15.

1 INTRODUCTION TO STATICALLY INDETERMINATE STRUCTURES

As discussed previously, the support reactions and internal forces of statically determinate structures can
be determined from the equations of equilibrium (including equations of condition, if any). However, since
indeterminate structures have more support reactions than required for static stability, the equilibrium equations
alone are not sufficient for determining the reactions and internal forces of such structures and must be
supplemented by additional relationships based on the geometry of deformation of structures.
These additional relationships, which are termed the compatibility conditions, ensure that the continuity
of the displacements is maintained throughout the structure and that the structure’s various parts fit together. For
example, at a rigid joint the deflections and rotations of all the members meeting at the joint must be the same.
Thus the analysis of an indeterminate structure involves, in addition to the dimensions and arrangement of
members of the structure, its cross-sectional and material properties (such as cross-sectional areas, moments of
inertia, moduli of elasticity, etc.), which in turn, depend on the internal forces of the structure. The design of an
indeterminate structure is, therefore, carried out in an iterative manner, whereby the (relative) sizes of the
structural members are initially assumed and used to analyze the structure, and the internal forces thus obtained
are used to revise the member sizes; if the revised member sizes are not close to those initially assumed, then the
structure is reanalyzed using the latest member sizes. The iteration continues until the member sizes based on the
results of an analysis are close to those assumed for that analysis.
Despite the foregoing difficulty in designing indeterminate structures, a great majority of structures being
built today are statically indeterminate; for example, most modern reinforced concrete buildings are statically
indeterminate. In this chapter, we discuss some of the important advantages and disadvantages of indeterminate
structures as compared to determinate structures and introduce the fundamental concepts of the analysis of
indeterminate structures.

15.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INDETERMINATE STRUCTURES

The advantages of statically indeterminate structures over determinate structures include the following.
1. Smaller Stresses. The maximum stresses in statically indeterminate structures are generally lower than
those in comparable determinate structures.
2. Greater Stiffnesses. Statically indeterminate structures generally have higher stiffnesses (i.e., smaller
deformations) than those of comparable determinate structures.
3. Redundancies. Statically indeterminate structures, if properly designed, have the capacity for
redistributing loads when certain structural portions become overstressed or collapse in cases of overloads
due to earthquakes, tornadoes, impact (e.g., gas explosions or vehicle impacts), and other such events.
Indeterminate structures have more members andyor support reactions than required for static stability, so
if a part (or member or support) of such a structure fails, the entire structure will not necessarily collapse,
and the loads will be redistributed to the adjacent portions of the structure.

The main disadvantages of statically indeterminate structures, over determinate structures, are the
following:
1. Stresses Due to Support Settlement. Support settlements do not cause any stresses in determinate
structures; they may, however, induce significant stresses in indeterminate structures, which should be
taken into account when designing indeterminate structures.
2. Stresses Due to Temperature Changes and Fabrication Errors. Like support settlements, these effects
do not cause stresses in determinate structures but may induce significant stresses in indeterminate ones.

15.3 METHOD OF CONSISTENT DEFORMATION

The method of consistent deformation, which was introduced by James C. Maxwell in 1864, essentially
involves removing enough restraints from the indeterminate structure to render it statically determinate. This
determinate structure, which must be statically (and geometrically) stable, is referred to as the primary structure.
The excess restraints removed from the given indeterminate structure to convert it into the determinate primary
structure are called redundant restraints, and the reactions or internal forces associated with these restraints are
termed redundants. The redundants are then applied as unknown loads on the primary structure, and their values
are determined by solving the compatibility equations based on the condition that the deformations of the primary
structure due to the combined effect of the redundants and the given external loading must be the same as the
deformations of the original indeterminate structure. Since the independent variables or unknowns in the
method of consistent deformations are the redundant forces (and/or moments), which must be determined before
the other response characteristics (e.g., displacements) can be evaluated, the method is classified as a force
method.

15.4 STRUCTURES WITH SINGLE DEGREE OF INDETERMINACY

To illustrate the basic concept of the method of consistent deformations, consider the propped cantilever
beam subjected to a concentrated load P, as shown in Fig. 13.1(a). Since the beam is supported by four support
reactions (𝐴𝑥, 𝐴𝑦, 𝑀𝐴, 𝐶𝑦)), the three equations of equilibrium (∑F=0, ∑Fy=0, and ∑ M=0) are not sufficient for
determining all the reactions. Therefore, the beam is statically indeterminate. The degree of indeterminacy of the
beam is equal to the number of unknown reactions minus the number of equilibrium equations—that is, 4-3=1,
which indicates that the beam has one more, or redundant, reaction than necessary for static stability. Thus, if we
can determine one of the four reactions by using a compatibility equation based on the geometry of the
deformation of the beam, then the remaining three reactions can be obtained from the three equations of
equilibrium.
To establish the compatibility equation, we select one of the reactions of the beam to be the redundant.
Suppose that we select the vertical reaction Cy exerted by the roller support C to be the redundant. From Fig.
15.1(a), we can see that if the roller support C is removed from the beam, it will become determinate while still
remaining statically stable, because the fixed support A alone can prevent it from translating andyor rotating as a
rigid body. Thus, the roller support C is not necessary for the static stability of the beam, and its reaction Cy can
be designated as the redundant. Note however, that the presence of support C imposes the compatibility condition
on the deflected shape of the beam that the deflection at C must be zero (Fig. 15.1(a)); that is,
∆𝐶= 0 (𝐸𝑞. 15.1)
To determine the redundant 𝐶𝑦 by using this compatibility condition, we remove the roller support C from
the indeterminate beam to convert it into the determinate cantilever beam shown in Fig. 15.1(b). This determinate
beam is referred to as the primary beam. The redundant 𝐶𝑦 is then applied as an unknown load on the primary
beam, along with the given external load P=160 kN, as shown in Fig. 15.1(b). The redundant 𝐶𝑦 can be determined
by using the reasoning that if the value of the unknown load 𝐶𝑦 acting on the primary beam (Fig. 15.1(b)) is to be
the same as that of the reaction exerted on the indeterminate beam by the roller support C (Fig. 15.1(a)), then the
deflection at the free end C of the primary beam due to the combined effect of the external load P and the redundant
𝐶𝑦 must be the same as the deflection of the indeterminate beam at support C. Because the deflection ∆𝐶 at support
C of the indeterminate beam is zero (Eq. 15), the deflection at end C of the primary beam due to the combined
effect of the external load P and the redundant 𝐶𝑦 must also be zero. The total deflection ∆𝐶 at end C of the
primary beam due to the combined effect of P and 𝐶𝑦 can be conveniently expressed by superimposing
(algebraically adding) the deflections due to the external load P and the redundant 𝐶𝑦 acting individually on the
beam; that is,
∆𝐶= ∆𝐶𝑂 + ∆𝐶𝐶 (𝐸𝑞. 15.2)
in which ∆𝐶𝑂 and ∆𝐶𝐶 represent, respectively, the deflections at the end C of the primary beam due to the external
load P and the redundant 𝐶𝑦 , each acting alone on the beam. Note that two subscripts are used to denote the
deflections ∆𝐶𝑂 and ∆𝐶𝐶 of the primary beam. The first subscript, C, indicates the location of these deflections;
the second subscript, O, is used to indicate that ∆𝐶𝑂 is caused by the given external loading, whereas the second
subscript, C, of ∆𝐶𝐶 implies that it is due to the redundant 𝐶𝑦 . Both of these deflections are considered to be
positive if they occur in the direction of the redundant 𝐶𝑦, which is assumed to be upward, as shown in Fig. 15(b).

Since the redundant 𝐶𝑦 is unknown, it is convenient to determine ∆𝐶𝐶 by first evaluating the deflection at
C due to a unit value of the redundant 𝐶𝑦 , as shown in Fig. 15.1(d), and then multiplying the deflection thus
obtained by the unknown magnitude of the redundant. Thus,
∆𝐶𝐶= 𝑓𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦 (𝐸𝑞. 15.3)
in which 𝑓𝐶𝐶 denotes the deflection at point C of the primary beam due to the unit value of the redundant Cy . It
may be recalled that 𝑓𝐶𝐶 , which has units of deflection per unit force, is referred to as a flexibility coefficient. By
substituting Eqs. (15.1) and (15.3) into Eq. (15.2), we obtain the compatibility equation

∆𝐶= ∆𝐶𝑂 + 𝑓𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦 = 0 (𝐸𝑞. 15.4)

which can be solved to express the redundant 𝐶𝑦 in terms of the deflections ∆𝐶𝑂 and 𝑓𝐶𝐶 of the primary beam:
∆𝐶𝑂
𝐶𝑦 = − (𝐸𝑞. 15.5)
𝑓𝐶𝐶

Figure 15.1: Concept method of consistent deformation

Since the primary beam is statically determinate, the deflections ∆𝐶𝑂 and 𝑓𝐶𝐶 can be computed by either
using the methods previously discussed or by using the beam-deflection formulas given. By using the beam-
deflection formulas, we determine the deflection at end C of the primary beam due to the external load (P=160
kN) to be:
 5PL3 5(160,000N)(5000mm)3
∆CO= − = − 48 (210,000 N ( 6 4) = −50 mm
48EI ) 198 × 10 mm
mm2

(see Fig. 15(c)) in which a negative sign has been assigned to the magnitude of ∆CO to indicate that the deflection
occurs in the downward direction—that is, in the direction opposite to that of the redundant 𝐶𝑦 . Similarly, the
flexibility coefficient 𝑓𝐶𝐶 is evaluated as,
L3 (5000mm)3 mm mm

fCC = = N = 0.001 =1
3EI 3 (210,000 ( 6 2) N kN
mm 2 ) 198 × 10 mm

(see Fig. 15(d)). By substituting the expressions or the numerical values of ∆CO and 𝑓𝐶𝐶 into Eq. (15.), we
determine the redundant 𝐶𝑦 to be,
∆CO −50mm
Cy = −
fCC
=− mm = 50 kN ↑
1
kN

The positive answer for Cy indicates that our initial assumption about the upward direction of Cy was correct.
With the reaction Cy known, the three remaining reactions can now be determined by applying the three
equilibrium equations to the free body of the indeterminate beam (Fig. 15.1(e)):

+→ ∑ 𝐹𝑋 = 0 𝐴𝑥 = 0

+↑ ∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0 𝐴𝑦 + 50 − 160 = 0 𝐴𝑦 = 110 𝑘𝑁 ↑

+↻ ∑ 𝑀𝐴 = 0 − 𝑀𝐴 + 160(2.5) − 50(5) = 0 𝑀𝐴 = 150 𝑘𝑁 𝐺

15.5 STRUCTURES WITH MULTIPLE DEGREE OF INDETERMINACY

In the previous sections, we have looked at how to solve indeterminate systems with only one degree of
indeterminacy (either internal or external determinacy). But, what happens if we have a system that has two or
more degrees of indeterminacy? Such a situation is depicted in Figure 15.2. This gives the beam an extra degree
of indeterminacy, making it a 2° indeterminate system.
Figure 15.2: Consistent deformation method with Multiple Degree of Indeterminacy
 For every degree of indeterminacy, we must have a redundant force (internal or external). This is because,
for a force method analysis, our primary system must be determinate (i.e the beam with the redundant restraints
removed). For the example beam shown in Figure 15.2, we must select two different redundant forces because
the beam is 2° indeterminate. If we select the vertical reactions at points C and E (𝐶𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑦 ) as the redundant,
as shown in the figure, then our primary system, with the redundant reactions removed, is determinate (it has
become a simple cantilever).
Now that we have multiple redundant forces, we will have multiple compatibility conditions as well, one
for each redundant. In the example beam in Figure 15.2, there is a compatibility condition associated with each
support, i.e. that the overall displacement at the support has to equal zero.
To apply these two compatibility conditions, like before, we must separately consider the effect of the
external loads and the redundant loads on the primary system. We will need to find the effect of each load (external
and each redundant) on the deflections/rotations at the compatibility condition locations. This is shown for the
external loads on the example structure in the middle of Figure 15.2. Since we have a compatibility equation for
each reaction (that the support must remain at zero displacement), we need to know how the external forces on
the primary system will affect the deflection of the beam at both of those support locations. These are shown in
the figure as ∆𝐶𝑂 for the reaction location at point C and ∆𝐸𝑂 for the reaction location at point E. These deflections
may be found by using any of the applicable methods. Since this example is a determinate cantilever, it may be
convenient to find the deflections using the moment area theorems for this problem.
With our previous force method analysis, we would then find the effect of a unit redundant (at the location
of the redundant force) on the deflection at the same support location. We then used that unit redundant to find
the total redundant force that is necessary to counteract the effect of the external loads on the primary system (to
bring the support deflection back to zero, where we know it has to be because of compatibility).
When we have multiple redundant, we need to find the effect of each redundant force separately by
analyzing the structure separately for each one (one-unit redundant force at each redundant force location). This
results in two different redundant force analyses in addition to the analysis of the beam with the external load, as
shown for our example in the lower two diagrams in Figure 15.2. Of course, each unit redundant load does not
only effect the deflection of the structure at its own location, but also effects the deflection of the structure at the
other unit redundant location. This is shown in the figure. For example, when a unit redundant load is applied at
point C in the figure, this loads causes the entire beam to deflect. In particular, we are interested in how much the
beam deflects at the two redundant load (support) locations. When the unit redundant is applied at point C (the
second diagram from the bottom in Figure 15.2), the deflection of the beam at point C is called 𝑓𝐶𝐶, which is the
flexibility at point C when the unit load is applied at point C. Likewise, that same unit load at point C also causes
deflection of the beam at point E called 𝑓𝐸𝐶, which is the flexibility at point E when the unit load is applied at
point C. When the unit load is applied at point E (the bottom diagram in Figure 15.2), the deflection of the beam
at point E is called 𝑓𝐸𝐸,, which is the flexibility at point E when the unit load is applied at point E. Likewise, that
same unit load at point E also causes deflection of the beam at point C called 𝑓𝐶𝐸 which is the flexibility at point
C when the unit load is applied at point E.
The difference for multiple redundant is that we now must solve one system for each redundant, and for
each of those systems, we must find as many deflections as there are redundant. This means the total number of
deflections we have to solve is equal to the square of the number of redundant! Clearly this shows that the amount
of work for a force method analysis will increase exponentially as the number of redundant (and therefore, degrees
of indeterminacy) increases. We can save a bit of this work by taking advantage of Maxwell's Law of Reciprocal
Deformations as we shall see later; however, it is clear that the force method will become quite unmanageable for
indeterminate systems with many degrees of indeterminacy.
Once we have all of our flexibility terms (for our example, 𝑓𝐶𝐶, 𝑓𝐸𝐶, 𝑓𝐸𝐸, and 𝑓𝐸𝐶), and all of our primary
system deflections due to the external loads (in our example, ∆𝐶𝑂 and ∆𝐸𝑂), then we can apply our compatibility
conditions to solve for the redundant forces. For the example structure in Figure 15.2, there are two different
compatibility conditions, one for each redundant reaction point where we know that the deflection must equal
zero:
∆𝐶𝑂 + 𝑓𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦 + 𝑓𝐶𝐸𝐸𝑦 = 0 𝐸𝑞. 15.6

∆𝐸𝑂 + 𝑓𝐸𝐶𝐶𝑦 + 𝑓𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑦 = 0 𝐸𝑞. 15.7

 As can be seen in Figure 15.2, there are three different deflections that effect the displacement at point C
in the primary system: the deflection at C caused by the external loads (∆𝐶𝑂), the deflection at C caused by the
redundant load at point C (∆𝐶𝐶= 𝑓𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦), and the deflection at C caused by the redundant load at point E (∆𝐶𝐸=
𝑓𝐶𝐸𝐸𝑦). Note that the last one is dependent on the amount of redundant load that is applied at point E, not the
redundant applied at point C. Likewise, there are three other deflections that effect the displacement at point E in
the primary system: the deflection at E caused by the external loads (∆𝐸𝑂), the deflection at E caused by the
redundant load at point C (∆𝐸𝐶= 𝑓𝐸𝐶𝐶𝑦), and the deflection at E caused by the redundant load at point E (∆𝐸𝐸=
𝑓𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑦).

Once we have the above equations set up, we can use simple determinate analyses of the three different
primary systems in Figure 15.2 to find numerical deflection values for all of the parameters except for the
redundant force magnitudes Cy and Ey. Since we have two equations and two unknowns, these unknown
magnitudes Cy and Ey may be found easily by rearranging one equation in terms of one of the parameters and
then subbing that result into the other equation to solve. As the number of degrees of indeterminacy of a problem
increases, the number of redundant forces and the number of compatibility conditions increase accordingly. So,
for a 3° indeterminate structure, using the force method, we would have to solve a system of three equations and
three unknowns.
MAXWELL'S LAW OF RECIPROCAL DEFORMATIONS
In the previous example, we had to find four different flexibility coefficients by analysing the determinate
primary structure: 𝑓𝐶𝐶, 𝑓𝐸𝐶, 𝑓𝐸𝐸, and 𝑓𝐸𝐶. Using Maxwell's Law of Reciprocal Deformations, we can cut that
number down to three for this case.
“Maxwell's Law of Reciprocal Deformations states that, for a linear elastic structure, the deflection at a point
B caused by a unit load at point A, is equal to the deflection at point A caused by a unit load at point B.”
For the previous example, this means that we could say that:
𝑓𝐸𝐶 = 𝑓𝐶𝐸
So, we would only have to solve for one or the other, not both.
If we have a 3° indeterminate structure with redundant loads at points A, B and C, then we need to find
the effect of each redundant unit load on the deflections at all three locations. That is, we would need to
find 𝑓𝐴𝐴, 𝑓𝐴𝐵, 𝑓𝐴𝐶, 𝑓𝐵𝐴, 𝑓𝐵𝐵, 𝑓𝐵𝐶, 𝑓𝐶𝐴, 𝑓𝐶𝐵, 𝑓𝐶𝐶, nine different flexibility coefficients. Using Maxwell's Law of
Reciprocal Deformations, we can say that:
𝑓𝐴𝐵 = 𝑓𝐵𝐴
𝑓𝐴𝐶 = 𝑓𝐶𝐴
𝑓𝐵𝐶 = 𝑓𝐶𝐵
This cuts our work down from finding nine flexibility coefficients, to just having to find six.

15.6 EXAMPLE
Determine the reactions and draw the shear and bending moment diagrams for the beam shown in Fig.
15.3 by the method of consistent deformations.
SOLUTION:
Degree of determinacy. 𝑖 = 5 − 3 = 2°
Primary Beam. The vertical reactions Cy and Ey at the roller supports C and E, respectively, are selected as the
redundants. These supports are then removed to obtain the cantilever primary beam shown in Fig. 15.3(b). Next,
the primary beam is subjected separately to the external loading and the unit values of the redundants Cy and Ey
, as shown in Fig. 15.3(b), (c), and (d), respectively.
Compatibility Equations.
∆𝐶𝑂 + 𝑓𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦 + 𝑓𝐶𝐸𝐸𝑦 = 0

∆𝐸𝑂 + 𝑓𝐸𝐶𝐶𝑦 + 𝑓𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑦 = 0

 128.7 kN-m

53.58 kN 145.71 kN 40.71 kN

79.29
53.58

40.71
66.43

203.50
139.20

-128.7
-19 2.95

Figure 15.3: Free body diagram

Deflections of primary beams.
Use the deflection beam formula found at the end of this module. For this specific loading, use the formula
below.

𝑃𝑎2 𝑃𝑥2
∆𝐶𝑂= − [ (3𝑥 − 𝑎) + (3𝑎 − 𝑥)]
6𝐸𝐼 6𝐸𝐼
120(52) 120(102)
∆𝐶𝑂= − [ (3 × 10 − 5) + (3 × 15 − 10)]
6𝐸𝐼 6𝐸𝐼

82,500
∆𝐶𝑂= −
𝐸𝐼
120(52) 120(152)

∆𝐸𝑂= − [ (3 × 20 − 5) + (3 × 20 − 15)]
6𝐸𝐼 6𝐸𝐼

230,000
∆𝐸𝑂= −
𝐸𝐼
1(102)
𝑓𝐶𝐶 = [ (3 × 10 − 10)]
6𝐸𝐼
 1,000
𝑓𝐶𝐶 = 3𝐸𝐼
1(102)
𝑓𝐸𝐶 = [ (3 × 20 − 10)]
6𝐸𝐼
2,500
𝑓𝐸𝐶 =
3𝐸𝐼
1(202)
𝑓𝐸𝐸 = [ (3 × 20 − 20)]
6𝐸𝐼
8,000
𝑓𝐸𝐸 =
3𝐸𝐼

By applying Maxwell’s law,

2,500
𝑓𝐶𝐸 =
3𝐸𝐼
Magnitudes of the Redundants
By substituting the deflections of the primary beam into the compatibility equations, we obtain:
1,000 2,500
𝐶𝑦 + 𝐸𝑦 = 82,500
3 3
2,500 8,000
𝐶𝑦 + 𝐸𝑦 = 230,000
3 3

𝐂𝐲 = 𝟏𝟒𝟓. 𝟕𝟏 𝐤𝐍 ↑ 𝐄𝐲 = 𝟒𝟎. 𝟕𝟏 𝐤𝐍 ↑ 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑

Reactions.
The remaining reactions can now be determined by applying the three equations of equilibrium to the free body
of the indeterminate beam (Fig. 15.3 (e)):
+→ ∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 0 𝐀𝐱 = 𝟎 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑
+↑ ∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0 Ay + 145.71 + 40.71 − 120 − 120 = 0

𝑨𝒚 = 𝟓𝟑. 𝟓𝟖 𝐤𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑

+↻ ∑ 𝑀𝐴 = 0 −MA − 145.71(10) − 40.71(20) + 120(5) + 120(15) = 0

𝑴𝑨 = 𝟏𝟐𝟖. 𝟕𝟎 𝐤𝐍 − 𝐦 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑
Shear and Bending Moment Diagrams. See Fig. 15.3(f).