Mr. Kimarai J.

Joel.kimarai@dkut.ac.ke
ECE 3104
Theory of Structures (TOS) III
LESSON 4
Chapter 2: ANALYSIS OF STATICALLY INDETERMINATE
STRUCTURES
Introduction
Indeterminate structures exhibit more unknowns than the available equation of
equilibrium (3); but the occurrence of settlements and displacement of supports
have created a significant concern to structural uses. While determining these
displacements has been of great subject in determinate structures, indeterminate
structures have exhibited more advantages to determinate structures, such as
improved:-
• Response to Settlement of Support under external load influence,
• Response to changes in Temperature; for indeterminate trusses,
• Response to tolerance problems during construction like fabrication
errors,
• Construction aspects; like the difference in lateral measurements; and
• Behavior aspects.
The determination of both the moments and reactions at the support mandate
the identification of the rotations and translation of the supports for any
indeterminate structure characterized its modulus of elasticity (E) and moment
of inertia (I). As a result, different methods have been developed to analysis
indeterminate structures due to their complexities.
These methods include the following:
 Three moment theorems
 Castigliano Theorems
 Analysis of Indeterminate arches
 Moment area method
 Method of consistent deformations
 Conjugate beam method
  Slope deflection method
 Moment distribution
 Influence lines
This chapter will be divided into these zones all depended on the different
methods of analyzing and resolving indeterminate structures.

I. THREE MOMENT THEOREM

Introduction
The Three-moment method was derived by a French Engineer Emile
Clapeyron in 1857 using differential equations of beam bending. As a result, it
is also referred to as The Clapeyron’s theorem of Three Moments.
The theorem comes out with a single algebraic expression constituting the
three-moment equation that relates the moment values at THREE
CONSECUTIVE POINTS in a beam. We can use this equation for the
analysis of a continuous beam with three or more supports provided on it.
Consider a beam that is generally supported on a hinge at one end and a roller
bearing at the other end. The reactions here are determined by using static
equilibrium equations. Such a beam is a statically determinate structure. If the
ends of the beam are restrained/clamped/encastre/fixed, then the moments are
included at the ends by these restraints and this moments make the structural
element to be a statically indeterminate structure or a redundant structure. These
restraints make the slopes at the ends zero and hence in a fixed beam, the
deflection and slopes are zero at the supports.

(1) (2) (3)

Simply Supported beams
For 1, 2 and 3, calculating for the unknowns would be through the application
of the static equations of equilibrium.
However, if the three sections would be linked to form one form of a beam,
which we can name as a Continuous Beam, then to calculate for the unknowns
in all supports would require an analysis involving the solution of an
indeterminate structure.

A Continuous Beam
For the continuous beam, the equilibrium equations alone would not be
sufficient to determine the end moments. The slope at an interior support B must
be same on either side of the support. The magnitude of the slope can be
influenced by not only the load on the spans either side of it but the entire loads
on the span of the continuous beam. The redundants could be the reactions or
the bending moments over the supports. As a result, creating a relationship
between the loadings and the moments over three adjacent supports, which can
be introduced by the Clapeyron’s Theorem of Three-Moments, would help in
an easy solution.

Derivation of Clapeyron’s Theorem of Three-Moments

Consider a continuous beam shown below where moment of inertia I for span
AB is I1 and BC is I2.
If the support at B and C undergo settlement, it will shift to a new level as
shown in this figure below:

Drawing a Horizontal line tangent at point B, and another tangent along curve
AB, will help define the slope at the support B after settlement:

In order to calculate the slopes at B (𝜭BA & 𝜭BC), we use the trigonometric
rations:

Since 𝜭BA & 𝜭BC are very small; tan 𝜭BA~ 𝜭BA and tan 𝜭BC~ 𝜭BC:
Therefore;

And 𝜭BA = 𝜭BC from the diagram and part definition in the slope occurring at a
support.

Designing the deflection shape of the continuous beam for both supports A and
C with reference to B:

With YAB as deflection at A and YCB deflection at C.

Expressing A1A2 as YAB and hA values; and C1C2 as YCB and hC values; we will
obtain the following:
Assuming that each span is a simply supported beam, we can draw the
“estimated bending moment diagram” due to external loads as follows:

Free Bending moment diagram due to external load.

The FBM diagram is positive because the external loads cause the sagging
effect on the spans AB and BC.
Again, since this is taken as a continuous beam, there are Moments at each
support (A, B & C) that are unknown and would require being determined. As a
result, a Bending moment diagram for the unknown moments would be
designed as below:

The bending moment diagram due to unknown moment s at the supports will
be negative, as shown above. In reality, this moment diagram would be
maximum at B and zero at both A and C.
Combining the two moment diagrams (Free Bending Moment) and that of the
unknown moments would help determine an expression to calculate the
moments at supports. This is achieved through the application of Moment-Area
method as shown below:
Since for FMD the only representation we can make is for area A1 (Span AB)
and A2 (Span BC); while for the diagram of the unknown moments we can
express MA, MB and MC, the expressed values will be divided by the flexural
rigidity (EIn) for the member/span.

Finding the deflection in the span AB (YAB), will require combing the area and
the centroid of application (COG) of the shapes in both FMD and the one of the
unknown moments.
The centroids are taken on the left side for span AB and on the right for BC.
Remember:

…………… (1)
Area for the two shapes, with the Bending moment diagram of the unknown
consisting of two triangles divided by the dotted line with B as the point of
reference.

(2)

Since EI1 is constant all through, factor it out;

………… (3)

From Equation 1, we need (YAB/L1). So, from Equation 3 we can have:-

……….. (3.1)

Similarly, for the span BC:

Expressing YCB; and taking B as the point of reference;

… (4)

Then, factor out EI2 since it is the same all through.

……. (5)

And, from Equation 1, we search for (YCB/L2). Therefore, dividing all through
by L2, we obtain the following:

…….. (5.1)

To complete equation (1) by replacing the values for YAB and YCB, we obtain
the following:

Collecting the terms together EI and multiplying all through with E, we obtain
the following equation:
Opening all the bracket to obtain all combined values for each component will
give the following:-

Collect the like terms together with reference to moments expressed.

Multiply all through by 6 to obtain a more refined expression:

… (6)

For a symmetrical indeterminate structure (continuous beam), I1 = I2=I and

similarly, there is no settlement occurrence at A and C; thus hA=hC=0;
The Expression becomes;

.. (6.1)

This is the Clapeyron’s theorem of Three-Moments Equation (6.1)

 Identification of the Free Moment Diagram
i. Point Load Centrally placed along a span

Max Moment = WL/4

A=
 ii. Point Load placed at any point along the span

Moment Max. At center = Wab/L

Also can be expressed as L/3;

And on the right;

Also expressed as 2L/3;

iii. UDL along the span

Determine
iv. Decreasing/Increasing Triangular loading?
v. Uniform Triangular Loading?
vi. Moment at a point?
Simplified Calculated (6Aa/L1) and (6Ab/L2)
a = XL and b=XR