STATICALLY INDETERMINATE BEAMS

Elevated concrete roadway crossing a river. Roadways of this type can be modeled as
continuous beams resting on several supports. Continuous beams are statically indeterminate; they
are analyzed by considering deflections in addition to equilibrium.

A beam is statically indeterminate if the number of support reactions exceeds the number
of independent equilibrium equations. In general, two equilibrium equations are available for a
beam supporting lateral loads ( = 0 = 0, A being an arbitrary point). Hence, a
statically determinate beam has two support reactions, which is the minimum number needed to
keep the beam in equilibrium. Additional reactions, being nonessential for equilibrium, are known

as redundant reactions. The number of redundant reactions is called the degree of indeterminacy
of the beam.
In our study of axial and torsional loading, we found that the solution of statically
indeterminate problems requires the analysis of compatibility of deformation as well as
equilibrium. For beams, the compatibility equations are derived from the constraints imposed on
the elastic curve by the supports.
We note that each support reaction corresponds to a constraint imposed by the support. For
example, a simple support provides a force that imposes the deflection constraint. A built-in
support provides two reactions: a force imposing the constraint on deflection, and a couple
imposing the rotational constraint. Thus, the number of support constraints and the number of
reactions are always equal.

DOUBLE INTEGRATION METHOD

Recall that in the method of double integration, we derived the equation for the elastic
curve of the beam by integrating the differential equation = two times, resulting in
= + 1 + 2
If the beam is statically determinate, it has two support reactions and thus two constraints
on its elastic curve. Because the reactions can be computed from the equilibrium equations, the
conditions of constraint are available to compute C1 and C2, the two constants of integration. In a
statically indeterminate beam, each redundant reaction represents an additional unknown.
However, there is also an additional constraint associated with each redundancy, which, when
substituted into deflection equation, provides an extra equation.

For example, the simply supported beam in Fig. 1 (a) is statically determinate. It has two
deflection constraints ( = 0 = 0) and two support reactions (RA and RB), as shown in
the figure. The reactions can be determined from the equilibrium equations, so that the constraints
can be used to compute the constants C1 and C2 in the deflection equation.

Figure 1: Examples of determinate and indeterminate beams

By building in the support at A, as shown in Fig. 1 (b), we introduce the additional

constraint = 0 and the reactive couple MA (a redundant reaction). Therefore, the beam is
statically indeterminate of degree one. The number of unknowns is now five: three support

reactions (RA, RB, and MA) and two constants of integration (C1 and C2). The number of available
equations is also five: two equilibrium equations and three constraints shown in the figure.
In Fig. 1(c), we have added another support at C that has a small initial gap . Assuming
that the beam makes contact with the support at C when the loading is applied, we see that the
support introduces another redundant reaction RC and the corresponding constraint = .
Since there are now two redundant support reactions, the degree of static indeterminacy of the
beam is two. The number of available equations for determining the six unknowns (RA, RB, RC,
MA, C1, and C2) is also six: two equations of equilibrium and the four constraint conditions shown
in the figure.
The above discussion assumes that M is the global expression for the bending moment
(applicable to the entire beam). If the beam is divided into two or more segments with different
expressions for M, double integration will result in additional constants of integration. However,
there will be an equal number of new constraints in the form of continuity conditions (deflections
and slopes must be continuous across the junctions between the segments). Clearly, the method of
double integration can become tedious for statically indeterminate beams with multiple segments,
unless M is expressed in terms of bracket functions.

SAMPLE PROBLEM
Determine all the support reactions for the propped cantilever beam in the figure.

SOLUTION
Equilibrium: The free-body diagram of the beam, shown below, yields the equilibrium
equations:

= 0 ; + 7200 = 0

()

= 0 ; + (12) 7200(6) = 0

()

Fig (a)

Because there are three support reactions (RA, RB, and MA) but only two independent
equilibrium equations, the degree of static indeterminacy is one.

Compatibility: A third equation containing the support reactions is obtained by analyzing

the deformation of the beam. We start with the expression for the bending moment, obtainable
from the free-body diagram below:

= + 600 ( ) .
2
Fig (b)

Substituting M into the differential equation for the elastic curve and integrating twice, we
get:
= + 300 2 .
= +
=

2
100 3 + 1 . 2
2

2
3
+ 25 4 + 1 + 2 . 3
2
6

Since there are three support reactions, we also have three support constraints. Applying
these constraints to the elastic curve, shown by the dashed line in Fig. (a), we get
1. |=0 = 0 ( ) 1 = 0
2. |=0 = 0 ( ) 2 = 0
3. |= = 0 ( )
(12)2
(12)3

+
25(12)4 = 0
2
3

()

The solution of Eqs. (a)(c) is

Because the results are positive, the reactions are directed as shown in Fig. (a).

MOMENT-AREA METHOD

The moment-area method is well suited for deriving the compatibility equations for
statically indeterminate beams. If the total number of support reactions is n, the degree of static
indeterminacy of the beam is 2. A total of n equations are available for computing the support
reactions: two equilibrium equations and 2 compatibility equations to be obtained from the
moment-area theorems.

SAMPLE PROBLEM
The beam AB in the figure is built in at both ends and carries a uniformly distributed load
over part of its length. Compute all the support reactions acting on the beam.

SOLUTION
The free-body diagram of the entire beam in Fig. (a) contains four unknown end reactions: the
forces RA and RB and the couples MA and MB. Because there are only two independent equilibrium
equations, the beam is statically indeterminate of degree two. It follows that two compatibility
equations are required for the solution.

Fig (a)

Equilibrium: From the free-body diagram in Fig. (a), the two independent equilibrium equations
are:

= 0 + 540 = 0

()

= 0 (12) + 540(4.5) = 0

()

Compatibility: The elastic curve of the beam is shown in Fig. (b). Because the slope at each end
is horizontal due to the built-in supports, we conclude that the change in the slope between A and
B is zero. From the bending moment diagram by parts in Fig. (c), the first moment-area theorem
gives us:

Fig (b)

Fig (c)

/ = ] =

1
1
(12) 12 (9)(2430) = 0
2
3

()

A second compatibility equation is obtained by noting that the tangential deviation / of

B with respect to A is zero (we could also have used the condition / = 0). Applying the second
moment-area theorem using the bending moment diagram in Fig. (c), we obtain

/ = ] /

1
1
(12)(12 )(4) 12 (6) (9)(2430)(2.25) = 0
2
3

()

Solving Eqs. (a)(d) gives

= .

= .

= .

BUCKLING OF LONG STRAIGHT COLUMNS

A building frame made of beams and

columns. A slender column may fail by
buckling well before the stress reaches
the yield point.

The term column is applied to a member

that carries a compressive axial load.
Columns are generally subdivided into
the following three types according to
how they fail:
Short columns fail by crushing (e.g.,
yielding). Even if loaded eccentrically, a
short

column

undergoes

negligible

lateral deflection, so that it can be

analyzed as a member subjected to combined axial loading and bending.

Long columns fail by buckling. If the axial load is increased to a critical value, the initially
straight shape of a slender column becomes unstable, causing the column to deflect
laterally and eventually collapse. This phenomenon, which is known as buckling, can occur
at stresses that are smaller (often much smaller) than the yield stress or the proportional
limit of the material.

Intermediate columns fail by a combination of crushing and buckling. Because this

mechanism of failure is difficult to analyze, intermediate columns are designed using
empirical formulas derived from experiments.

In analysis, these columns are treated as beams subject to axial load and bending, but with
one major difference: The effect of lateral deflections on equilibrium is no longer ignored. In other
words, the free-body diagrams are drawn using the deformed rather than the undeformed column.

COMBINED LOADINGS

Concrete columns with protruding steel reinforcing rods. The reinforcement increases the
strength of concrete beams and columns. In particular, reinforcing steel is essential in resisting
tension, since the tensile strength of concrete is negligible.
In many structures the members are required to resist more than one kind of loading (combined
loading). These can often be analyzed by superimposing the stresses and strains cause by each load
acting separately.
Superposition of stresses and strains is permissible only under the following conditions:
a. The stresses and the strains must be a linear function of the applied loads (Hookes law
must be obeyed and the displacements must be small).
b. There must be no interaction between the various loads.

Figure 2: (a) Rectangular bar carrying axial and lateral loads; (b)-(d) stress
distribution obtained by superimposing stresses due to axial load and bending;
(e) stress distribution f P/A > |M|c / I

Figure 2 (a) shows a bar of rectangular cross section that carries lateral loading and an axial
force P acting at the centroid of the cross section. If P were acting alone, it would cause the
uniformly distributed axial stress as = / on the typical cross section m-n of the bar, as shown
in Fig. 2 (b). The bending stress that results from the lateral loading acting by itself would be =
/ , where M is the bending moment acting at section m-n. This stress is shown in Fig. 2 (c).
When the axial and lateral loads act simultaneously, the stress s at any point on section m n is
obtained by superimposing the two separate effects:

= + =

which results in the stress distribution shown in Fig. 2 (d).

The maximum tensile and compressive stresses on a cross section depend, of course, upon
the relative magnitudes of the two terms in the equation. When drawing the stress distribution in
Fig. 2 (d), we assumed that / < ||/ . There is a line on the cross section where the stress
is zero, but this line does not pass through the centroid of the cross section. If / > ||/, the
entire cross section would be in tension, as shown in Fig. 2 (e) (if P were a compressive force, then
the entire cross section would be in compression). If the cross section were not symmetric about
the neutral axis, the distances to the top and bottom fibers would, of course, have to be considered
when sketching stress distributions such as those in Figs. 2 (c) and (d).

Figure 3: When beam deflections are large, the contribution of the axial load to
the bending moment cannot be neglected.

The superposition implied in equation is valid only when the deformation of the bar is sufficiently
small so that displacements can be neglected in the computation of M. Referring to Fig. 3, we see
that if displacement is not neglected, P contributes to the bending moment at section m-n by the
amount , where is the lateral displacement of the bar at that section.
Consequently, we have

( )

where, as before, M is to be interpreted as the bending moment due to lateral loading acting alone.
We now see that the equation is valid only if is small compared to M. Note that if P is tensile
(positive), its moment reduces the bending stress. The opposite effect occurs when P is
compressive (negative), when its moment increases the bending stress. These effects are negligible
for most structural members, which are usually so stiff that the additional bending stresses caused
by P can be ignored. However, in slender compression members (columns), the effects can be very
significant, requiring more exact methods of analysis.
Before the equations can be applied, equilibrium analysis must be used to determine the
axial load P and the bending moment M at the cross section of interest. When the normal stresses
at a particular cross section are needed, a free-body diagram exposing the force system at that
section will suffice. However, if the maximum normal stress is to be found, axial force and bending
moment diagrams will usually be required to locate the critical section.

SAMPLE PROBLEMS

The wood beam ABCD in the fig. (a) carries two vertical loads. The beam is supported by
a pin at A and the horizontal cable CE. Determine the magnitude of the largest stress (tensile or
compressive) in the beam and its location. Neglect the weight of the beam.

Fig (a)

SOLUTION

Preliminary Calculations The cross-sectional dimensions of the beam are b = 6 in. and h
= 10 in., which yield the following cross-sectional properties:
= = 6(10) = 60 2
3 6(10)3
=
=
= 500 4
12
12

Equilibrium Analysis The free-body diagram of the beam is shown in Fig. (b). From the
equilibrium equation

Fig (b)
= 0 6 6000(4) 3000(12) = 0
we obtain T =10 000 lb for the tension in the cable. The reactions at A can now be computed
from = 0, which yields Ah =10 000 lb and Av = 9000 lb.

To determine the axial force and bending moment at any location in the beam, it is
convenient resolve the forces in Fig. (b) in directions that are parallel and perpendicular to the
beam. The results are shown in Fig. (c). The equilibrium analysis of the beam is now completed
by constructing the axial force and bending moment diagrams in Figs. (d) and (e), respectively.
Computation of the Largest Stress Because the axial force is negative (compressive)
everywhere in the beam, the maximum compressive stress in the beam has a larger magnitude than
the maximum tensile stress. Inspection of the axial force and bending moment diagrams leads us
to conclude that the largest compressive stress occurs either on the cross section immediately
below point B or on the cross section immediately below point C. Which stress is larger can be
determined by computing the stresses at both sections.

At the section immediately below B, we have P = -13 400 lb and M = 6000 lb- ft. The
maximum compressive stress occurs at the top of the section, where the compressive stress
caused by P adds to the maximum compressive stress caused by the positive bending moment. If
we use y = h / 2 = 5 in , this stress is

13400 (600012)(5)

= 943

60
500

The axial force and the bending moment that act at the section immediately below C are
P = -9800 lb and M = -12 000 lb -ft. For this case, the maximum compressive stress occurs at
the bottom of the section, where the compressive stress caused by P adds to the maximum
compressive stress caused by the negative bending moment. Using y = -h / 2 = -5 in yields

9800 (1200012)(5)

= 1603

60
500

Comparing the two values, we see that the largest stress in the beam has the magnitude
=
and it acts at the bottom of the section just below C.

ECCENTRICALLY RIVETED CONNECTIONS

Bolted connection in a steel frame. The bolts must withstand the shear forces imposed on
them by the members of the frame. In eccentrically loaded joints, the connection is subjected to
applied loads that result in a line of action passing outside the center of rotation of the fastener
group. Some common examples are bracket-type connections, web splices in beams and girders,
and the standard beam connections. Because of the eccentricity of the applied load, the fastener
group is subjected to a shear force and a twisting moment. Both the moment and the shear force
result in shear stresses in the fasteners, and both of these effects have to be considered in
determining the capacity of the connection.

For many years the analysis and design of eccentrically loaded fastener groups was based
on the assumption that rotation of the connection takes place about the center of gravity of the
fastener group and that the load versus deformation response of an individual fastener is linear. In
this method, the eccentric load is resolved into a shear load P acting through the centroid of the
fastener group and a torsional moment Pe, where e is the eccentricity of P with respect to the
centroid of the fastener group. The shear force acting through the centroid is assumed to be
distributed uniformly among the fasteners, as in other shear splices. The moment is assumed to
cause stresses in the fasteners that vary linearly with the distance from the fastener to the center of
gravity. The stress in any fastener is evaluated by vectorially adding the stress resulting from each
load component, that is, the con-centric shear force and the moment. The method further assumes
the connected plates to be rigid enough to remain essentially undeformed during twist. The
influence of the frictional resistance between the component parts of the connection is neglected.
Tests on eccentrically loaded riveted connections indicated that the elastic analysis yielded
a conservative design. On the basis of test results, the method was modified by introducing an
effective eccentricity, which is less than the actual eccentricity. Empirical formulas to determine
the effective eccentricity as a function of specific fastener patterns were developed. Reduction in
eccentricity yielded a factor of safety more compatible with the value used for shear alone. The
method is essentially based on the elastic behavior of the fastener group. Reducing the eccentricity
decreases the magnitude of the bending component and recognizes the actual strength of the joint
observed in tests.
Although use of the method just outlined produced safe designs using either the actual or
the so-called effective eccentricity, physical testing showed that the factor of safety with respect

to the ultimate load was both variable and larger than that used for other types of bolted
connections.

Consider the group of bolts shown in Fig. 4 (a) subjected to a force F having an eccentricity
of e from the centroid C of the bolt group. To find the magnitude of shear force in each bolt, it is
convenient to decompose the loading in Fig 4 (a) to the statically equivalent loading in Fig. 4(b),
which in turn can be considered as the sum of the force F passing through the centroid C and a
couple of magnitude Fe as shown in Fig. 4 (c). The shear force in each bolt due to force F passing
through the centroid is equal to F divided by the number of bolts N. Now we calculate the shear
forces in the bolts due to the couple of magnitude Fe, using the following assumption:
1. The gusset plate is perfectly rigid.
2. The bolts are elastic.

Figure 4

The couple Mc = Fe causes the plate to rotate about the centroid of the bolt group. This rotation
produces strains in the bolts which are proportional to their distances from the centroid. Since

bolts are assumed to behave elastically, shear forces R1, R2, , R5 developed in the bolts are
also proportional to their corresponding distance r1, r2, , r5 from the centroid (Fig 5). In other
words, if we denote the small angle of rotation of the plate by (in radian) and displacement of
bolt j in the direction of shear force Rj by dj, we can write

=
= =

(1)
(2)
(3)

Figure 5

In Eqs. (2) and (3), K is a proportionality factor. By writing the moment equilibrium we obtain

= = 2
=1

=1

Deleting between Eqs. (2) and (4), we will have.

=

=1

(4)

This shear force Rj is normal to the line drawn from the centroid C to the bolt j. It is often easier
to use the vertical and horizontal components of the shear Rj. By selecting the origin of
coordinates at the centroid C

= =

= 2
=1

= =

= 2
=1

Finally, taking into account the contribution of the concentric force, we have

2
=1

2
=1

SAMPLE PROBLEM
The plate shown in figure is fastened to the fixed member by five 10-mm-diameter rivets.
Compute the value of the loads P so that the average shearing stress in any rivet does not exceed
70 MPa

Solving for location of centroid of rivets:

Where

The critical rivets are at distance r1 from centroid:

Mapua Institute of Technology

School of Civil, Environmental, and Geological Engineering

Research Paper
On
STRENGTH OF MATERIALS
(MEC32-1)

Statically Indeterminate Beams

Buckling of Long Straight Columns

Combined Loadings

Eccentrically Riveted Connections

Submitted by:
Cuevas, Dustin Glenn C.
2012104002

Submitted to:
Prof. Gerardo Usita