Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Closed-form moment solution for continuous beams and bridge structures

Robert K. Dowell ∗
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-1324, United States

article info abstract

Article history: Moment distribution continues to be a valuable structural analysis tool for spot-checking member-end-
Received 8 March 2009 moments of continuous beams and frame structures from computer results. Prior to the widespread use of
Received in revised form mainframe and, later, personal computers in the 1980s and 1990s, moment distribution provided a simple
16 March 2009
hand method for practicing civil engineers to analyze and design statically indeterminate structures, since
Accepted 16 March 2009
Available online 24 April 2009
its public introduction in the early 1930s by Hardy Cross, directly leading to new types of designs and
construction. The chief benefits of this method of analysis over the other available methods are that
Keywords:
(1) member-end-moments are found directly from the applied loads without first determining various
Continuous beam displacement components, (2) no simultaneous equations need to be formed and solved, (3) it is easy to
Frame remember and apply, (4) an approximate solution can be obtained at any stage in the analysis and (5) a
Bridge remarkable variety of statically indeterminate structures can be solved by hand. While the development
Moment and introduction of moment distribution represents a great advancement in the history of structural
Statically indeterminate engineering, the distribution process can be tedious, especially if only a few final member-end-moments
Moment distribution of a multi-redundant structure are desired. Additionally, when results are wanted to a greater accuracy,
Stiffness method the number of distribution cycles required and the number of significant figures that must be carried
Exact
through the process make it a daunting procedure. In this paper, a new method is presented that gives
exact member-end-moments for continuous beams and bridge structures, without the need to distribute
moments back and forth as in moment distribution or to set up and solve simultaneous equations, as
with the stiffness method. It is anticipated that the primary application of the proposed method will be
to spot-check computer results.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction difficulty. In spite of the popularity of the stiffness method, how-

Moment distribution was developed by Hardy Cross in the early
1930s [1] to allow member-end-moments of statically indetermi-
nate beams and frames to be found by hand, without the need to
set up and solve simultaneous equations. Because the method is
easy to remember and easy to use, its popularity spread quickly
throughout the United Stated and, indeed, around the world, and
was the structural designer’s method of choice to solve redundant
structures for the next 50 years, by hand, until it was replaced by
mainframe computing and, subsequently, by the personal com-
puter in the 1980s and 1990s, using the stiffness method.
Because computers and structural engineering software are
now so widely available, and can quickly solve 1000s of simultane-
ous equations, statically indeterminate frames are typically solved
by the stiffness method rather than by moment distribution. The
stiffness method also allows axial shortening, shear deformations
and sidesway to be readily included without any special treatment,
whereas in moment distribution each of these effects causes added
∗ Tel.: +1 619 594 5747; fax: +1 619 594 8078.
E-mail address: rdowell@mail.sdsu.edu.
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.012
ever, moment distribution retains its special place in structural en-
gineering for spot-checking computer results and for performing
a quick analysis of a redundant frame or beam by hand. When
a computer is not available, moment distribution provides the
simplest hand solution. Clearly, the stiffness method does not lend
itself to hand calculations, with the solution of multiple simultane-
ous equations required.
While most computer codes use the stiffness method to solve
statically indeterminate beams and frames, computer programs
have also been written for this purpose based on moment
distribution. For example, Caltrans (California Department of
Transportation) has designed 100s of multi-span, redundant bridge
structures throughout California using the in-house computer
program BDS [2] that is based on moment distribution. Prior to the
development of the BDS computer program, Caltrans designed and
analyzed bridge structures by hand, using moment distribution.
This is clear by the wealth of moment distribution information
and tips for hand calculation of bridges provided in the early
1970s Bridge Design Practice Manual [3]. It is, hence, of interest
that Caltrans is known the world-over as the premier highway
bridge designer. Once computers became available, it was a natural
transition for Caltrans to develop the BDS computer program based
on moment distribution rather than on the stiffness method.
 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887
Nomenclature
The following symbols and operations are used in this paper
R Cycle factor going to the right of the beam
T Cycle factor going to the left of the beam
r Distribution factor for member on the right side of a
joint
t Distribution factor for member on the left side of a
joint
c Distribution factor for column at a joint
ABC Member moment just to the right of Joint A from
a unit moment applied at Joint B for a continuous
beam or bridge frame with C number of internal
joints
BAC Member moment just to the left of Joint B from a unit
moment applied at Joint A for a continuous beam or
bridge frame with C number of internal joints
rA .rB Multiplication of rA , rA+1 , . . . through rB
r2 .r5 Multiplication of r2 , r3 , r4 and r5
RA .RB Multiplication of RA , RA+1 , . . . through RB
tA .tB Multiplication of tA , tA+1 , . . . through tB
TA .TB Multiplication of TA , TA+1 , . . . through TB
Note: if B equals A then rA .rB = rA, tA .tB = tA , TA .TB =
TA, RA .RB = RA
In this paper a closed-form solution is presented to determine
exact member-end-moments for continuous beams and bridge
structures (see Fig. 1 for schematics of typical structures that can
be solved using the new method), with no simultaneous equations
to be set up and solved and no moments to be distributed back and
forth. The closed-form equations are derived from an extension
of the moment distribution process and utilize many of the same
concepts. As with standard moment distribution, shear and axial
deformations are ignored. Note that this does not preclude finding
accurate shear and axial forces, as they are readily determined from
statics, once final member-end-moments are known. Sway of the
bridge frame is not demonstrated in this paper, but can be included
in the proposed method using a similar two-step approach of
sway and no-sway analyses often conducted in standard moment
distribution for frames that sway.
The closed-form method proposed in this paper produces
final member-end-moments, directly and exactly, rather than
approaching the correct end moments with each distribution
cycle, as in moment distribution. This eliminates the (1) need
to perform the sometimes tedious task of distributing moments
back and forth for many steps until reaching the desired level of
accuracy, (2) uncertainty over how many significant figures should
be carried through the distribution process and (3) concern for
large differences in adjacent member rotational stiffness terms
which can require many distribution cycles to achieve reasonable
convergence.
In addition to its practical applications, the proposed method
makes it possible to find exact solutions of some interesting
(a) Continuous beam.
Fig. 1. Typical structures solved with the new method (5 internal joints and 6 spans).
1881
academic problems, which can only be found numerically and,
hence, approximately by any of the other methods. Consider, for
example, exact member-end-moments of a single loaded span of
an infinitely long, continuous beam with an infinite number of
equal-length spans, and a single point load P applied at mid-span,
or distributed load w applied over the length of the member.
Proper application of the new approach shows that the infinite
terms in the numerator and denominator cancel, with exact final
end moments of the loaded span from point load P or distributed
load w given, respectively, as
√ !
PL w L2 3+ 3
MP = ±α Mw = ±α , where α = √ .
8 12 4+2 3
For any member that is n number of joints to the right or left of
the loaded span, the exact end moment is given for point load P or
distributed load w , respectively, as
PL w L2
MP = ±β Mw = ±β ,
8 12
" n n−1 #

1 1 1
where β = − √ − − √ .
2 2+ 3 2+ 3
These moments were approximately confirmed, numerically,
by the stiffness method with many spans included and by hand
using moment distribution with several spans. If a combination of
point loads and distributed loads are applied to various spans, the
principle of superposition and the above expression allow exact
member-end-moments to be found for any span of a continuous
beam with an infinite number of equal-length spans.
The proposed method can be readily automated on a hand-held,
programmable calculator, allowing quick and correct solutions in
the office or in the field, at the job site, for all results of a continuous
beam or bridge frame with arbitrary loading, member lengths
and boundary conditions, and any number of spans. Perhaps
the main advantage of the new approach, however, is that a
single member-end-moment can be determined, by hand, without
considering results for the entire structure, which is not possible
from moment distribution or the stiffness method. Thus it is of
particular interest that, when given a choice on an exam, students
in the author’s advanced structural analysis class typically use the
closed-form approach given in this paper, rather than standard
moment distribution or the stiffness method, when asked for only
one or two final member-end-moments.
2. Review of moment distribution
The process of moment distribution initially assumes that all
joints are restrained from rotation and sway, causing fixed-end-
moments to be developed at the ends of all loaded members,
based on the applied loading within the span and the length of
each member. At this point in the analysis, the forces that develop
within one member have no effect on any of the other members
(ends are fixed). The summation of fixed-end-moments at internal
joints is typically not zero and, therefore, an artificial restraint is
(b) Bridge frame.
1882 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887

(a) Beam with unit moment applied at first (b) Moment distribution process.
internal joint.

Fig. 2. Continuous beam with two internal joints and unit moment applied at Joint 1.

assumed that introduces a clamping moment which temporarily 3. New method for continuous beams and bridge structures
balances joint equilibrium. When the clamp is removed, the
joint rotates and reaches equilibrium without the artificial clamp In this section a new method for solving member-end-moments
included. of multi-span, continuous beams and bridge frames is provided.
Removing the artificial clamp at a joint is modeled in moment Final moment expressions are given below. The new equations
distribution by applying a moment to the joint that is equal were derived from calculus by taking the limit of the convergent
and opposite to the clamping moment, while all other joints infinite geometric series that develops from a specific pattern of
remain fixed. Delta member-end-moments are developed in releases using moment distribution. For each additional internal
proportion to the member’s relative rotational stiffness at the support (or span), an infinite series of all prior infinite series
released joint, and one-half of these moments travel from the was required, ultimately allowing final expressions to be derived
released end to the clamped, far end of the member. The relative for any number of internal supports. Due to space limitations in
member stiffness (member rotational stiffness divided by the total this paper the full derivations cannot be included here. However,
rotational stiffness at a joint) is termed the distribution factor and development of the initial following expressions from a few cycles
the ratio of beam end moments (moment at the far, clamped end of moment distribution gives an idea of the thought-process used.
divided by the moment at the rotated end) is termed the carry-over Fig. 2 shows a three-span beam with two internal joints and a
factor. For prismatic members the carry-over factor is 0.5. Once unit moment applied at Joint 1. Standard moment distribution is
a clamp has been removed at a joint, and equilibrium is found, performed, alternately releasing Joints 1 and 2 (Fig. 2(b)). Subscript
the joint is again clamped (in its rotated position) so that it can numbering of the distribution factors (r and t) and cycle factors (R
receive additional moments from the future release of clamps at and T ) is consistent with the internal joint numbering (shown in
adjacent joints. As the distribution process proceeds, moments at circles). Only a few distribution cycles are carried out to determine
the artificial clamps become smaller, to the point that they can the moment pattern that emerges, allowing an infinite geometric
be ignored and the distribution process stopped, as equilibrium is series to be written for any member-end-moment of the two-joint
approximately satisfied throughout the structure. case. For a beam that has two internal joints the member moment
The moment distribution process starts at a given joint on the right side of Joint 2, from a unit moment applied at Joint 1,
(typically the one with the largest out-of-balance moment) and is written as
then goes from joint to joint, until all the joints have been released "    2 #
and re-clamped once. While there are various ways that joints r1 r2 r1 t2 r1 t2
212 = − 1+ + + ···
can be released and re-clamped, only the above approach will be 2 4 4
discussed here. One advantage to this approach is that the released n
n=∞ 
joint will be in equilibrium at the time of its release. Releasing r1 r2 X r1 t 2
=− . (1)
and re-clamping all of the joints one time is considered one full 2 4
n=0
cycle of moment distribution. At this point in the analysis the
out-of-balance joint moments will typically be smaller than they This allows the final member-end-moment to be given in terms
were before the first distribution cycle, but additional distribution of distribution factors r1 and r2 and cycle factor R2 as
cycles are required to further reduce remaining out-of-balance r1 r2
joint moments. Typically, four or five complete distribution cycles 212 = − (2a)
2R2
will provide results that are good enough for engineering purposes.
Sometimes, however, unusual loading and geometry, or large where
adjacent member stiffness variations, require more distribution  
r1 t 2
cycles for accurate results. Later in the paper the moment R2 = 1− (2b)
distribution process is shown for a continuous beam example 4
that demonstrates the use of the new approach, and allows which is named cycle factor. The same procedure shown in Fig. 2
comparisons between the two methods and their results. was carried out for a unit moment applied at Joint 2 resulting in a
 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887
(a) Continuous beam.
(c) Cycle factor expressions.
Fig. 3. Joint numbers, distribution factors and cycle factors.
slightly different final expression, but with the same cycle factor
shown in Eq. (2). Note that each cycle factor represents the exact
solution of a convergent infinite series, as shown in Eqs. (1) and (2).
For a beam with three internal joints (four spans) a similar,
but more advanced, procedure was used, with the joint at the
end of the third span (third internal joint) fixed from rotation
while the first two joints were released and clamped an infinite
number of times – as provided by the solutions given above. The
clamped third internal joint was then released and clamped while
the first two joints were held clamped, and then this moment was
distributed through the remaining structure by again alternately
releasing and clamping the first two internal joints an infinite
number of times (same solution given above). As before, the
moment that developed at the clamped third internal joint was
released and distributed through the structure. By following this
procedure several times a pattern emerged that allowed the exact
final member-end-moments for a four-span, continuous beam to
be written. Using a similar logic, it was possible to generalize
the expressions for any number of internal joints or spans, with
final member-end-moments for multi-span, continuous beams
and bridge frames determined quickly and exactly, as shown in the
following.
A typical continuous beam and bridge structure are shown in
Fig. 1. For either of these structure types with C number of internal
joints, the final member-end-moment for the span just to the right
of Joint A, from a unit moment applied to Joint B, is expressed as
rB .rA
 
tA+1
ABC = TC .TA+1 1 − . (3)
(−2)A−B RB .RC 4TA+1
In addition to the two horizontal members (spans) at an internal
joint, a bridge frame has a vertical column that is connected to
the joint. Span member-end-moments for both continuous beams
and bridge frames are given by Eq. (3). A different expression is
required for the column-end-moment at a joint, given as
rB .rA−1 cA
ABC = TC .TA+1 .
(−2)A−B RB .RC
For the beam moment just to the right side of the last internal
Joint C, the span expression Eq. (3) reduces to
rB .rC
CBC =
(−2)C −B RB .RC
and the column moment expression reduces to
rB .rC −1 cc
CBC = . (6)
(−2)C −B RB .RC
These equations (Eq. (3) through (6)) are known as the right
equations, as they are used for joints that are to the right of the joint
1883
(b) Bridge frame.
where the moment is applied, and because they give results for the
beam that is to the right of the joint of interest. Note that either
the right equations, given above, or the left equations, given later
in the paper, can be used at the joint where the moment is applied.
However, the right equations give the moment on the right side of
the joint and the left equations give the moment on the left side
of the joint. For a continuous beam, the right and left moments at
a joint are equal and opposite due to equilibrium considerations.
The exception is for the joint where the unit moment is applied,
as the member-end-moments must sum to the applied moment of
one. For a bridge frame, the right, left and column moments at a
joint must sum to zero, except at the joint with the applied unit
moment, where they sum to one. Thus, for a bridge frame, the left
and right span moments at a joint are equal and opposite only if
the column has no moment, which is usually not the case.
A typical continuous beam and a typical bridge frame, with
arbitrary loading and boundary conditions, are shown in Fig. 1,
both having six spans and five internal joints (C = 5). Fig. 3 gives
internal joint numbers (in the circles), distribution factors ri and
ti , and cycle factors Ri and Ti . Additional distribution factors ci are
given for the bridge frame because of the column members that
are rigidly connected to the internal joints. Distribution factors
are defined from moment distribution as the relative rotational
stiffness of the members that are connected to a joint. Cycle factors
are found from the span distribution factors, and the prior cycle
factor, as indicated in Fig. 3 (cycle factors are also generalized for
any number of internal joints n in Fig. 3, and the expressions are
identical for continuous beams and bridge frames).
While Figs. 2 and 3 show fixed-end-supports, this is not
required in the general equations given above, and they may
equally well be considered as rollers and pins (see the bridge
frame in Fig. 1 and both examples that follow for roller and pin
boundary conditions). The given end conditions of the first and last
spans, and columns, are included in the analysis when determining
distribution factors, which have a direct effect on the cycle factors,
with member rotational stiffness terms of 3EI/L when the far end
(4)
of the member has a roller or pin support, and 4EI/ L when the far
end of the member is fixed.
While Eq. (3) through (6) are to be used for joints that are to
the right of the joint where the unit moment is applied, Eq. (7)
through (10) are for joints that are to the left of the loaded joint
(5) and, hence, are known as the left equations. For the spans, these
left equations also give the moment on the left side of the joint of
interest. The general left expression for spans of continuous beams
and bridge frames is provided in Eq. (7), and the general column
left expression for bridge frames is given in Eq. (8).
Simplified left expressions for spans and columns that are
connected to the first internal joint are given in Eqs. (9) and
(10). The left expressions presented below were developed from
1884 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887

Table 1
Distribution factors and fixed-end-moments for Example 1.a
Joint Member K r

B BA 3EI/100 0.47368
BC 4EI/120 0.52632
Sum 0.063333EI 1.0
C CB 4EI/120 0.6
CD 4EI/180 0.4
Fig. 4. Continuous Beam and Loading for Example 1.
Sum 0.055555EI 1.0
D DC 4EI/180 0.48571
symmetry of the right expressions given in Eq. (3) through (6). The DE 4EI/170 0.51429
general left expression for spans is Sum 0.045752EI 1.0
E ED 4EI/170 0.43333
tA .tB EF 4EI/130 0.56667
 
rB−1
BAC = R1 .RB−1 1 − (7) Sum 0.054299EI 1.0
(−2)A−B T1 .TA 4RB−1 F FE 4EI/130 0.54118
FG 3EI/115 0.45882
and for columns is Sum 0.056856EI 1.0
tA .tB+1 cB
BAC = R1 .RB−1 . (8) a F
MCD =−
PL
= −11, 250 F
MDC = + PL8 = +11, 250
(−2)A−B T1 .TA 8
WL2 2
At the first internal joint these expressions simplify for spans to
F
MDE =− = −24, 083 F
MED = + WL
12
= +24, 083.
12
t1 .tA
1AC = (9) release of adjacent clamped joints will distribute moments to the
(−2)A−1 T1 .TA joints that were initially balanced, resulting in an out-of-balance
and for columns as joint that needs to be released. All joints must also be included in
t2 .tA c1 the stiffness method.
1AC = . (10) As with the load vector in the stiffness method, applied joint
(−2)A−1 T1 .TA moments are the artificial clamping moments with the signs
Definitions and numerical values for distribution factors t and r, reversed. Applying the opposite moment to the clamping moment
and cycle factors T and R are identical for left and right equations. rotates each joint into equilibrium, numerically removing the
clamp. Therefore, the contribution from each joint to a given
3.1. Example 1 (Continuous beam with applied vertical loads) member-end-moment is determined from multiplication of the
applied joint moment by the unit moment result (using the closed-
This example shows how final member-end-moments are form expressions presented), with the total beam moment found
determined from both the right and left equations for a six-span, by superposition. The examples demonstrate that final member-
continuous beam with a point load applied to the center of the third end-moments must also include fixed-end-moments for spans
span and a distributed load applied along the entire length of the that are loaded, just as in standard moment distribution and the
fourth span (see Fig. 4). The continuous beam has roller and pin stiffness method.
supports at the two ends of the structure and various span lengths.
No specific system of units is given in this example. It is understood, 3.2. Example 1: Solution by Hardy Cross moment distribution
however, that the point load and the distributed load in Fig. 4 are
in general units of force and force per unit length, respectively, and To solve this problem with standard moment distribution re-
that resulting moments are in units of force multiplied by distance, quires that distribution factors and fixed-end-moments be deter-
in consistent units with the member lengths and applied loads. mined prior to the distribution process, as shown in Table 1. At each
As in standard moment distribution, fixed-end-moments are joint the rotational stiffness terms of the connecting members, as
found for each loaded member (based on the type and magnitude well as the summation of the stiffness terms representing the total
of loading, portion of the span loaded and span length), and dis- rotational stiffness of the joint, are given. Distribution factors are
tribution factors are determined for the members at each joint found as the ratio of member rotational stiffness divided by the to-
based on their relative rotational stiffness values. Artificial clamp- tal rotational stiffness of the joint.
ing moments, at the joints, are determined by summing fixed-end- The moment distribution process is shown in Fig. 5 for this
moments of all members connected to a given joint. Should the example, with final member-end-moments given at the bottom
sum of the fixed-end-moments at a joint happen to equal zero, of the figure, found from summing the column of incremental
then there is no artificial clamping moment (out-of-balance mo- moments given above (below the associated distribution factor).
ment is zero) as the joint is already in equilibrium. Since the pro- Note that for the third and fourth spans, where the vertical loads
posed method finds moment contributions at a given beam end are applied, the fixed-end-moments are the first moments listed
from each loaded joint, and then sums the results based on the in the distribution process and, hence, are included in the final
principle of superposition, any joints that are in equilibrium in the moments given at the bottom of Fig. 5. As mentioned previously,
initial fixed condition do not need to be considered, which is a ma- and demonstrated in Fig. 5, one drawback of standard moment
jor advantage of the new method compared to all other methods. distribution is that all joints must be included in the distribution
For the current example, loads are applied to the third and process, even if some of the joints were initially in equilibrium. In
fourth spans, resulting in out-of-balance joint moments at only the new approach presented in this paper only the joints that are
three of the joints, Joints C, D and E, with no fixed-end-moments initially out of equilibrium need to be considered.
in the other spans. Hence, in the proposed method, there are no
contributions to the final member-end-moments from Joints A, B, F 3.3. Example 1: Solution by proposed closed-form method
and G, and, therefore, these joints are ignored. In standard moment
distribution all joints need to be included in the distribution Using the new method it is helpful to sketch a schematic of
process, even if they are initially in equilibrium. This is because the the beam with joint numbers, distribution factors and applied
 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887 1885

Fig. 5. Moment distribution for Example 1.

Fig. 6. Schematic of beam with distribution factors, loading and joint numbering.

joint moments shown (Fig. 6). This continuous beam example has + (−24, 083)(0.56680) = −15, 249.
five internal joints and various distribution factors. Out-of-balance
This is identical to the result from the stiffness method, as
(clamping) moments develop at three of the joints from applied
determined from SAP2000 [4]. Since the member on the right
loading in two of the spans (see Fig. 4 for span loading). Final beam
side of Joint 4 has no span loading, fixed-end-moments were
moments just to the right of internal Joints 3 and 4 are found in the
not needed in the above solution. Moment distribution provides
following.
First, all of the cycle factors are found (see Figs. 3 and 6) an almost identical result of −15, 248 (see the bottom of Fig. 5
on the right side of Joint 4). Such a close moment distribution
R1 = 1, R2 = 0.92105, R3 = 0.94727, R4 = 0.94118, R5 = 0.91854
result for this example is due to (1) carrying more significant
T5 = 1, T4 = 0.92333, T3 = 0.93966, T2 = 0.94831, T1 = 0.91675 figures through all calculations than would normally be done,
and confirmed that they are correct by checking that R1 . R5 = T1 .T5 , including distribution factors, fixed-end-moments and distributed
or 0.75427= 0.75427 (OK). This equality is required because a unit moments, and (2) continuing the distribution process through
moment that travels through the structure has the same final value more cycles than typically required. The close moment distribution
if it goes from left to right or from right to left. In this example, three result at this location is also due to the final member-end-moment
joints have out-of-balance moments, resulting in the equivalent having similar magnitude to the fixed-end-moments.
joint moments indicated in Fig. 6 at Joints 2, 3 and 4. Proposed Now the final member moment on the right side of Joint 3 is
equations are applied three times in order to determine the effect found, which is of interest to the reader because it requires the
at a given beam end from each of the three applied joint moments, use of both right and left expressions, demonstrating how and
using the principle of superposition to sum the results. To find why these different expressions are used together to find a given
the final beam moment in the span just to the right of Joint 4, a beam moment. Both equations are needed because Joint 3 is to the
unit moment is applied, separately, to Joints 2, 3 and 4, and the right of Joint 2, with the right expression required for an applied
general right expression given in Eq. (3) is used to determine the moment coming from Joint 2, but Joint 3 is to the left of Joint 4,
corresponding member-end-moments, as requiring that the left expression be used for an applied moment
coming from Joint 4. An out-of-balance moment also exists at Joint
r2 .r4
 
t5
425 = T5 1 − = 0.033410 3, where the final moment is desired. In this case, either right or
(−2)2 R2 .R5 4T5 left expressions will work. However, it must be remembered that
r3 .r4 Eq. (3) gives results on the right side of the joint and Eq. (7) gives
 
t5
435 = T 5 1− = −0.15386 results on the left side of the joint. Since the final beam moment
(−2)1 R3 .R5 4T5
  on the right side of the joint is desired, Eq. (3) is used. From Eq. (3)
r4 t5 and (7), the beam-end-moments from a unit moment applied at
445 = T 5 1− = 0.56680.
(−2)0 R4 .R5 4T5 the three different joints are
These are the member moments just to the right of Joint 4 from a r2 .r3
 
t4
unit moment applied, separately, to Joints 2, 3 and 4 for a beam with 325 = T5 .T4 1 −
(−2)1 R2 .R5 4T4
5 internal joints. The final member-end-moment on the right side
of Joint 4 is calculated by multiplying applied moments at Joints = −0.11114 (beam end at right of joint) (from Eq. (3))
 
2, 3 and 4 (shown in Fig. 6) by their respective unit values shown r3 t4
335 = T5 .T 4 1 −
above, and summing the results, giving (−2)0 R3 .R5 4T4
MEF = (11, 250)(0.033410) + (12, 833)(−0.15386) = 0.51182 (beam end at right of joint) (from Eq. (3))
1886 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887

Fig. 7. Bridge frame and loading for Example 2.

Fig. 8. Schematic of bridge with distribution factors, loading and joint numbering.
t4 .t3
 
r2
345 = R1 .R2 1 −
(−2)1 T1 .T4 4R2 r2 .r3
= −0.11455 (beam end at left of joint) (from Eq. (7)). 323 = = −0.011506.
(−2)1 R2 .R3
The above results show that two of the values are for the beam
end on the right side of the joint and the last value is for the beam Using the applied joint moments given in Fig. 8, the final
end on the left side of the joint. In order to use superposition, these member-end-moment is
values must be determined at the same location; on the same side
MDE = (12, 500)(0.00082927)
of the joint. From statics, the last term is switched from the left to
the right side of the joint by simply changing the sign, with a result + (−12, 500)(−0.011506) = 154.19.
of +0.11455. Unit moment results can be changed from one side of
the joint to the other side for continuous beams by just changing To find the moment at the top of the last column, MDH , unit
the sign, with the exception of the joint where the unit moment moments are applied at Joints 1 and 2, and results at the top of the
is applied – in this case the sum of the left and right unit moment column are found from the general right expression for columns
results must equal the applied unit moment. It is important to note given in Eq. (4). However, since this column is connected to the
that the fixed-end-moment of −24, 083, at the beam end on the last internal joint, the simplified column expression Eq. (6) is used,
right side of the joint, must also be included when determining the resulting in
total member-end-moment, with a final member moment from
r1 .r2 (c3 )
the three terms above, and the fixed-end-moment, resulting in 313 = = 0.0023220
(−2)2 R1 .R3
MDE = (11, 250)(−0.11114) + (12, 833)(0.51182)
r2 (c3 )
+ (−24, 083)(0.11455) − 24, 083 = −21, 524. 323 = = −0.032219
(−2)1 R2 .R3
This moment matches the stiffness method result from
SAP2000, and moment distribution results are very close at with the top-of-column moment found from superposition as
−21, 525 (see Fig. 5). With final member-end-moments known,
end shears and support reactions can be found from statics, MDH = (12, 500)(0.0023220)
allowing moment and shear diagrams to be developed for each + (−12, 500)(−0.032219) = 431.76.
span of the continuous beam.
To find the end span moment just to the right of Joint 2, MCD ,
3.4. Example 2 (Bridge structure with applied vertical loads) the general right expression given in Eq. (3) is used rather than
the simplified right expression Eq. (5). This simplified equation can
This example demonstrates how the proposed closed-form only be used for members that are connected to the last internal
analysis can be used for statically indeterminate, multi-span bridge joint. Thus the unit results are
frames. A distributed load is applied to the second span of a
r1 .r2
 
four-span bridge frame, with various span and columns lengths, t3
213 = T3 1 − = −0.0073580
boundary conditions and moments of inertia (see Fig. 7). Results (−2)1 R1 .R3 4T3
were verified by the stiffness method in SAP2000 [4] and by r2

t3

hand calculations using standard moment distribution. Due to 223 = T3 1 − = 0.10210
space limitations in the paper, only the proposed closed-form (−2)0 R2 .R3 4T3
approach is given here. See Table 2 for distribution factors and
with a final member-end-moment of
fixed-end-moments. Cycle factors are determined based on the
span distribution factors (see Figs. 3 and 8) as MCD = (12, 500)(−0.0073580)
R1 = 1, R2 = 0.99580, R3 = 0.99514, + (−12, 500)(0.10210) = −1,368.2.
T3 = 1, T2 = 0.99516, T1 = 0.99578
Cycle factor values are verified by R1 .R3 = T1 .T3 , or 0.990960 =
0.990960 (OK). 4. Conclusions
Since only one span is loaded, there are just two joints with
applied moments that need to be included in the closed-form A new method for determining final member-end-moments of
approach. For member-end-moment MDE , just to the right of Joint statically indeterminate beams and bridge frames is presented in
3, unit moments are applied to Joints 1 and 2. From Eq. (3), or from the paper. Two examples demonstrate the use of the new method
the simplified form for last joints given in Eq. (5), the unit moment for continuous beams and bridge frames, comparing the approach
span results are and results to standard moment distribution [1,5] as well as the
r1 .r3 more general stiffness method, as programmed in SAP2000 [4].
313 = = 0.00082927 Only flexural deformations were considered for all three methods.
(−2)2 R1 .R3
 R.K. Dowell / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1880–1887 1887

Table 2 tribution cycle, but never quite reaching it. This requires several
Distribution factors and fixed-end-moments for Example 2.a cycles for realistic results, and added cycles for more precise
Joint Member K r numbers.
B BA 3EI/80 0.13514 One difficulty with standard moment distribution is that if more
BC 4EI/100 0.14414 accurate moments are desired, then more significant figures must
BF 4EI/20 0.72072 be carried through the distribution process, making it much more
Sum 0.2775EI 1.0
tedious than, say, if only three significant figures are needed. It is
C CB 4EI/100 0.11661
CD 4EI/110 0.10601 the author’s experience that moment distribution is most suited
CG 4E(2I)/30 0.77739 for an accuracy of about three or four significant figures, which is
Sum 0.34303EI 1.0 probably satisfactory for most engineering applications. The new
D DC 4EI/110 0.18253 approach, however, can be taken to any level of accuracy without
DE 3EI/70 0.21512
DH 3EI/25 0.60235
any added effort, which is sometimes very useful. It was also
Sum 0.19922EI 1.0 discussed that the proposed method gives exact results to some
interesting academic problems that can only be approximated by
= − w12L = −12, 500 = w12L = 12, 500.
2 2
a F F
MBC MCB
all other methods.

The continuous beam example has six spans, which is more than Acknowledgments
typically found in the field and, hence, the proposed equations
used in the example would often reduce considerably in everyday
I would like to thank the best engineer and mentor that I have
engineering applications that have only three or four spans.
ever known, my father, Thomas F. Dowell, for first introducing me
The new method is a hand approach, allowing final moments to
to, and getting me excited about, moment distribution with his sto-
be expressed in simple equations without the need to set up and
ries of moments flying back and forth when I was an undergrad-
solve simultaneous equations and without the need to distribute
uate student in civil engineering at San Diego State University. He
moments back and forth multiple times. It can be used in its own
learned moment distribution many years earlier as a civil engineer-
right, or it can be used as a quick spot-check against computer
ing student at Kingston Technical College (now Kingston Univer-
results or results from moment distribution. This new method
sity, but at that time affiliated with London University) in England
is useful in checking results from other methods because any
in the late 1940s. The excitement for this subject has never left me.
single member-end-moment can be found exactly and without
concern for results of the remaining structure, whereas in moment
distribution and the stiffness method the complete structure must References
be solved simultaneously.
[1] Cross H. Analysis of continuous frames by distributing fixed-end moments.
Simple closed-form expressions that were derived from extend-
Transactions of the ASCE 1932;96(1793):1–10.
ing the logic of moment distribution allow exact member-end- [2] Bridge Design System (BDS). User instructions. Sacramento (California):
moments to be determined for continuous beams and bridge-type Engineering Computer Corporation; 1979.
frames of any number of spans. Final moment expressions can be [3] Bridge design practice manual, Sacramento (California): California Department
of Public Works, Division of Highways, Bridge Department; 1971.
conveniently programmed in a hand-held scientific calculator, giv-
[4] SAP2000, Version 8 computer manuals, Berkeley (California): Computers and
ing simple, fast and exact solutions for use in the office or at the Structures, Inc.; 2002.
job site. In moment distribution the correct solution is approached [5] Cross H, Morgan ND. Continuous frames of reinforced concrete. New York:
asymptotically, getting closer to the exact result with each dis- John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1932.