1. Introduction
Statically indeterminate structures have a wide range of applications in practical engineering, such as h-type anti-slide piles and row pile structures. Especially in recent years, the application of h-shaped anti-slide piles (hTPs) in slope reinforcement engineering has become increasingly widespread. However, challenges remain in their design theory and computational methods. Building on the Winkler foundation model, reference [
1] proposed a novel analytical model for hTPs, which solves the internal forces and deformations of the pile through an iterative method. The study demonstrated the significant advantage of hTPs in reducing pile-top displacement (41.4% less than conventional anti-slide piles) and highlighted the critical role of pile width in displacement control. Reference [
2] systematically investigated the supporting mechanism of hTPs for the first time. By comparing them with traditional structures, such as frame-type and anchor-cable piles, the study confirmed the superior stress distribution, cost-effectiveness, and construction performance of hTPs, with long-term stability further validated by monitoring data. The performance of h-shaped anti-slide piles under special geological conditions has also attracted considerable attention. Reference [
3] conducted centrifugal model tests to study the mechanical behavior of h-piles in reinforcing soil–rock mixture slopes (SRMSs) under rainfall conditions. The results revealed the significant influence of rainfall duration on lateral earth pressure distribution and elucidated the dynamic evolution of soil arching effects between piles. For large-scale landslide prevention, reference [
4] introduced an h-shaped prestressed anchor-cable anti-slide pile structure. By simplifying the calculation method, the study demonstrated the effectiveness of anchor cable prestressing in improving pile internal forces, particularly with double-row anchor cables, which significantly reduced bending moments and displacements. Notable progress has also been made in the study of double-row pile supporting structures. Reference [
5] systematically reviewed the deformation characteristics and pile–soil interaction models of double-row piles, pointing out limitations in current research, such as the dynamic evolution of soil arching effects and applicability in complex strata, thereby providing direction for future studies. Additionally, seismic performance is a critical issue in slope engineering. Reference [
6] employed the finite element method and extended finite element method to analyze the dynamic response of pile-anchor supporting structures. The study pioneered the simulation of crack initiation and propagation in anti-slide piles under seismic loads, confirming the necessity of seismic reinforcement measures near the sliding surface. For complex slope systems, reference [
7] innovatively incorporated three-dimensional effects and soil suction into the analytical framework, establishing a 3D limit analysis model for stepped slopes reinforced by multi-row anti-slide piles. The study revealed the significant influence of pile height and soil type on reinforcement efficiency, providing a theoretical basis for optimizing multi-row pile systems.
The internal force solution of statically indeterminate structures is central to structural mechanics. In general, methods for solving the internal forces of statically indeterminate structures include the force, displacement, and asymptotic solution methods, as well as other methods [
8]. Research on statically indeterminate structures has demonstrated significant importance in engineering practice, particularly in their analysis and optimization under complex loading conditions, material nonlinearity, or geometric nonlinearity. The development of efficient and accurate solution methods has remained a key research focus in this field. In recent years, with the increasing scale of structures and diversification of engineering requirements, traditional analytical methods have faced challenges in computational efficiency and applicability. This has prompted scholars to propose various improved approaches. In the static analysis of statically indeterminate structures, several innovative methods have been proposed. For instance, an approximate reanalysis method based on system reduction and iterative solving [
9] significantly enhances computational efficiency for high-rank structural modifications through pseudo-force concepts and spectral decomposition techniques, making it suitable for complex scenarios such as functionally graded materials. For computing elastic curves of variable-cross-section beams, a novel numerical method achieves high accuracy by employing an equivalent cantilever beam model and the principle of virtual displacements [
10]. Additionally, the Green’s function method provides an analytical solution for deformation, internal force, and stability analysis of statically indeterminate single-span beams, overcoming the complexity of traditional Krylov functions [
11]. In solving internal forces under locally distributed moments, the integral method offers a simplified approach for displacement-based analysis [
12]. For flexible structures and precision engineering, research on statically indeterminate symmetric flexure structures (SISs) demonstrates their advantages in eliminating parasitic motion and improving positioning accuracy [
13]. In the field of construction mechanics, a force feedback method based on phased temperature measurements integrates real-time data with the matrix displacement method, substantially reducing errors in simulating the construction process of statically indeterminate steel structures under non-uniform temperature fields [
14]. Furthermore, the layered force method optimizes internal force calculations for highly statically indeterminate structures by decomposing the problem into hierarchical subproblems, avoiding the need for solving simultaneous equations as in traditional force methods [
15].
Many researchers have studied methods for solving the internal forces of statically indeterminate structures [
16,
17,
18], but these studies typically consider common loads such as concentrated forces, concentrated force couples, or uniformly distributed loads. There have been few studies on the solution of internal forces in statically indeterminate structures under a local trapezoidal load; such loads are often involved in practical engineering. For example, in the design of plant structures, the loads transmitted to the main beam through secondary beams and floor slabs can form trapezoidal loads [
19]. In contrast to other methods, the displacement method has a fixed solution approach and is easy to grasp. When using this method to solve for the internal forces in a statically indeterminate structure under a local trapezoidal load, it is necessary to know the fixed-end moment formulas for the three common types of single-span statically indeterminate beams (a beam fixed at both ends, an an-end-fixed another-end-simple-support beam, and a beam fixed at one end and sliding at the other) under local trapezoidal loads. In general, fixed-end moment formulas can be derived using methods such as the force virtual beam, the energy, and load equivalence methods [
20,
21]. These methods make it relatively easy to derive the fixed-end moment formulas for single concentrated forces and full-span uniformly distributed loads. However, using these methods to derive the fixed-end moment formula for local trapezoidal loads is highly challenging. In fact, a distributed load
q(
x) can be regarded as being composed of numerous concentrated loads,
q(
x) d
x. Therefore, the integral method can be used, transforming the derivation of the fixed-end moment formula under the action of local trapezoidal loads into the process of solving a definite integral where the integrand is a polynomial function, using the fixed-end moment formula under the action of a single concentrated force. This approach can greatly simplify the derivation of the fixed-end moment formula under local trapezoidal loads.
In this study, to solve the internal forces of statically indeterminate structures under a local trapezoidal load, the integral method was used to derive the fixed-end moment formulas under the action of local trapezoidal loads for two different working conditions, based on the fixed-end moment formula under the action of a single concentrated force. In this way, the aforementioned problem can be solved. In addition, examples of solving the internal forces of statically multi-span beams and rigid frames with and without sidesway are given to verify the formulas derived in this study, which are significant for engineering applications and teaching.
In this paper, and denote the fixed-end moments at the A and B ends of the beam, respectively. Both are considered positive when oriented clockwise around the bar. l is the span of the beam, Fp is the concentrated force, and a, b, c, and d are the lengths (see the relevant figures for details).
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:
Section 2,
Section 3 and
Section 4 describe the derivation of the fixed-end moment formulas for the three studied types of statically indeterminate beams.
Section 5 provides examples to validate the proposed approach. Finally,
Section 6 concludes this paper.
6. Validation with Examples
Figure 22a displays a small bridge in a park, which is analytically represented as a continuous beam in the computational model shown in
Figure 22b.
Figure 23a illustrates the supporting structure of an aqueduct. Given the structural uniformity along its longitudinal direction, the analysis can be simplified by considering a single frame (highlighted in red in
Figure 23a), with its corresponding computational model depicted as a statically indeterminate rigid frame in
Figure 23b. Similarly,
Figure 24a presents a crane girder support system, where an individual frame (marked in red in
Figure 24a) is modeled as the statically indeterminate rigid frame shown in
Figure 24b. These examples demonstrate that statically indeterminate structures are prevalent in both civil engineering projects and everyday structures.
To verify the fixed-end moment formulas derived in this paper for the three types of statically indeterminate beams under two different trapezoidal load conditions, the following internal force verification is illustrated using the examples of a statically indeterminate beam, a rigid frame without sidesway, and a rigid frame with sidesway.
6.1. Example of a Statically Indeterminate Beam
The statically indeterminate beam subjected to a trapezoidal load is shown in
Figure 25. The bending stiffness of each bar is EI. Its bending moment diagram was made.
The detailed solving procedure is as follows:
- (1)
Determine the basic unknowns: the angular displacement θB of the B node.
- (2)
Calculate the fixed-end moment of each bar caused by the load.
No external load is applied to the AB bar, so the fixed-end moment is 0. The BC bar falls into the case where the beam is fixed at the B end, simply supported at the C end, and subjected to a local trapezoidal load. The fixed-end moment at the C end is 0. To solve for the fixed-end moment at the B end, , , , , , and can be substituted into Equation (16) to obtain .
- (3)
Calculate the bending moment at the end of each bar caused by the load and the displacement at the end of the bar.
The linear stiffness of the AB bar is , and the linear stiffness of the AB bar is . Then, the bending moment at the end of each bar is calculated as follows:
AB bar: ; .
BC bar: .
- (4)
Establish the equation for the displacement method.
Considering the equilibrium of the
B node (
Figure 26), i.e.,
, we obtain
, which leads to
.
- (5)
Solve for the bending moment at the end of each bar and plot the bending moment diagram.
Substituting
into the formulas for the bending moments at the end of each bar in step (3) yields the following:
;
; and
. The superposition principle was applied to create a bending moment diagram, shown in
Figure 27 (in which the unit of the bending moment is kN·m).
A structural mechanics solver is a computer-aided analysis and calculation program for teachers, students, and engineers based on the matrix displacement method [
22,
23]. The bending moment diagram shown in
Figure 27 agrees with the bending moment diagram obtained using the structural mechanics solver.
6.2. Example of a Statically Indeterminate Rigid Frame Without Sidesway
The statically indeterminate rigid frame without sidesway subjected to a trapezoidal load is shown in
Figure 28, and the linear stiffness of each bar is
i. The effect of axial deformation is not considered, and the bending moment diagram of the beam was made.
The detailed solving procedure is as follows:
- (1)
Determine the basic unknowns: the angular displacement θB of the B node.
- (2)
Calculate the fixed-end moment of each bar caused by the load.
For the AB bar, the beam is fixed at both ends and subjected to a full-span trapezoidal load. To solve for the fixed-end moment, , , , and can be substituted into Equations (5) and (6) to obtain ; . No load is applied to the BC bar, so its fixed-end moment is zero.
- (3)
Calculate the bending moment at the end of each bar caused by the load and the displacement at the end of the bar.
AB bar: ; .
BC bar: .
- (4)
Establish the equation for the displacement method.
Considering the equilibrium of the
B node (
Figure 29), i.e.,
, we obtain
, which leads to
.
- (5)
Solve for the bending moment at the end of each bar and plot the bending moment diagram.
Substituting
into the formulas for the bending moments at the end of each bar in step (3) yields the following:
;
; and
. The superposition principle was applied to create a bending moment diagram, shown in
Figure 30 (in which the unit of the bending moment is kN·m).
The bending moment diagram shown in
Figure 30 agrees with the bending moment diagram obtained using the structural mechanics solver.
6.3. Example of a Statically Indeterminate Rigid Frame with Sidesway
The statically indeterminate rigid frame with sidesway subjected to a trapezoidal load is shown in
Figure 31, and the bending stiffness of each bar is
EI. The effect of axial deformation is not considered, and the bending moment diagram of the beam was made.
The detailed solving procedure is as follows:
- (1)
Determine the basic unknowns: the angular displacement θB of the B node; the angular displacement θC of the C node; the angular displacement θB of the B node; and the same horizontal displacement Δ at the B end of the AB bar as that at the C end of the CD bar.
- (2)
Calculate the fixed-end moment of each bar caused by the load.
No external load is applied to the AB or CD bars, so their fixed-end moment is 0. For the BC bar, the beam is fixed at both ends and subjected to a trapezoidal load that rises from left to right. To solve for the fixed-end moment, , , , , and can be substituted into Equations (7) and (8) to obtain the following: , .
- (3)
Calculate the bending moment at the end of each bar caused by the load and the displacement at the end of the bar.
To facilitate the calculation, we set EI = 6; then, the linear stiffness of each bar is iAB = iBC = iCD = 1, so the bending moment at the end of each bar is calculated as follows:
AB bar: ; .
BC bar: ; .
CD bar: ; .
- (4)
Establish the equations for the displacement method and solve for the basic unknowns.
Considering the equilibrium of the
B node (
Figure 32), i.e.,
, we obtain
, which leads to the following equilibrium equation:
Considering the equilibrium of the
C node (
Figure 33), i.e.,
, we obtain
, which leads to the following equilibrium equation:
Cutting off the top of the column by the section and considering the equilibrium of the
BC portion of the beam above the top of the column (
Figure 34), i.e.,
, we obtain
.
Then, considering the equilibrium of the column
AB and column
CD (
Figure 35), we calculate
FQBA and
FQCD. That is,
can be determined from
,
can be determined from
, and thus the equilibrium equation for the crossbeam
BC becomes as follows:
Combining Equations (36)–(38) yields the following results: , , and .
- (5)
Solve for the bending moment at the end of each bar and plot the bending moment diagram.
Substituting
,
, and
into the formulas in step (3) for the bending moments at the end of each bar yields the following:
,
,
,
,
, and
. Using the cross-section method and the principle of superposition, a bending moment diagram was created, as shown in
Figure 36 (in which the unit of the bending moment is kN·m).
The bending moment diagram shown in
Figure 36 agrees with the bending moment diagram obtained using the structural mechanics solver.
8. Conclusions
(1) The integral method can be used with the fixed-end moment formula under the action of a single concentrated force, transforming the derivation of the fixed-end moment formula under the action of a trapezoidal load into the problem of solving a definite integral in which the integrand is a polynomial function. Compared with the force, virtual beam, and energy methods, this derivation is faster and easier. Moreover, the more complicated the distribution form of the load (e.g., quadratic and multi-order parabolic distribution loads), the more obvious the advantage of the integral method.
(2) In this paper, the fixed-end moment formulas of three types of basic statically indeterminate beams under the action of two different trapezoidal load conditions were derived; in this way, we addressed the problem of solving the internal forces of statically indeterminate structures subjected to trapezoidal loads by using the displacement method. Three examples were provided to illustrate the solutions.
(3) The findings of this paper can greatly assist with the task of solving the internal forces of statically indeterminate structures under trapezoidal loads, which is highly significant for engineering practice and teaching.