Analysis of Statically

Indeterminate Structures
by the Force Method
In this chapter we will apply the force or flexibility method to analyze
statically indeterminate trusses, beams, and frames. At the end of the
chapter we will present a method for drawing the influence line for a
statically indeterminate beam or frame.

10.1 Statically Indeterminate Structures

Recall from Sec. 2–4 that a structure of any type is classified as statically
indeterminate when the number of unknown reactions or internal forces
exceeds the number of equilibrium equations available for its analysis.
In this section we will discuss the merits of using indeterminate structures
and two fundamental ways in which they may be analyzed. Realize that
most of the structures designed today are statically indeterminate. This
indeterminacy may arise as a result of added supports or members, or by
the general form of the structure. For example, reinforced concrete
buildings are almost always statically indeterminate since the columns
and beams are poured as continuous members through the joints and
over supports.

395
 396 CHAPTER 10 A N A LY S I S OF S TAT I C A L LY I N D E T E R M I N AT E S T R U C T U R E S BY THE FORC E METHOD

Advantages and Disadvantages. Although the analysis of a

statically indeterminate structure is more involved than that of a statically
determinate one, there are usually several very important reasons for
choosing this type of structure for design. Most important, for a given
loading the maximum stress and deflection of an indeterminate structure
are generally smaller than those of its statically determinate counterpart.
For example, the statically indeterminate, fixed-supported beam in
Fig. 10–1a will be subjected to a maximum moment of Mmax = PL>8,
whereas the same beam, when simply supported, Fig. 10–1b, will be
subjected to twice the moment, that is, Mmax = PL>4. As a result, the
fixed-supported beam has one fourth the deflection and one half the stress
at its center of the one that is simply supported.
Another important reason for selecting a statically indeterminate
structure is because it has a tendency to redistribute its load to its redundant
supports in cases where faulty design or overloading occurs. In these cases,
the structure maintains its stability and collapse is prevented. This is
particularly important when sudden lateral loads,such as wind or earthquake,
are imposed on the structure. To illustrate, consider again the fixed-end
beam in Fig. 10–1a. As P is increased, the beam’s material at the walls and
at the center of the beam begins to yield and forms localized “plastic
hinges,” which causes the beam to deflect as if it were hinged or pin
connected at these points. Although the deflection becomes large, the walls
will develop horizontal force and moment reactions that will hold the
beam and thus prevent it from totally collapsing. In the case of the simply
supported beam, Fig. 10–1b, an excessive load P will cause the “plastic
hinge” to form only at the center of the beam, and due to the large vertical
deflection, the supports will not develop the horizontal force and moment
reactions that may be necessary to prevent total collapse.
Although statically indeterminate structures can support a loading
with thinner members and with increased stability compared to their
statically determinate counterparts, there are cases when these advantages
may instead become disadvantages. The cost savings in material must be
compared with the added cost necessary to fabricate the structure, since
oftentimes it becomes more costly to construct the supports and joints of
an indeterminate structure compared to one that is determinate. More
important, though, because statically indeterminate structures have
redundant support reactions, one has to be very careful to prevent
differential displacement of the supports, since this effect will introduce
internal stress in the structure. For example, if the wall at one end of the
10 fixed-end beam in Fig. 10–1a were to settle, stress would be developed in
the beam because of this “forced” deformation. On the other hand, if the
beam were simply supported or statically determinate, Fig. 10–1b, then
any settlement of its end would not cause the beam to deform, and
therefore no stress would be developed in the beam. In general, then, any
deformation, such as that caused by relative support displacement, or
changes in member lengths caused by temperature or fabrication errors,
will introduce additional stresses in the structure, which must be considered
when designing indeterminate structures.
 10.1 STATICALLY INDETERMINATE STRUCTURES 397

P P

L L L L
–– –– –– ––
2 2 2 2

(a) (b)

Fig. 10–1

Methods of Analysis. When analyzing any indeterminate structure,

it is necessary to satisfy equilibrium, compatibility, and force-displacement
requirements for the structure. Equilibrium is satisfied when the reactive
forces hold the structure at rest, and compatibility is satisfied when the
various segments of the structure fit together without intentional breaks
or overlaps. The force-displacement requirements depend upon the way
the material responds; in this text we have assumed linear elastic response.
In general there are two different ways to satisfy these requirements when
analyzing a statically indeterminate structure: the force or flexibility method,
and the displacement or stiffness method.
Force Method. The force method was originally developed by James
Clerk Maxwell in 1864 and later refined by Otto Mohr and Heinrich
Müller-Breslau. This method was one of the first available for the analysis
of statically indeterminate structures. Since compatibility forms the basis
for this method, it has sometimes been referred to as the compatibility
method or the method of consistent displacements. This method consists of
writing equations that satisfy the compatibility and force-displacement
requirements for the structure in order to determine the redundant forces.
Once these forces have been determined, the remaining reactive forces on
the structure are determined by satisfying the equilibrium requirements.
The fundamental principles involved in applying this method are easy to
understand and develop, and they will be discussed in this chapter.
Displacement Method. The displacement method of analysis is
based on first writing force-displacement relations for the members and
then satisfying the equilibrium requirements for the structure. In this case
the unknowns in the equations are displacements. Once the displacements
are obtained, the forces are determined from the compatibility and force-
displacement equations. We will study some of the classical techniques 10
used to apply the displacement method in Chapters 11 and 12. Since
almost all present day computer software for structural analysis is
developed using this method we will present a matrix formulation of the
displacement method in Chapters 14, 15, and 16.
Each of these two methods of analysis, which are outlined in Fig. 10–2,
has particular advantages and disadvantages, depending upon the geometry
of the structure and its degree of indeterminacy. A discussion of the
usefulness of each method will be given after each has been presented.
 398 CHAPTER 10 A N A LY S I S OF S TAT I C A L LY I N D E T E R M I N AT E S T R U C T U R E S BY THE FORC E METHOD

Equations Used Coefficients of

Unknowns
for Solution the Unknowns
Compatibility Flexibility Coefficients
Force Method Forces
and Force Displacement
Equilibrium Stiffness Coefficients
Displacement Method Displacements
and Force Displacement

Fig. 10–2

10.2 Force Method of Analysis:

General Procedure
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the principles involved in the force
method of analysis is to consider the beam shown in Fig. 10–3a. If its
free-body diagram were drawn, there would be four unknown support
reactions; and since three equilibrium equations are available for solution,
the beam is indeterminate to the first degree. Consequently, one additional
equation is necessary for solution. To obtain this equation, we will use the
P principle of superposition and consider the compatibility of displacement
A at one of the supports. This is done by choosing one of the support
B
reactions as “redundant” and temporarily removing its effect on the beam
actual beam so that the beam then becomes statically determinate and stable. This
(a) beam is referred to as the primary structure. Here we will remove the
restraining action of the rocker at B. As a result, the load P will cause B to
be displaced downward by an amount ¢ B as shown in Fig. 10–3b. By
superposition, however, the unknown reaction at B, i.e., By, causes the
œ
P beam at B to be displaced ¢ BB upward, Fig. 10–3c. Here the first letter in
A
this double-subscript notation refers to the point (B) where the deflection
B
is specified, and the second letter refers to the point (B) where the
B
primary structure unknown reaction acts. Assuming positive displacements act upward, then
from Figs. 10–3a through 10–3c we can write the necessary compatibility
(b)
equation at the rocker as
œ
1+ c2 0 = - ¢ B + ¢ BB
Let us now denote the displacement at B caused by a unit load acting
in the direction of By as the linear flexibility coefficient fBB, Fig. 10–3d.
A ¿BB By fBB
Using the same scheme for this double-subscript notation as above, fBB
B is the deflection at B caused by a unit load at B. Since the material behaves
redundant By applied
By in a linear-elastic manner, a force of By acting at B, instead of the unit
10
(c)
load, will cause a proportionate increase in fBB. Thus we can write
œ
¢ BB = ByfBB
When written in this format, it can be seen that the linear flexibility
A fBB coefficient fBB is a measure of the deflection per unit force, and so its
B units are m>N, ft>lb, etc. The compatibility equation above can therefore
(d) 1 be written in terms of the unknown By as
Fig. 10–3 0 = - ¢ B + ByfBB
 10.2 FORCE METHOD OF ANALYSIS: GENERAL PROCEDURE 399

Using the methods of Chapter 8 or 9, or the deflection table on the inside

front cover of the book, the appropriate load-displacement relations for
the deflection ¢ B, Fig. 10–3b, and the flexibility coefficient fBB, Fig. 10–3d,
can be obtained and the solution for By determined, that is, By = ¢ B>fBB.
Once this is accomplished, the three reactions at the wall A can then be
found from the equations of equilibrium.
As stated previously, the choice of the redundant is arbitrary. For example,
the moment at A, Fig. 10–4a, can be determined directly by removing
the capacity of the beam to support a moment at A, that is, by replacing
the fixed support by a pin. As shown in Fig. 10–4b, the rotation at A
caused by the load P is uA, and the rotation at A caused by the redundant
œ
MA at A is uAA , Fig. 10–4c. If we denote an angular flexibility coefficient
aAA as the angular displacement at A caused by a unit couple moment
applied to A, Fig. 10–4d, then
œ
uAA = MAaAA

Thus, the angular flexibility coefficient measures the angular displacement

per unit couple moment, and therefore it has units of rad>N # m or rad>lb # ft,
etc. The compatibility equation for rotation at A therefore requires

1e +2 0 = uA + MAaAA

In this case, MA = -uA>aAA, a negative value, which simply means that

MA acts in the opposite direction to the unit couple moment.

P
A
B
actual beam
(a)

P MA
A A B
B
u¿AA MAaAA
uA
primary structure redundant MA applied
(b) (c) 10

1
A B
aAA
(d)

Fig. 10–4
 400 CHAPTER 10 A N A LY S I S OF S TAT I C A L LY I N D E T E R M I N AT E S T R U C T U R E S BY THE FORC E METHOD

P1 P2
B C
A D
actual beam
(a)

By Cy
P1 P2
B C B C B C
A D A D A D
¿BB By fBB ¿CB By fCB ¿BC Cy fBC ¿CC Cy fCC
B C
primary structure redundant By applied redundant Cy applied
(b) (c) (d)

Fig. 10–5

A third example that illustrates application of the force method is given

in Fig. 10–5a. Here the beam is indeterminate to the second degree and
therefore two compatibility equations will be necessary for the solution.
We will choose the vertical forces at the roller supports, B and C, as
redundants. The resultant statically determinate beam deflects as shown
in Fig. 10–5b when the redundants are removed. Each redundant force,
which is assumed to act downward, deflects this beam as shown in Fig. 10–5c
1 and 10–5d, respectively. Here the flexibility coefficients* fBB and fCB are
B C found from a unit load acting at B, Fig. 10–5e; and fCC and fBC are found
A D
from a unit load acting at C, Fig. 10–5f. By superposition, the compatibility
fBB fCB equations for the deflection at B and C, respectively, are
(e)

1+ T2 0 = ¢ B + By fBB + Cy fBC
(10–1)
1+ T2 0 = ¢ C + ByfCB + CyfCC
1
B C Once the load-displacement relations are established using the methods
A D of Chapter 8 or 9, these equations may be solved simultaneously for the
fBC fCC two unknown forces By and Cy.
(f)
Having illustrated the application of the force method of analysis by
example, we will now discuss its application in general terms and then
we will use it as a basis for solving problems involving trusses, beams,
and frames. For all these cases, however, realize that since the method
depends on superposition of displacements, it is necessary that the material
10
remain linear elastic when loaded. Also, recognize that any external
reaction or internal loading at a point in the structure can be directly
determined by first releasing the capacity of the structure to support the
loading and then writing a compatibility equation at the point. See
Example 10–4.

*fBB is the deflection at B caused by a unit load at B; fCB the deflection at C caused by a
unit load at B.
 10.2 FORCE METHOD OF ANALYSIS: GENERAL PROCEDURE 401

Procedure for Analysis

The following procedure provides a general method for determining

the reactions or internal loadings of statically indeterminate structures
using the force or flexibility method of analysis.
Principle of Superposition
Determine the number of degrees n to which the structure is
indeterminate. Then specify the n unknown redundant forces or
moments that must be removed from the structure in order to make it
statically determinate and stable. Using the principle of superposition,
draw the statically indeterminate structure and show it to be equal to
a series of corresponding statically determinate structures. The
primary structure supports the same external loads as the statically
indeterminate structure, and each of the other structures added to the
primary structure shows the structure loaded with a separate
redundant force or moment. Also, sketch the elastic curve on each
structure and indicate symbolically the displacement or rotation at
the point of each redundant force or moment.
Compatibility Equations
Write a compatibility equation for the displacement or rotation at
each point where there is a redundant force or moment. These
equations should be expressed in terms of the unknown redundants
and their corresponding flexibility coefficients obtained from unit
loads or unit couple moments that are collinear with the redundant
forces or moments.
Determine all the deflections and flexibility coefficients using the
table on the inside front cover or the methods of Chapter 8 or 9.*
Substitute these load-displacement relations into the compatibility
equations and solve for the unknown redundants. In particular, if a
numerical value for a redundant is negative, it indicates the redundant
acts opposite to its corresponding unit force or unit couple moment.
Equilibrium Equations
Draw a free-body diagram of the structure. Since the redundant forces
and/or moments have been calculated, the remaining unknown reactions
can be determined from the equations of equilibrium.
It should be realized that once all the support reactions have been 10
obtained, the shear and moment diagrams can then be drawn, and the
deflection at any point on the structure can be determined using the
same methods outlined previously for statically determinate structures.

*It is suggested that if the M/EI diagram for a beam consists of simple segments, the
moment-area theorems or the conjugate-beam method be used. Beams with complicated
M/EI diagrams, that is, those with many curved segments (parabolic, cubic, etc.), can be
readily analyzed using the method of virtual work or by Castigliano’s second theorem.