33(4) 233.33(1.33) = 0;

V'
A

1144.44 kN- m 2

for the deflection at B,

'B = M'B

1144.44(4) (166.67)(20(2.67) (66.67)(2)(0.67)

- 166.67(2)(1)

3755.56
EI

kN- m 3

for the deflection at C,

'C = M'
C

1255.56(4) (233.33)(20(2.67) (33.33)(2)(0.67)

- 233.33(2)(1)

3911.11
kN- m 3
EI

considering the redundant force, R B ,

(+) M A = 0;

R'D' (12) - R B (4) = 0;

R'D'

0.33 R B

R'A'

0.67 R B

(+) M D = 0;

R B (8) - R'A' (12) = 0;

A'1'

(2.67 R B )(4)

5.33 R B kN- m 2

A'2'

(2.67 R B )(8)

10.67 R B kN- m 2

A'T'

16.0 R B kN- m 2

''
VD

7.11 R B kN- m 2

'
V'
A

8.89 R B kN- m 2

(+) M A = 0;
'' (12) 5.33 R (2.67) 10.67 R (6.67) = 0;
VD
B
B

(+) M D = 0;
'
5.33 R B (9.33) + 10.67 R B (5.33) - V'
a (12) = 0;

for the deflection at B,

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

12

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

'B' = M'B'

Chapter 1

(2.67 R B )(4)(1.33) 8.89 R B (4)

28.44R B
EI

kN- m 3

for the deflection at C,

'
'C' = M'
C

(1.33 R B )(4)(1.33) 7.11 R B (4)

24.89R B
EI

kN- m 3

considering the redundant force, R C ,

(+) M A = 0;

R'D'' (12) - R C (8) = 0;

R'D''

0.67 R C

R'A''

0.33 R C

(+) M D = 0;

R C (4) - R'A'' (12) = 0;

A'1''

(2.67 R C )(8)

10.67 R C kN- m 2

A'2''

(2.67 R C )(4)

5.33 R C kN- m 2

A'T''

16.0 R C kN- m 2

''' (12) 10.67 R (5.33) 5.33 R (9.33) = 0;

'''
VD
VD
C
C

8.89 R C kN- m 2

7.11 R C kN- m 2

(+) M A = 0;

(+) M D = 0;
''
5.33 R C (2.67) + 10.67 R C (6.67) - V'
A (12) = 0;

''
V'
A

for the deflection at B,

'B'' = M'B''

(1.33 R C )(4)(1.33) 7.11 R C (4)

24.89R C
EI

kN-

m3
for the deflection at C,

'C'' = M'C''

(2.67 R C )(4)(1.33) 8.89 R C (4)

28.44R C
EI

kN-

m3
Engr. I.R. Bonzon

13

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

from the compatibility requirements,

'B

+ 'B' + 'B'' = 0;

3755.56 28.44 R B - 24.89 R C = 0;

eqn. 1

'C + 'C' + 'C'' = 0;

3911.11 24.89 R B - 28.44 R C = 0;

eqn. 2

solving simultaneously,

RB

RC

49.57 kN,

94.25 kN

considering the whole structure,

(+) M A = 0;
50(2) + 50(6) + 100(10) 49.57(4) 94.25(8) - R D (12) = 0;

RD

37.31 kN

(+) M D = 0;

R A (12) + 49.57(8) + 94.25(4) 50(10) 50(6) 100(2) = 0;

RA

18.987 kN

Check;
Fy = 0;

18.87 + 49.57 + 94.25 + 37.31 50 50 100 =0;

ok

EX. Analyze and the draw the shear and moment diagrams for the beam shown.

6 m

30 kN 60 kN
B

30 kN 60 kN

HE

E
C

VE

HA

30 kN 60 kN

50 kN

0.67
1

3 m 3 m 3 m

VA

40 kN

0.67

70.23
45.35

40.23
Engr. I.R. Bonzon

59.28
272.1
61.41

19.77
272.1

14

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

Chapter 1

assume H A as the redundant force,

considering the applied loads,
(+) M A = 0;
30(3) + 60(6) - V'
E (9) = 0;

V'
E

50.0 kN

V'
A

40.0 kN

10x + 90

-50x + 450

(+) M E = 0;

V'
A (9) 30(6) 60(3) = 0;
for the horizontal deflection at A,
for segment AB;
M

Mm

for segment BC;

M

40x

m
Mm

=
=

0.67x
26.67 x2

for segment CD;

0 x 6,

0 x 3,

3 x 6,

40x 30(x 3)

0.67x

Mm

6.67 x2 + 60x

for segment DE;

6 x 9,

40x 30(x 3) 60(x 6)

0.67x

Mm

-33.33 x2 + 300x

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

15

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

'

=
9

0.33x 2 300x
EI

Mm

EI

Chapter 1

dx

26.67x 2
EI

dx

6.67x 2 60x
dx
EI

dx

1
EI

26.67x3

1 0.33x3

EI
3

6.67x3

1
EI

150x 2

30x 2

8163
EI

kN- m 3

considering a redundant force, H A ,

(+) M A = 0;
'
V'
E (9) 1(6) = 0;

'
V'
E

0.67

'
V'
A

0.67

(+) M E = 0;
'
V'
A (9) 1(6) = 0;

for the horizontal deflection at A,

0 x 6,

for segment AB;

M

- HA x

-x

Mm

H A x2

0 x 9,

for segment BC;

M

0.67 H A x

0.67x

Mm

0.44 H A x2

''

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

Mm
EI

dx

H A x2
dx +
EI

0.44H A x 2
EI

dx

16

THEORY2

Structural Theory 2

1 H A x3 6
+

EI
3 0

Chapter 1

1 0.44H A x3 9
=

EI
3
0

180H A
EI

kN- m 3

from the compatibility requirements,

' -

8163
EI

"

180H A
EI

= 0;

HA

45.35 kN

HE

45.35 kN

VE

19.77 kN

VA

70.23 kN

considering the whole structure,

Fx = 0;
45.35 - H E = 0;
(+) M A = 0;
30(3) + 60(6) 45.35(6) - VE (9) = 0;
(+) M E = 0;

VA (9) 45.35(6) 30(6) 60(3) = 0;

Check;
Fy = 0;
70.23 + 19.77 30 60 = 0;

Engr. I.R. Bonzon

ok

17