DISPLACEMENTS IN STATICALLY DETERMINATE STRUCTURES.

STATICALLY INDETERMINATE STRUCTURES AND FOUNDATIONS OF

THE FLEXIBILITY METHOD
1. Degree of static indeterminancy
Structures like trusses, beams or frames where the support reactions and internal forces can be computed using
exclusively the equilibrium equations are called statically determinate structures. Generally speaking, one may say,
that the structure is statically determinate when the number of generalized forces (including moments) is equal to
the number of independent equilibrium equations for the given system.
However, statically determinate structures are not the only ones used in civil engineering practice. In many cas-
es, when larger stiffness is desirable, the designer chooses statically indeterminate systems. The idea behind this
choice is illustrated in Fig. 1. The beam with additional support has larger stiffness and features smaller deflections.
The additional support added to the statically determinate cantilever beam in Fig. 1a to obtain the statically inde-
terminate clamped-hinged beam in Fig. 1b clearly reduces the deflections.
Figure 1a presents the beam with three support reactions HA, VA and MA, where three independent equilibrium
equations can be formulated – two for the forces projections in vertical and horizontal direction and the third one –
the sum of moments with respect to an arbitrarily chosen point on the plane. Figure 1b depicts the beam with
clamped and roller supports at the ends. Here we still can write three equilibrium equations but there are four un-
known reactions, including the additional force VB.
The deflection distribution is depicted with a dashed line in Fig. 6. Indeed, it is clear that the addition of the support
at B reduced significantly the maximum deflection wmax in the statically indeterminate system. Such systems are al-
so called over-stiffened ones.

P P
a) MA b) MA
HA A B HA A B

wmax
VA deflection wmax VA VB
deflection

Fig. 1. Beam: a) statically determinate, b) statically indeterminate

It should be stressed, that the application of the statically indeterminate systems is not always advantageous.
The drawback here is the fact, that contrary to the statically determinate structures, there are internal forces due to
influences different than the external loading. The change of temperature, imposed support displacements, assem-
bly errors, etc. are the factors to be considered.
The parameter characterizing the statically indeterminate systems is the degree of static indeterminancy (or de-
gree of redundancy) denoted by n. It shows how too many reactions exist in the system with respect to available in-
dependent equilibrium equations. Thus, for the beam in Fig. 1 n = 1. The value of n for beams can be found from
the relation
n = 3c + 2 p + r − h − 3 , (1)
where c is the number of clamped supports, p is the number of hinged supports, r is the number of roller supports,
and h is the number of internal hinges in the beam.
The values of n can also be easily found for statically indeterminate trusses. Here the attention must be paid to
the fact, that the truss can be internally or externally statically determinate. The external indeterminancy is related,
similarly as with beams, to the additional redundant supports. Some examples of externally statically indeterminate
trusses are given in Fig. 2 with the corresponding value of n.
Internal static indeterminancy is related to presence of "additional" elements in the truss. There is a rule that the
truss is internally statically determinate if it can be built by a sequence of adding of pairs of elements forming tri-
angles (three-hinged systems). This idea is presented in Fig. 3, where to a single initial element 1 in phase I ele-
ments 2 and 3 connected in a new node were added forming a triangle. Then in phase II elements 4 and 5 connected
in another new node, forming another triangle were added. The subsequent phases led to forming a truss consisting
of 13 elements. If such a truss is supported by three supports it is both internally and externally determinate.
2 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

n=1 n=1

n=3

Fig. 2. Examples of externally indeterminate trusses

5 5 6

phase I phase II phase III phase IV

3 4 3 4 3 7
2 2 2
1 1 1 1

5 6 5 6 10 5 6 10

4 3 7 phase V4 3 7 9 11 phase VI 7 11
2 9 2 4 3 2 9
13
1 8 1 8 1 8 12

Fig. 3. Forming the statically determinate trusses by adding triangles

If there are another elements in the truss and they cannot be included according to this principle, then every sin-
gle additional element d, as in Fig. 4 increases the degree of static indeterminancy by one. In general, a truss can be
both internally and externally indeterminate. Such examples are presented in Fig. 5. The values of n given there
were obtained from the relation for trusses
n = p + r − 2w , (2)
where p denotes the number of elements, r is the number of support reactions, and w is the number of nodes includ-
ing the support nodes.
Solving the statically indeterminate system requires a formulation of additional equations because, as mentioned
earlier, the equilibrium equations are not enough in such a case. Depending on the way these additional equations
are formulated, various methods are defined. One of the methods is the flexibility method (or method of forces). In
a) b)
d

d1 d2

n=1 n=2

d2 d3
c) d1 d4

n=4

Fig. 4. Examples of internally indeterminate trusses: a) truss with one additional element d, b) truss with two additional elements d1 and d2, c)
truss with four additional elements d1, d2, d3 and d4
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 3

n=2 n=3

n=5

Fig. 5. Examples of statically indeterminate trusses

this method the missing equations are obtained from kinematic conditions yielding from considerations on dis-
placements. This approach requires a universal method for computation of arbitrary displacements in statically de-
terminate systems due to arbitrary loading. Such a method is presented in the subsequent section

2. Principle of virtual work and computation of displacements in statically determinate

systems

2.1. Derivation of equation of virtual work

The equation of virtual work is the most universal tool to compute displacements in arbitrary mechanical
systems. Here it will be presented in the version required to follow the subsequent material in this textbook. The
rigorous derivation can be found in monographs on structural mechanics. In the current approach we will restrict
ourselves the analysis to 2D systems subjected to external loading. Let us consider a beam in Fig. 6 subjected to
two different loading groups. The first group is called the real state. We will consider displacements of points in
this state, denoted by δi , resulting from the action of the point force P and the distributed loading q.
The second state with the point forces P1 , P2 , ... Pi , ... Pn is the virtual state. It is an auxiliary state used for com-
putation of displacements analyzed in the real state. All the quantities here, loading, reactions, internal forces will
be denoted by over-bar. Every force in the virtual state is associated with a displacement in the real state. Namely,
the virtual force Pi with the line of action i–i applied at the point i, is associated with the component in the direc-
tion i–i δi of a general displacement at that point i which is the result of action of real loading. The scalar product of
Pi and δi represents the virtual work of the virtual force Pi on the real displacement δi. Sum of all virtual works
from all n virtual forces on the associated n real displacements constitutes the total virtual work of external forces.
This quantity denoted by Lz, is expressed as
n
L z = ∑ Pi δ i , (3)
i =1
In the monographs on structural mechanics a proof can be found that the total work of external forces is equal to
the total work of internal forces, i.e. axial forces N, shear forces T and bending moments M. The internal virtual
work is computed by summation of products of internal forces and corresponding strains in all the cross-sections of
the system. According to the rules of mathematics such a summation is equivalent to integration along the entire
length of all the elements in the system.
i P i
a) MA δn b) M A
q P1 Pi
HA A HA P2
B B
i A i
δi Pn
VA δ1 δ2 i i
VA

Fig. 6. Loading states for a beam: a) real, b) virtual

4 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

The strain corresponding to the axial force is the axial strain εx = ε. The bending moment corresponds to the
curvature κ. And the shear force is associated with the shear strain, however this pair has usually a very small in-
fluence on the results of calculations and can be neglected. Thus, the internal wirtual work can be expressed as
L L
Lw = ∫ Mκdx + ∫ Nεdx ,
0 0

The expressions for axial strain and curvature

N M
ε= and κ = ,
EA EJ z

can be substituted to get

L MM L NN
Lw = ∫ dx + ∫ dx (4)
0 EJ z 0 EA

The internal virtual work Lw (4) is equal to the external virtual work Lz (3) for an arbitrary system consisting of p
elements. This leads to the principle of virtual work in the form
n Lp Lp
MM NN
∑ Pi δ i = ∑ ∫ EJ dx p + ∑ ∫ EA dx p (5)
i =1 p 0 z p 0

The integration is carried out separately for every element with the length Lp and the local co-ordinate along its
longitudinal axis xp. Equation (5) can be used to compute displacements δi at the points i in beams, frames and
trusses subjected to the action of external forces which evoke internal forces M i N.

Remark 1
In the case of thermal action on a beam, the thermal strain has to be taken into account. In general, the thermal ac-
tions can be represented by a superposition of uniform heating t0 and a non-uniform heating ∆t. Uniform heating
indicates, how much the temperature at the axis of the element changed – from the assembly temperature ta to the
service mean temperature ta, which is obtained as a mean value of upper and lower-side temperature values at the
service conditions. The thermal strain corresponding to it is the normal strain defined as
ε = α t t0
Non-uniform heating indicates what is the difference between upper and lower-side temperature values in the
cross-section with the depth h and the corresponding strain is the curvature defined as
∆t
κ = αt ,
h
Thus, the virtual work in the case of thermal action (temperature changes) takes the form
Lp L
n ∆t p

∑ Piδ i = ∑ ∫ Mα t
h
dx p + ∑ ∫ N α t t0 dx p
i =1 p 0 p 0

Remark 2
A structure can be subjected to real imposed displacements at supports. We denote them by ∆k. and assume there
are m such imposed displacements. If these are the only external action in the real system, then there are no internal
forces, thus no strains are formed in the structure and the internal virtual work is zero. But the external virtual work
has to be computed including the components expressing the virtual work of m-reactions (passive external forces)
corresponding to m imposed displacements. We get
n m
∑ Piδ i + ∑ Rk ∆ k =0
i =1 k =1
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 5

2.2. Displacements in beams

Application of virtual work (5) in the computation of displacements of beams will be illustrated by the example
of cantilever beam shown in Fig. 7a. The real vertical displacement (deflection) at its tip A (δ1 = vA) can be com-
puted if the sum on the left-hand side of equation (5) involves just one component. Thus, the virtual force must be
adopted in such a way that P1 corresponds to the computed vertical displacement at A δ1 = vA. Thus, it has to be a
single vertical force applied at the beam tip A, see Fig. 7b. The value of this force is arbitrary – it will appear on
both sides of the equation (5) and it will be possible to cancel it out. However, in order to avoid this cancellation
one can adopt the unit dimensionless force. It should be pointed out that it is not a real force, but virtual, and it can
be adopted in a fully arbitrary way, so such an approach is fully acceptable. Additionally, the orientation of the
force is arbitrary, too. Thus, choosing one of two possible orientations, upwards or downwards, determines the sign
convention for the computed displacement. If we adopt it downwards, as in Fig. 7b, then the downwards displace-
ment at point A in the real state is considered as positive.
The right-hand side of equation (5) involves two integrals representing the influence of bending and axial force,
respectively. It turns out that in beams (and frames) the latter one is negligible, and likewise the shear force influ-
ence, can be omitted. Let us also assume that the beam is made from the profile of constant cross-section and from
the uniform material. Then the value of the bending stiffness EJz, is constant and can be put in front of the integral.
In such a case the computation of displacement requires computation of the components in the following form
1 L
∫ MMdx
EJ z 0

a) P = 10 kN b) P1 = 1
A B A B
δ1 = vA
L=4m L=4m

M M
40 4
[kN⋅m] [m]

O η
S
40 4

2L/3 L/3 2L/3 L/3

Fig. 7. Cantilever beam: a) real state, b) virtual state

Such integrals can be evaluated analytically, after substitution of functions of real and virtual bending moments.
However, a very convenient alternative is the so called graphical integration with the use of Mohr theorem. This
theorem replaces the integral of the product of two functions with values of geometric properties related to their
graphical distributions. If at least one of two functions, f and g, is linear, then the determinate integral of their prod-
uct can be computed from the formula
b

∫f ⋅ g ⋅ dx = S ⋅ η (6)
a

where S is the area under the graph of the possibly non-linear function f in the range of x between a and b, whereas
η is the value of the linear function g at the point defined by the co-ordinate xO, corresponding to the centroid O of
the figure under the graph of the function f. This principle is explained in Fig .8. If both functions are linear, then
one has a free choice, one of the functions yields the area S and another one yields the value η. It should be clear
that using this theorem is useful if the graphs of the functions have the form for which simple and ready-to-use
formulae for their areas and location of centroids are available. Otherwise, it is obvious that finding the area and the
centroid in a general case requires integrations after all. In practice, the bending moment graphs will be represented
as combinations of triangles, rectangles and symmetric parabolas, thus making the use of the theorem possible.
6 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

f g
f (x )
g (x )

S η

x x
a xO b a xO b

Fig. 8. Graphical integration of a product of functions f and g

It has to be taken into account that the functions may have both positive and negative values. In such a case the area
S and/or the value η have to be substituted with an appropriate sign.
Let us apply this theorem in the computation of the cantilever tip deflection for the beam from Fig. 7a. The
functions of bending moments and their graphs presented below the beams have to be computed from the basic
equilibrium principles of structural mechanics. Both diagrams are triangular – linear. We choose the real one as the
function f and the corresponding area is
1
S= ⋅ 4.0 ⋅ (− 40.0 ) = −80.0 kN ⋅ m 2
2
The centroid of the triangle is located at the distance 2/3 of the beam length L measured from the tip. Using the
proportion theorem the value η from the virtual bending moment diagram – function g, is
2
η= ⋅ (− 4.0) = −2.667 m
3
The vertical deflection at A
1 4 1 − 80.0 ⋅ (− 2.667 ) 213.4
vA = ∫ MMdx = EJ ⋅ S ⋅ η =
EJ z 0 EJ z
=
EJ z
z

If we assume that the beam is made of steel with Young's modulus E = 205 GPa and has the cross-section I220,
for which the second moment of area Jz = 3060 cm4, then we finally get
213.4 213.4
vA = = = 0.0340 m = 3.40 cm
EJ z 205 ⋅ 10 ⋅ 3060 ⋅ 10 −8
6

As a second example let us consider a deflection at the mid-point of the simply-supported beam in Fig. 9a. The
distribution of real bending moments is given below the beam sketch. The virtual load in this case is adopted as a
virtual force with vertical direction applied at the beam centre point, as in Fig. 9b. The virtual reactions in this case
are computed from the equilibrium of moments about points A and B.
L L
∑ M ( A) = − VB ⋅ L + 1 ⋅ = 0 and ∑ M ( B ) = VA ⋅ L − 1 ⋅ = 0 ,
2 2
to get VB = VA = 1 2 . Then the virtual bending moment M v at the arbitrary cross-section α–α defined by the co-
ordinate x is computed separately in two ranges: A–C i C–B. Equilibrium of the left-hand side of the beam yields:
x L
∑ Mα = VA ⋅ x − M v = 0 ⇒ M v =
2 2
, for 0 ≤ x ≤

 L x L L
∑ M α = V A ⋅ x − 1 ⋅  x − 2  − M v = 0 ⇒ M v = − 2 + 2 for 2 ≤ x ≤ L .
 

The diagram of virtual moment M v is given below the beam in Fig. 9b.
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 7

a) b) c)
deflection
q 1 1
A B A B A B
vC C C C
VA VB VA VB VA VB
l = L/2 l = L/2 l = L/2 l = L/2 l = L/2 l = L/2

A α A α
α Mv α Mϕ
M 2 x x
qL /8 VA VA
1
L/2 x
A α A 1 α
C α Mv C α Mϕ
S1 x L/2
VA VA
0,5
S1a S2a
qL2/8 Mv L/4
Mϕ 0,5
q η1b η1a
[-] η1b η1a 0.5
η2a η2b
L/4
l = L/2 l/2
l/2 l/2
S1b S2b 2l/3 0.5
2l/3 2l/3
qL2/32

Fig. 9. Simply-supported beam: a) real state, b) virtual state for deflection c) virtual state for slope

If one considers the entire length of the beam, neither of both diagrams – real M and virtual M v , is linear. How-
ever, if one divides the beam into two halves, then in each of the domains. A–C and C–B, the virtual moment is lin-
ear. Such a division is possible, because the value of the determinate integral, which is a summation itself, can be
obtained by adding the determinate subintegrals over as many fragments as one wishes to introduce. The real mo-
ment fragments corresponding to each of the triangles from the virtual moment graphs, represent halves of the se-
cond-order parabola. Each of them can be further subdivided into parts, S1a and S1b, as in Fig. 9a. The curvilinear
part S1b is a symmetric parabola corresponding to the bending moment distribution in a hypothetic simply-
supported beam with the length corresponding to the length of the considered subdomain – i.e. the half of the full
beam length l = L/2 subjected to the same loading q, as shown in Fig. 9a. The extreme value of this parabola is lo-
cated at the centre of the length l and equals to

ql 2 qL2
=
8 32
Area of such a parabola represents two thirds of the area of the rectangle circumscribed over the parabola and due
to its symmetry its centroid is easily located at the centre of the length l. Area under the linear part S1a represents a
triangle. Each of these two areas has to multiplied by the corresponding value η obtained from the triangular distri-
bution of the virtual bending moment.
Additionally, one can exploit symmetry of the system and the right-hand side of the virtual work can be evaluated
as doubled result from one half of the beam. Thus we get
1 2 L/2 2
vC = ∑ ∫ M v Mdx = ⋅ (S1a ⋅ηa + S1b ⋅ηb )
EJ z 1 0 EJ z

and after substitution of values from Figs.9a and 9b:

2  1 L qL2   2 L   2 L qL2   1 L  5 qL4

vC = ⋅  ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅  +  ⋅ ⋅
 
 ⋅  ⋅  =
 .
EJ z  2 2 8   3 4   3 2 32   2 4  384 EJ z
Virtual work is a general tool and it can also be used to compute angular displacements – angles of rotation of
cross-sections. The virtual generalized force corresponding to the angle is the concentrated bending moment. Thus,
to compute the angle of rotation at the mid-point of the considered beam we apply the concentrated moment at the
mid point of the beam– see Fig. 9c. In this case we adopt the clockwise moment, which means that the clockwise
rotation is treated as positive.
8 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

We find the virtual reactions first from the equilibrium of the entire beam to get

∑ M ( A ) = − V B ⋅ L + 1 = 0 and ∑ M ( B ) = V A ⋅ L + 1 = 0

leading to VB = −VA = 1 L . Then from the equilibrium of the beam left-hand side, separately for two domains, A–C
and C–B. we get
x L
∑ M (α ) = VA ⋅ x − M ϕ = 0 ⇒ Mϕ = −
L
for 0 ≤ x ≤ ,
2
x L
∑ M (α ) = V A ⋅ x + 1 − M ϕ = 0 ⇒ M ϕ = − L + 1 for 2 ≤ x ≤ L .

The resulting diagram of the virtual bending moment M ϕ is given in Fig. 9c. The computation of the angle of rota-
tion follows as
1 2 L/2 1
ϕC = ∑ ∫ M ϕ Mdx = ⋅ (S1a ⋅η1a + S1b ⋅η1b + S2 a ⋅η2 a + S 2b ⋅η2b )
EJ z 1 0 EJ z

and after substitution

2  1 L qL2   2 1   2 qL2 L   1 1 
ϕC = ⋅  ⋅ ⋅ ⋅− ⋅  +  ⋅
  ⋅  ⋅  − ⋅  +
EJ z  2 2 8   3 2   3 32 2   2 2 
 1 L qL2   2 1   2 qL2 L   1 1 
+  ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅  +  ⋅
  ⋅  ⋅  ⋅  = 0 .
 2 2 8   3 2   3 32 2   2 2 
The zero slope at the mid-point of the beam results from the symmetry of the system. The deflection line shown as
the dashed line in Fig. 9a is evidently symmetric and the mid-point cross-section does not rotate. This physical re-
sult has a clear mathematical justification, too. In the computation of the integral of the internal virtual work we
considered the product of the symmetric function of real bending moment and the anti-symmetric function of virtu-
al bending moment. From the fundamental mathematics such an integral is always zero.

2.3. Displacements at truss nodes

A truss is a bar system, where only axial forces are present. Thus, the principle of virtual work (5) does not in-
clude bending moments influence. Additionally, the axial forces are constant along each element which simplifies
the right-hand side integrals in (5). If we also assume constant cross-section along each element with Ap, then:
Lp Lp
NpN p N pNp N p N p Lp
∑ Piδ i = ∑ ∫ dx = ∑ ∫ dx = ∑
i p 0 EAp p EAp 0 p EAp

Thus, computation of node displacements in trusses does not involve any integration. To illustrate the process we
consider a truss from Fig. 10a, where we will compute the vertical deflection at point C.
The axial forces can be found using the equilibrium conditions in nodes. Starting with the computation of reac-
tions, from the global equilibrium of moments with respect to A and B we get VA = VB = 10.0 kN, Then for the ver-
tical and horizontal force projections in node A (and B – symmetry) we get
a) b)
c)
4.0 m 4.0 m
1 3 1 3
2 2 R
z
A 4 C 5 B A 4 C 5 B
r
vC HB 1 HB
VA 20 kN VB VA VB y
3.0 m 3.0 m 3.0 m 3.0 m

Fig. 10. Analyzed truss: a) real state, b) virtual state, c) element cross-section
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 9

N1 = N 3 = −12.5 kN and N 4 = N 5 = 7.5 kN

From the vertical projections at C yields N2 = 20.0 kN.
The forces in the virtual state, Fig. 10b, can be found in the same manner. Alternatively we may observe that the
virtual loading is of the same type as the real one, only smaller by the factor 20 kN. Thus, from the superposition
principle, the final forces in the elements must be smaller by 20 kN, too. We get
N1 = N 3 = −0.625 , N 2 = 1 and N 4 = N 5 = 0.375
The lengths of truss elements are:
L1 = L3 = 5.0 m , L2 = 4.0 m and L4 = L5 = 3.0 m
Assuming, that all the elements have the same cross-section, see Fig. 10c, the vertical displacement at C is com-
puted as:
N p N p Lp 1 5 1
vC = ∑ = ∑ N p N p Lp = [− 0.625 ⋅ (− 12.5) ⋅ 5.0 −0.625 ⋅ (− 12.5) ⋅ 5.0 +
p EAp EA p =1 EA
175.0
+ 1 ⋅ 20 ⋅ 4.0 + 0.375 ⋅ 7.5 ⋅ 3.0 + 0.375 ⋅ 7.5 ⋅ 3.0] = .
EA
For the tubular elements with the ring cross-section, as in Fig. 10c, we can compute its area as (R = 3.0 cm and
r = 2.5 cm)
( ) (
A = π R 2 − r 2 = π ⋅ 0,032 − 0,025 2 m 2 = 8,64 ⋅ 10 −4 m 2 )
Let us assume steel with the Young's modulus E = 205 GPa as the structural material to finally get
175.0 175.0
vC = = = 0.000988 m = 0.988 mm
EA 205 ⋅ 106 ⋅ 8.64 ⋅ 10 −4

3. Foundations of flexibility method

3.1 Modified system and canonical equations

Section 1 includes the description of determining the degree of indeterminancy and it was pointed out that one
needs additional equations to solve the statically indeterminate system. With the general method to compute dis-
placements described in Section 2 we can now focus on the flexibility method. We consider a statically indetermi-
nate beam in Fig. 11a. Formula (1) gives the degree of indeterminancy n = 2. Then we adopt the modified system
of the flexibility method. It is obtained from the real system by removal of constraints – exactly n constraints have
to be removed – to get the statically determinate system. It is also important to verify if the resulting modified sys-
tem is not a mechanism.
Among the removed constraints we may have external ones (supports) or internal ones – e.g. the solid connec-
tion between system parts can be replaced with a hinge – this would be equivalent to removal of internal rotational

a) b)

P = 10 kN 2 P
MA MA = X1
x A B C B C
HA D HA A D
4,0 2,0 2,0 [m] VB = X2
VA VA
VB VC VC
y
3 P
1 P MA = X1 MD = X2 MD = X2
MA
A B C B C
HA D HA A
D
VB = X1 VC = X2 VA
VA
VB VC

Fig. 11. Statically indeterminate beam: a) statically indeterminate original system and adopted statically determinate modified system, b) ex-
amples of two another possible modified systems
10 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

constraint. There are usually many ways to adopt the modified system by constraints removal. The choice should
be made on the consideration, which system will be more convenient for the further analysis. One has to bear in
mind that the further computations will require finding the bending moments diagrams to calculate various dis-
placements. Thus, in the considered beam, the cantilever shown in Fig. 11a should be preferred over the correct but
less convenient systems shown in Fig. 11b.
Let us emphasize that removal of constraints leads to the situation when unknown support reaction (for external
constraints) or unknown internal force (for internal constraints) appears as the external loading in the modified sys-
tem. These forces are called redundant forces and we denote them by X1, X2,..., Xn. In the adopted modified system
two external constraints (roller supports at B and C) were removed and the reactions in these supports became the
redundant forces X1 and X2. In the first case in Fig. 11b the clamped support at A was reduced to hinged support and
the moment reaction at A became X1. The redundant force X2 is the reaction in the removed roller support at B. The
second system in Fig. 11b has the support moment as X1 (external constraint) and the cross-sectional moment at D
as X2 (internal constraint). For further computations the modified system from Fig. 11a is adopted, because it does
not require computation of support reactions to get the functions and diagrams of bending moments.
The next step is formulation of identity conditions between the real and modified system. The roller supports at
B and C in the real system constrain the respective vertical displacements at these points to zero. In the modified
system the supports are not present and the system is free to deflect at these points. To restore the identity we have
to postulate
v B = δ 1 = 0 and vC = δ 2 = 0 .

These displacements are denoted by the general symbol δi, where the subscript i has all the numbers of redundant
forces, here 1 or 2. The vertical reaction X1, applied at point B, is related to δ1 at point B, whereas the vertical reac-
tion X2, applied at point C, is related to δ2 at point C. One has to observe a coinciding sign convention for forces
and displacements – in our case we assume positive orientation downwards – for both directions 1 and 2.
Then we can use the superposition rule stating that
i) effect of two causes acting simultaneously on a system is equal to the sum of effects obtained separately for
each cause
ii) effect of a cause P, which is k-times bigger than a cause Q, is also k-times bigger than that of the cause Q,
and subdivide the modified system loading set into basic states – two for the redundant forces X1 and X2 and one for
the external loading (state P) – see Fig. 12a. Furthermore, the states related to the unknown forces X1 and X2 are
represented as products of unit states X1 = 1 and X2 = 1 and respective unknown forces values X1 and X2, see
Fig. 12b. Note that the forces in these states are dimensionless.
Now, according to the superposition rule the following equations can be written instead of the kinematic condi-
tions given above
vB = δ1 = δ1 ( X 1 ) + δ1 ( X 2 ) + δ1 ( P ) = X 1 ⋅ δ1 ( X 1 = 1) + X 2 ⋅ δ 1 ( X 2 = 1) + δ1 ( P ) = 0
vC = δ 2 = δ 2 ( X 1 ) + δ 2 ( X 2 ) + δ 2 ( P) = X 1 ⋅ δ 2 ( X 1 = 1) + X 2 ⋅ δ 2 ( X 2 = 1) + δ 2 ( P) = 0

a) b)
State X1 = 1
State X1
MA X1 MA 1
A B D C A B D C
· X1
HA HA
δ1(X1) δ1(X1 = 1) = δ11
VA δ2(X1) VA δ2(X1 = 1) = δ21

State X2 State X2 = 1
MA X2 MA 1
A B D C A B D C
· X2
HA HA
δ1(X2) δ2(X2) δ1(X2 = 1) = δ12
VA VA δ2(X2 = 1) = δ22
State P State P
P P = 10 kN
MA MA
A B C A B C
HA D δ2(P) HA D
δ1(P) δ1(P) = δ1P
VA VA δ2(P) = δ2P

Fig. 12. Modified system: a) subdivision into basic states b) basic states after application of the second part of superposition rule
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 11

If we introduce classical notation δik , where the subscript i denotes the displacement in the direction of the force
Xi at the point where it is applied, and the subscript k – that this displacement is the result of action Xk = 1, we have
δ 1 ( X 1 = 1) = δ 11 , δ 1 ( X 2 = 1) = δ 12 , δ 1 ( P ) = δ 1P ,
δ 2 ( X 1 = 1) = δ 21 , δ 2 ( X 2 = 1) = δ 22 , δ 2 ( P) = δ 2 P ,
The displacements involved here are depicted in Fig. 12b. Thus, we obtain the usual form of classical canonical
equations of the flexibility method for the system with degree of indeterminancy n = 2

δ 11 ⋅ X 1 + δ12 ⋅ X 2 + δ 1P = 0
 .
δ 21 ⋅ X 1 + δ 22 ⋅ X 2 + δ 2 P = 0
In a general case one has to remove n constraints, write down n kinematical conditions and after considering the
superposition rule with (n + 1) states (one for the external loading – state P) the set of n canonical equation is ob-
tained in the form

δ 11 ⋅ X 1 + δ 12 ⋅ X 2 + ... + δ 1n ⋅ X n + δ 1P = 0
δ ⋅ X + δ ⋅ X + ... + δ ⋅ X + δ = 0
 21 1 22 2 2n n 2P
 . (8)
...........................................................
δ n1 ⋅ X 1 + δ n 2 ⋅ X 2 + ... + δ nn ⋅ X n + δ nP = 0

These equations allow to solve an arbitrary statically indeterminate system with n redundant forces. The coeffi-
cients multiplying the unknown forces Xi in these equations are called flexibility factors and they give the name to
the method.
Now we have to compute these coefficients for the example in Fig. 11. They are displacements δik and δip, com-
puted in three basic states – statically determinate beams loaded by different loading systems. They can be obtained
using the principle of virtual work. We note, that the virtual state necessary to compute displacements in direction 1
is identical to the state X1 = 1. Similarly, the virtual state necessary to compute the displacements in the direction 2
is identical to the state X2 = 1. If we denote the bending moments yielding from the basic states as M1, M2 and MP,
respectively, then the flexibility coefficients can be computed from the following formulae:
Lp Lp Lp
M 1M 1 M M M M
δ11 = ∑ ∫ dx p , δ 12 = ∑ ∫ 1 2 dx p = δ 21 , δ 22 = ∑ ∫ 2 2 dx p ,
p 0 EJ z p 0 EJ z p 0 EJ z
Lp Lp
M 1M P M 2M P
δ1P = ∑ ∫ dx p , δ2P = ∑ ∫ dx p
p 0 EJ z p 0 EJ z

or generally:
Lp
M iM k
δ ik = δ ki = ∑ ∫ dx p (9)
p 0 EJ z

The equality of δik and δki is not only the mathematical effect of reciprocity of the product Mi times Mk under the
integral but it is due to one of theorems proved in mechanics – Maxwell theorem of displacements reciprocity. The
proof thereof can be found in monographs on structural mechanics.
The functions of bending moments in the basic states are computed as (see Fig. 13):

∑ M (α ) = 1 ⋅ x + M 2 = 0 ⇒ M 2 = − x for 0 ≤ x ≤ 8.0 m .
∑ M (α ) = M 1 = 0 ⇒ M 1 = 0 for 0 ≤ x ≤ 4.0 m and
∑ M (β ) = M 1 + 1 ⋅ (x − 4) = 0 ⇒ M 1 = 4 − x for 4.0 ≤ x ≤ 8.0 m .
∑ M (α ) = M P = 0 ⇒ M P = 0 for 0 ≤ x ≤ 2.0 m and
∑ M (β ) = M P + 10 ⋅ (x − 2) = 0 ⇒ M P = 20 − 10 x for 2.0 ≤ x ≤ 4.0 m .
The resulting bending moment diagrams are given in Fig. 13.
The use of the graphical integration rule requires a subdivision of the beam domain into subdomains: A–B, B–D
and D–C. The division of the bending moments distributions into basic areas is also shown in Fig. 13. When com-
puting the integrals one must observe that every fragment area from one graph must be multiplied by the value tak-
12 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

en from every area in the second graph. And in the case of the product of a non-linear function times a linear func-
tion, the area must be taken from the non-linear one and the value from the linear one. With all these observations
taken into account one gets:
Lp
M 1M 1 1  1   2  21.33
δ11 = ∑ ∫ dx p = ⋅  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4 ⋅  − ⋅ 4 =
p 0 EJ z EJ z  2   3  EJ z
Lp
M 1M 2 1  1   1   2  53.33
δ12 = δ 21 = ∑ ∫ dx p = ⋅  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4  ⋅ (− 4) +  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4  ⋅  − ⋅ 4  = ,
p 0 EJ z EJ z  2   2   3  EJ z
Lp
M 2M 2 1  1   2  170.67
δ 22 = ∑ ∫ dx p = ⋅  − ⋅ 8 ⋅ 8 ⋅  − ⋅ 8 =
p 0 EJ z EJ z  2   3  EJ z
Lp
M 1M P 1  1   1   2   373.33
δ 1P = ∑ ∫ dx p = ⋅  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4  ⋅ (− 20)+  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4  ⋅  − ⋅ 40   = ,
p 0 EJ z EJ z  2   2   3  EJ z
Lp
M 2M P 1  1   1   2  1080.0
δ 2P = ∑ ∫ dx p = ⋅  − ⋅ 6 ⋅ 60  ⋅ (− 2 )+  − ⋅ 6 ⋅ 60  ⋅  ⋅ 6  =
p 0 EJ z EJ z  2   2   3  EJ z

a) b) c)
State X1 State X2 = 1 State P 10 kN
1 B 1
A D C A B D C A B D C

4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0

M1 α M2 α MP α
D C D C C

x x 1 x
α α α
10 kN
M1 β MP β
B D C 8.0 B C
M2 [m]
4.0 D 2.0
1
β x β x

4.0 60.0
M1 [m]
6.0 MP
2.0 [kN⋅m]
4.0
2.0
2.0 2.0
4.0
4.0 40.0
20.0
20.0
4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0

Fig. 13. Bending moment diagrams and their subdivision into basic areas: a) state X1 = 1,
b) state X2 = 1, c) state P

Now the canonical equations can be written as

 21.33 53.33 373.33

 EJ ⋅ X 1 + EJ ⋅ X 2 + EJ = 0
z z z
 53.33 170.67 1080.0
.
 ⋅ X1 + ⋅ X2 + =0
 EJ z EJ z EJ z

Having eliminated EJz by the division of the equations sides by this factor we have
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 13

21.33 X 1 + 53.33 X 2 + 373.33 = 0

53.33 X + 170.67 X + 1080.0 = 0
 1 2
to be solved for
X 1 = −7.685 kN and X 2 = −3.927 kN .

Negative signs indicate that the real orientation of both redundant forces is opposite the one initially assumed –
they are both pointed upwards, what agrees with the engineering intuition suggesting the upwards reactions in the
supports of the beam loaded by the downward gravitational loading.

3.2. Final solution after finding the redundant forces

Having computed X1 and X2 one notices that two out of five support reactions in the considered beam are al-
ready known. Thus, the remaining ones can be easily get from the equilibrium conditions written down for the stat-
ically determinate modified system loaded by the external loading and the known redundant forces X1 and X2 which
now can be treated as ordinary external loading, too. This combined loading state is shown in Fig. 14a. The reac-
tions at A are computed from:

∑ Px = HA = 0, ∑ Py = V A − X 1 − X 2 − 10.0 = 0
and ∑ M ( A) = M A + 4 X 1 + 8 X 2 + 10.0 ⋅ 6.0 = 0 .
to get
H A = 0 , V A = X 1 + X 2 + 10.0 = −7.685 − 3.927 + 10.0 = −1.612 kN
and M A = −4 X 1 − 8 X 2 − 60.0 = − 4 ⋅ (− 7.685) − 8(− 3.927 ) − 60.0 = 2.156 kN ⋅ m .

10 kN
a) MA
A B D C
x HA X1 = –7.685kN X2 = –3.927 kN

VA 4.0 m 2.0 2.0

y
α
M(n) T(n)
C
x X2 = –3.927 kN
α
β
T(n)
(n) 10 kN
M D C
2.0
X2 = –3.927 kN
β
x
γ
10 kN
M(n) T(n)
B D C
2.0 2.0 X2 = –3.927 kN
γ
X1 = –7.685 kN
x

b) 4.292
M(n)

2.156 [kN⋅m]

7.854

6.073

T(n)

1.612 [kN]
3.927
Fig. 14. Beam with redundant forces a) loading and support reactions, b) internal forces
14 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

However, the final functions of internal forces can be got from equilibrium conditions written for the right hand
side of the beam, without those reactions. We consider the following subdomains (Fig. 14a):
• subdomain D–C for 0 ≤ x ≤ 2.0 m

∑ Py = −T (n ) + X 2 = 0 ⇒ T (n ) = X 2 = −3.927 kN ,
∑ M (α ) = M (n ) + X 2 x = 0 ⇒ M (n ) = − X 2 x = 3.927 x ,
• subdomain B–D for 2.0 ≤ x ≤ 4.0 m

∑ Py = −T (n ) + X 2 + 10.0 = 0 ⇒
T (n ) = X 2 + 10.0 = −3.927 + 10.0 = 6.073 kN ,
∑ M (β ) = M (n ) + X 2 x + 10.0 ⋅ (x − 2) = 0 ⇒
(n )
M = − X 2 x − 10.0 ⋅ (x − 2.0 ) = −(− 3.927 )x − 10 x + 20 = 20 − 6.073x ,

• subdomain A–B for 4.0 ≤ x ≤ 8.0 m

∑ Py = −T (n ) + X 2 + 10.0 + X 1 = 0 ⇒
T (n ) = X 2 + 10.0 + X 1 = −3.927 + 10.0 − 7.685 = −1.612 kN ,
∑ M (γ ) = M (n ) + X 2 ⋅ x + 10 ⋅ (x − 2) + X 1 ⋅ (x − 4) = 0 ⇒
M (n ) = − X 2 x − 10.0 ⋅ (x − 2.0 ) − X 1 ( x − 4.0 ) = −(− 3.927 )x − 10 x +
+ 20 − (− 7.685)x − (− 7.685) ⋅ (− 4.0 ) = −10.74 + 1.612 x .
The diagrams of the shear force T(n) and the bending moments M(n) in the statically indeterminate beam are shown
in Fig. 14b.
Alternatively such an approach to the computation of final forces can be replaced by the superposition rule.
Summing the results from basic states P, X1 = 1 and X2 = 1, the bending moments can be found as

M (n ) = M = M P + M 1 X 1 + M 2 X 2 (10)

and similarly for shear and axial forces

T (n ) = T = TP + T1 X 1 + T2 X 2 and
(11)
N (n ) = N = N P + N1 X 1 + N 2 X 2
or for any displacement at an arbitrary point K

δ K(n ) = δ K = δ KP + δ K 1 X 1 + δ K 2 X 2 (12)

If n is not equal to 2 the relations (10)–(12) are generalized to get

M (n ) = M = M P + M 1 X 1 + M 2 X 2 + .... + M n X n ,
T (n ) = T = TP + T1 X 1 + T2 X 2 + .... + Tn X n ,
(13)
N (n ) = N = N P + N1 X 1 + N 2 X 2 + .... + N n X n ,
δ K(n ) = δ K = δ KP + δ K 1 X 1 + δ K 2 X 2 + .... + δ Kn X n .

3.3. Displacements in statically indeterminate systems

Displacements in statically indeterminate systems can also be found from the principle of virtual work. For the
case of statically indeterminate beams subjected to external loading (no temperature change or support displace-
ments) we have

M (i ) ⋅ M (i )
Lp
1 ⋅δ = ∑ ∫ dx (14)
p 0 EJ z
 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method 15

The superscript (i) denotes the value from the statically indeterminate system. Thus, the use of (14) requires two so-
lutions of this system - once with the real loading, and for the second time for the virtual loading. This task is seri-
ously simplified when one uses the reduction theorem. This theorem enables to compute an arbitrary displacement
from a much simpler relation
M (0 ) ⋅ M (i )
Lp
1 ⋅δ = ∑ ∫ dx (15)
p 0 EJ z
1
a) MA
C c) 4.292
A B D
HA M(i)
VA
2.156 [kN⋅m]
b)

M (0) 6.0 7.854

12.146
[m]

4.292
4.0
2.0
6.448
4.0 2.0 2.0
7.854
4.0 2.0 2.0

Fig. 15. Statically indeterminate beam: a) virtual loading, b) diagram of virtual bending moment,
c) real bending moment

where the virtual moment is found in an arbitrary statically determinate modified system obtained from the original
statically indeterminate system in a manner discussed in Section 3.1. Thus, the reduction theorem indeed reduces
the amount of computations necessary, because now we need to solve the statically indeterminate system only
once! The proof of the theorem is found in the structural mechanics monographs.
To illustrate these calculations let us compute the deflection at the point C in the analyzed beam. The real bend-
ing moment in the statically determinate system computed above is repeated in Fig. 15c together with its subdivi-
sion into basic areas. The virtual loading applied in one of many possible statically determinate modified systems is
given in Fig. 15a. Noting that this loading is qualitatively identical to state P analyzed earlier, only that the force is
(10 kN)-times smaller we conclude that the virtual bending moment is also (10 kN)-times smaller – the diagram
M (0) is shown in Fig. 15b together with its subdivision into basic areas. Thus the deflection can be computed as

M (0 ) ⋅ M ( n )
Lp
1  1   1   2 
vD = ∑ ∫ EJ dx = ⋅  − ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2  ⋅ (7.854 ) + − ⋅ 2 ⋅ 2  ⋅  − ⋅ 12.146  + (− 2 ⋅ 4 ) ⋅ (− 4.292 ) +
p 0 z EJ z  2   2   3 
1   1   1  2  1
+ (− 2 ⋅ 4 ) ⋅  ⋅ 6.448  +  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4  ⋅ (− 4.292) +  − ⋅ 4 ⋅ 4  ⋅  ⋅ 6.448   = (− 15.708 + 16.195
2   2   2  3   EJ z
8.977
+ 34.336 − 25.792 + 34.336 − 34.389 ) =
EJ z

3.4. Kinematic check

Computation of displacements described in Section 3.3 can be used to verify the correctness of a solution to a
statically indeterminate system. To this end one computes a displacement with a known value. In general such a
role can be played by displacements at supports which are constrained to zero. Then, using the uncertain bending
moment M(n), it is checked if the constrained displacement turns out to be zero indeed. Such a computation is called
kinematic check. Let us present its idea by the example solved in Section 3.2 with the final bending moment to be
checked given in Figs. 14b or 15c. It is clear from Fig. 11a that we know the deflections at B and C as well as de-
flection, horizontal displacement and slope at A
v A = 0 , vB = 0 , vC = 0 , u A = 0 and ϕ A = 0 .
16 Statically indeterminate systems. Foundations of flexibility method

Conditions of zero deflection at B and C were used in the process of solution to formulate the canonical equations
and it is not recommended to use them in checking. It is also a rule that the modified system applied in the check
should not be identical to that which was used in solution. So let us use the system 2 from Fig. 11b. This system
without redundant forces and real external loading but with the appropriate virtual load to compute the slope at A is
shown in Fig. 16a. First, let us compute the virtual reactions

∑ M ( A ) = 1 − 8 ⋅ VC = 0 and ∑ M (C ) = 1 + 8 ⋅ VA = 0

what gives VC = −VA = 1 8 m-1 . The bending moment function is

x
∑ M (α ) = M α − x ⋅ VB = 0 ⇒ M α =
8
leading to the diagram shown in Fig. 16b. Computation of the slope at A using the principle of virtual work and
graphical integration requires subdivision of the beam domain into three subdomains. The subdivision of bending
moment diagrams into basic areas is shown in Figs. 15c and 16b.
Thus, the substitution to the formula
Lp
M (0 ) ⋅ M ( n )
ϕA = ∑ ∫ dx
p 0 EJ z
gives
1  1  2   1  1 
ϕA = ⋅  ⋅ 2 ⋅ 0.25  ⋅  ⋅ 7.854  + (0.25 ⋅ 2 ) ⋅ (7.854) + (0.25 ⋅ 2 ) ⋅  − ⋅ 12.146  +  ⋅ 0.25 ⋅ 2  ⋅ (7.854) +
EJ z  2   3   2   2 
1   2  1 
+  ⋅ 0.25 ⋅ 2  ⋅  − ⋅ 12.146  + (0.5 ⋅ 4) ⋅ (− 4.292 ) + (0.5 ⋅ 4) ⋅  ⋅ 6.448  +
2   3  2 
1  1  2 
+  ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 4 ⋅ (− 4.292 ) +  ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 4  ⋅  ⋅ 6.448  =
2  2  3 
1
= (1.309 + 3.927 − 3.037 + 1.964 − 2.024 − 8.584 + 6.448 − 4.292 + + 4.299) = 0.010 .
EJ z EJ z

The result of the calculation is not exactly zero, even though the slope at A is zero in reality. One has to verify if
the error obtained here is only the result of inevitable round-up errors in all numerical calculations or if it is a real
error in the solution. To this end a percentage error is computed where the result of the computed displacement is
related to the maximum valued component from the calculation. It can be verified, that the maximum component in
this case is equal to 8.584 so the percentage error is
0.010
∆% = ⋅ 100% = 0.12%
8.584
It is generally assumed, that with the accuracy of calculations to four digits, the error should be smaller than 1%. In
our case it is so, thus one can conclude that
0.010
ϕA = ≈0
EJ z
what allows us to state, that the bending moment distribution for the statically indeterminate beam computed in
Section 3.2 is correct (satisfactorily accurate) because the known constrained displacement (slope at A) turned out
to be zero, as it is in reality.
a) 1 b)
B D C
A
HA 1.0 M (0 )
8.0 m
VC [-]
VA
0.25
M (0 ) α
C 0.5
x 0.5
VC
α
4.0 2.0 2.0

Fig. 16. Kinematic check: a) modified system, b) virtual bending moments