REACTION AND MOMENTS OF A FIXED, PROPPED CANTILEVER AND

CONTINUOUS BEAM
Batch A6: Nisha Nakve (SC23B028), Om Khairnar (SC23B029), Siddartha
Palakurthi (SC23B030), Paras Singh Sajwan (SC23B031), Pramojkumar (SC23B032)
Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering
(Dated: January 18, 2026)
This experiment investigates the reaction forces and bending moments in fixed, propped can-
tilever, and continuous beams under different loading conditions. Experimental measurements were
performed using a beam test apparatus, and the results were compared with theoretical values ob-
tained from the equilibrium and compatibility relations provided in the handout[1]. Finite Element
Method (FEM) analysis was also performed to numerically validate the beam behaviour. The study
shows that statically indeterminate beams, such as propped cantilevers and continuous beams, redis-
tribute loads more effectively than determinate beams, resulting in reduced peak bending moments
and improved load sharing among supports. The experimental, theoretical, and FEM results show
close agreement, with minor deviations attributed to support friction, clamp flexibility, and mea-
surement limitations. Overall, the experiment confirms classical beam theory and demonstrates the
structural advantages of indeterminate beam systems.

I. NOMENCLATURE III. THEORY

W Applied point load (N) The behaviour of beams under transverse loading is
W1 First applied point load on continuous beam analysed using Euler–Bernoulli beam theory. The theory
(N) relates applied loads, support reactions, and bending mo-
W2 Second applied point load on continuous beam ments under the assumption of linear elastic behaviour
(N) and small deflections.
RA Reaction force at left support A (N) The following assumptions are made:
RB Reaction force at intermediate support B (N)
RC Reaction force at right support C (N) • The beam material is homogeneous and isotropic.
MA Fixing moment at the fixed end A (N·m) • The beam remains within the elastic limit and
MB Fixing moment at the fixed end B (N·m) obeys Hooke’s law.
L Total length of the beam (mm)
x Length of left span in continuous beam (mm) • Plane sections remain plane after bending.
y Length of right span in continuous beam (mm) • Shear deformation and self-weight are neglected.
x1 Distance of load W1 from support A (mm)
x2 Distance of load W1 from support B (mm) A beam is statically determinate if all reactions can
y1 Distance of load W2 from support B (mm) be found using equilibrium equations alone. Simply sup-
y2 Distance of load W2 from support C (mm) ported beams fall under this category. Beams such as
a Distance of applied load from fixed end in fixed beams, propped cantilevers, and continuous beams
propped cantilever (mm) are statically indeterminate, as additional reactions ex-
b Distance of applied load from free end in ist. In such cases, compatibility of deformation is used
propped cantilever (mm) along with equilibrium to determine the unknown reac-
tions and moments.

II. AIM
III.1. Fixed Beam
The objective of this experiment is to study the be-
havior of statically determinate and statically indetermi- In a fixed beam, both ends are restrained against rota-
nate beam systems by experimentally measuring support tion and vertical displacement. When a point load W is
reactions and fixing moments for various loading condi- applied at a distance A from the left end and B = L − A
tions. The experiment aims to verify theoretical predic- from the right end, fixing moments develop at the sup-
tions for simply supported, propped cantilever, and con- ports. The support reactions are:
tinuous beams using equilibrium and compatibility rela- W B 2 (L + 2A) W A2 (L + 2B)
tions. Additional objectives include understanding load RA = 3
, RB = (1)
L L3
redistribution due to beam continuity, comparing exper-
imental, theoretical, and FEM results, and assessing the The fixing moments at the supports are:
impact of load position on reaction forces and bending W AB 2 W A2 B
moments. MA = , MB = (2)
L2 L2
 2

FIG. 3. Free Body Diagram of Continuous Beam

The support reactions are:

W1 x2 − m
FIG. 1. Free Body Diagram of Fixed Beam RA = (6)
x

III.2. Propped Cantilever Beam W1 x1 + m W2 y2 + m

RB = + (7)
x y
A propped cantilever consists of a fixed end and a sim-
ple support at the other end, making it statically indeter- W2 y1 − m
minate. The fixing moment at the fixed end is obtained RC = (8)
y
using the condition that the deflection at the prop is zero.
The intermediate support generally carries a larger
share of the load due to the restriction of rotation at
that location.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND

PROCEDURE

The experiment is conducted using a continuous and

indeterminate beam test apparatus mounted on a rigid
structural frame. The setup consists of an aluminium
beam supported on knife-edge supports and an interme-
diate support, which can be arranged to form a simply
supported beam, a propped cantilever, or a continuous
beam. The supports are fitted with load cells to measure
FIG. 2. Free Body Diagram of Propped Cantilever Beam vertical reaction forces. A moment-measuring device is
provided at the fixed end to measure the required fixing
moments. Loads are applied to the beam using calibrated
W AB(L + B) weight hangers and slotted weights. Distances along the
MA = (3)
2L2 beam are measured using a graduated scale attached to
The corresponding support reactions are: the apparatus.
WB MA W A MA
RA = + , RB = − (4)
L L L L IV.1. General Procedure

III.3. Continuous Beam 1. The beam is mounted on the structural frame and
aligned horizontally using the adjusting screws.
A continuous beam extends over more than two sup- 2. Knife-edge supports and the intermediate support
ports and is statically indeterminate due to continuity are positioned at the required locations according
at the intermediate support. For a two-span continuous to the beam configuration.
beam carrying point loads W1 and W2 , a compatibility
parameter m is used: 3. Load cells and the moment indicator are connected
  and set to zero before applying any load.
1 W1 x1 x2 W2 y1 y2
m= (x + x1 ) + (y + y2 )
2(x + y) x y 4. The positions of the load hangers are adjusted using
(5) the graduated scale, and the distances are noted.
 3

4. The load magnitudes and positions are varied as

specified, and the corresponding reaction forces are
measured.

5. All readings are tabulated for further theoretical

comparison and analysis.

IV.4. FEM Modelling Description

The fixed beam was modelled using the Eu-

ler–Bernoulli beam formulation with a total length of 400
mm. The beam was discretised into beam elements with
a uniform mesh size of 10 mm, resulting in multiple el-
ements along the span. Each node had two degrees of
freedom: vertical displacement and rotation. The fixed
end was modelled by restraining both displacement and
rotation, while the opposite end was left free. A constant
flexural rigidity, EI, was assumed, as support reactions
are independent of its absolute value.
The propped cantilever beam had a total length of 400
mm and was discretised using the same 10 mm element
FIG. 4. Experimental Test Frame size. The fixed end was fully restrained in both displace-
ment and rotation, and the prop was modelled as a knife-
edge support, restricting vertical displacement while al-
5. Loads are applied gradually using slotted weights, lowing rotation. Point loads were applied at the same
and sufficient time is allowed for the system to sta- positions as in the experiment using global coordinates.
bilize before recording readings. The continuous beam was modelled with a total length
of 500 mm and discretised using beam elements of 10
mm length. Knife-edge supports were applied at 200
IV.2. Procedure for Propped Cantilever Beam
mm, 350 mm, and 500 mm by constraining vertical dis-
placement while allowing rotation. Point loads were ap-
1. One end of the beam is clamped to form a fixed sup- plied at the specified experimental locations along the
port, while the other end is supported on a knife- beam using global coordinates. Support reactions were
edge to act as a prop. extracted from the global stiffness solution and compared
2. The fixing moment indicator at the fixed end is with theoretical and experimental values, showing close
zeroed. agreement and confirming the validity of the FEM model.

3. A known load is applied at a specified distance from

the fixed end using a weight hanger. V. RESULTS
4. The reactions at the fixed end and the prop, along
with the fixing moment, are recorded. V.1. Fixed Beam

5. The load position is changed incrementally along The fixing moment at the fixed end increases as the
the beam, and the corresponding readings are load moves away from the support, reaches a maximum
noted for each position. near the mid-span, and then decreases as the load ap-
proaches the other end. This trend is clearly shown by
the theoretical results and is closely followed by both the
IV.3. Procedure for Continuous Beam
experimental and FEM results.
The increase in moment is due to the load’s increasing
1. The beam is supported on three supports to form lever arm, while the reduction beyond mid-span occurs
a two-span continuous beam. because the load’s effect is distributed along the beam.
2. Two load hangers are placed at specified positions Small differences in experimental values are mainly due
on each span of the beam. to clamp flexibility and friction. Overall, the results con-
firm the expected behaviour of a fixed beam.
3. Known loads are applied at the designated loca- The reaction at the fixed support decreases steadily as
tions, and the reactions at the three supports are the load moves toward the free end of the beam. When
recorded. the load is applied near the fixed end, most of it is carried
 4

TABLE I. Comparison of Experimental, Theoretical, and FEM Results for Fixed Beam
Dist. Load RA (N) RB (N) MA (N·m)
(mm) (N) Theory Exp FEM Theory Exp FEM Theory Exp FEM
40 4.9 4.7628 3.2 4.7646 0.1372 0.1 0.13537 0.15876 0.16 0.15926
80 4.9 4.3904 5.0 4.3929 0.5096 0.5 0.50707 0.25088 0.25 0.25164
120 4.9 3.8416 5.8 3.8438 1.0584 1.0 1.0562 0.28812 0.29 0.28891
160 4.9 3.1752 5.8 2.9981 1.7248 1.7 1.9019 0.28224 0.29 0.27600
200 4.9 2.4500 5.2 2.4500 2.4500 2.3 2.4500 0.24500 0.26 0.24541
240 4.9 1.7248 4.2 1.7235 3.1752 3.0 3.1765 0.18816 0.21 0.18829
280 4.9 1.0584 2.9 1.0562 3.8416 3.6 3.8438 0.12348 0.145 0.12337
320 4.9 0.5096 1.8 0.50707 4.3904 4.2 4.3929 0.06272 0.09 0.06247
360 4.9 0.1372 0.7 0.13537 4.7628 4.6 4.7646 0.01764 0.035 0.01743

The theoretical, experimental, and FEM results show the

same trend, confirming the strong dependence of support
reactions on load position and the validity of the fixed
beam model.

V.2. Propped Cantilever Beam

FIG. 5. Fixing Moment vs Load Position for a Fixed Beam

FIG. 7. Fixing Moment vs Load Position for a Propped Can-

tilever

In a propped cantilever, the fixing moment at the fixed

end increases as the load moves away from the support,
reaches a maximum between the fixed end and the prop,
and then decreases as the load approaches the prop. As
the load moves closer to the prop, the prop reaction in-
creases and carries a larger share of the load, which re-
duces the moment at the fixed end. This shows that
adding a prop helps reduce peak fixing moments and im-
proves load sharing compared to a fixed beam.
The reaction at the prop increases as the load moves
FIG. 6. Vertical Resolution vs Load Position for a Fixed Beam toward it and approaches the applied load when the load
is near the prop. This occurs because the prop carries a
larger share of the load as the lever arm relative to the
directly by the support, whereas as the load moves away, prop decreases. The theoretical, experimental, and FEM
a greater portion contributes to the bending of the beam. results follow the same trend, confirming the statically
 5

TABLE II. Comparison of Experimental, Theoretical, and FEM Results for Propped Cantilever Beam
Dist. Load RA (N) RB (N) MA (N·m)
(mm) (N) Exp Theory FEM Exp Theory FEM Exp Theory FEM
40 4.9 3.4 4.82895 4.8300 0.1 0.07105 0.07001 0.170 0.16758 0.16799
80 4.9 5.6 4.62560 4.6274 0.3 0.27440 0.27258 0.280 0.28224 0.28297
120 4.9 6.9 4.30465 4.3069 0.5 0.59535 0.59307 0.345 0.34986 0.35077
160 4.9 7.4 3.88080 3.8833 1.0 1.01920 1.10670 0.370 0.37632 0.37731
200 4.9 7.2 3.36875 3.3712 1.5 1.53125 1.52880 0.360 0.36750 0.36847
240 4.9 6.5 2.78320 2.7854 2.1 2.11680 2.11460 0.325 0.32928 0.33015
280 4.9 5.3 2.13885 2.1406 2.7 2.76115 2.75940 0.265 0.26754 0.26825
320 4.9 3.8 1.45040 1.4516 3.4 3.44960 3.44840 0.190 0.18816 0.18866
360 4.9 2.0 0.73255 0.73319 4.1 4.16745 4.16680 0.100 0.09702 0.09728

FIG. 9. Reaction at A (Ra ) for a Continuous Beam

FIG. 8. Prop Reaction vs Load Postion for a Propped Can-
tilever

indeterminate nature of the propped cantilever and the

validity of compatibility-based analysis.

V.3. Continuous Beam

The comparison of experimental, theoretical, and FEM

results shows that the intermediate support consistently
carries the maximum reaction for all loading cases, while
the end supports carry smaller portions of the applied
load. This behaviour occurs because of the beam’s con- FIG. 10. Reaction at B (Rb ) for a Continuous Beam
tinuity, which restricts rotation at the intermediate sup-
port and redistributes forces. The FEM results follow
the same trend as the analytical and experimental val- VI. CONCLUSIONS
ues, with slightly higher reactions due to stiffness mod-
elling and discretisation effects. Overall, the close agree- The experimental, theoretical, and FEM results
ment among all three approaches confirms the validity of show that statically indeterminate beams redistribute
continuous beam theory and highlights the influence of loads more effectively than determinate beams.[2, 3] In
compatibility conditions on load distribution in statically propped cantilever and continuous beam configurations,
indeterminate structures. the presence of additional supports reduces peak bend-
 6

TABLE III. Comparison of Experimental, Theoretical, and FEM Support Reactions for Continuous Beam
Dist. RA (N) RB (N) Rc (N)
(mm) Theory Exp FEM Theory Exp FEM Theory Exp FEM
1 1.50 1.47 1.98 3.50 3.58 3.72 1.00 0.99 1.00
2 1.20 1.24 1.78 3.70 3.66 3.93 1.60 1.59 1.53
3 0.80 0.83 1.13 4.10 4.02 4.23 1.60 1.59 1.68
4 1.20 1.19 1.82 3.90 3.92 4.01 0.80 0.81 1.09
5 1.30 1.31 1.49 3.80 3.79 3.98 1.60 1.62 1.97
6 0.20 0.23 0.43 2.90 2.88 3.02 0.60 0.58 1.04
7 0.20 0.21 0.29 3.20 3.18 3.30 0.70 0.71 1.10
8 1.40 1.39 1.60 3.50 3.52 3.50 0.30 0.31 0.29

ing moments and shares the applied load, leading to

lower stresses at critical sections. The close agreement
among experimental, analytical, and FEM results con-
firms the accuracy of compatibility-based analysis and
demonstrates the structural advantage of indeterminate
beam systems in practical applications.[4, 5]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FAC gratefully acknowledges Dr. Francine Brown for

FIG. 11. Reaction at C (Rc ) for a Continuous Beam her early reviews of this manuscript.

[1] Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIST, “Reaction

and moments of a fixed, propped cantilever and contin-
uous beam,” (2026), laboratory handout for structural
mechanics experiment.
[2] R. C. Hibbeler, Structural Analysis, 10th ed. (Pearson Ed-
ucation, 2017).
[3] C. S. Reddy, Basic Structural Analysis (Tata McGraw-
Hill, 2011).
[4] O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor, The Finite Element
Method, Vol. 1 (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005).
[5] K.-J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures (Prentice Hall,
1996).
 7

Appendix A: Sample Calculation Substitution:

4.9 × 40 × 360(400 + 360)
1. Fixed Beam (Load at 40 mm) M= = 0.16758 N·m
2 × 4002
Support Reactions [1]:
Given:
WB M
RA = +
W = 4.9 N, L = 400 mm L L
WA M
RB = −
A = 40 mm, B = L − A = 360 mm L L
Substitution:
Support Reactions: 4.9 × 360 0.16758
RA = + = 4.82895 N
W B 2 (L + 2A) 400 0.4
RA =
L3
4.9 × 40 0.16758
RB = − = 0.07105 N
400 0.4
W A2 (L + 2B)
RB =
L3
3. Continuous Beam (Case 1)
Substitution:
Given:
4.9 × 3602 (400 + 2 × 40)
RA = = 4.7628 N W1 = 4.9 N, W2 = 2.94 N
4003

x = 200 mm, y = 150 mm

4.9 × 402 (400 + 2 × 360)
RB = = 0.1372 N x1 = 40 mm, x2 = 110 mm
4003
Fixing Moments[1]: y1 = 80 mm, y2 = 70 mm
Compatibility Parameter[1]:
W AB 2
MA = 1

W1 x1 x2 W2 y1 y2

L2 m= (x + x1 ) + (y + y2 )
2(x + y) x y
W A2 B Substitution:
MB = 1

4.9 × 40 × 110 2.94 × 80 × 70

L2 m= (240) + (220)
2(200 + 150) 200 150
Substitution:
4.9 × 40 × 3602 m = 53.6 N·mm
MA = = 0.15876 N·m
4002 Support Reactions[1]:
W1 x2 − m
2
RA =
4.9 × 40 × 360 x
MB = = 0.01764 N·m
4002 W1 x1 + m W2 y2 + m
RB = +
x y
2. Propped Cantilever Beam (Load at 40 mm)
W2 y1 − m
RC =
Given: y
Substitution:
W = 4.9 N, L = 400 mm 4.9 × 110 − 53.6
RA = = 1.47 N
200
A = 40 mm, B = 360 mm
4.9 × 40 + 53.6 2.94 × 70 + 53.6
RB = + = 3.58 N
Fixing Moment at Fixed End[1]: 200 150

W AB(L + B) 2.94 × 80 − 53.6

M= RC = = 0.99 N
2L2 150
 8

Appendix B: Errors and Uncertainity Analysis

TABLE IV. Absolute Errors for Fixed Beam Reaction RA
Load Position Absolute Error (N)
The total experimental uncertainty arises from the fol-
lowing sources: 1 1.5628
2 0.6096
• Support compliance and friction: Non-ideal 3 1.9584
stiffness and friction at supports alter the assumed 4 2.6248
boundary conditions, affecting measured reactions. 5 2.7500
• Load positioning uncertainty: Small errors (±1 6 2.4752
mm) in load placement cause noticeable changes in 7 1.8416
reactions due to variations in moment arm. 8 1.2904
9 0.5628
• Instrument resolution: Finite resolution and
calibration drift of measuring devices introduce sys-
tematic and random measurement errors.
The resulting error metrics are:
• Analytical model idealisation: Assumptions of P9
perfect geometry, material uniformity, and ideal i=1 AEi 15.6756
MAERA = = = 1.74173 N (B6)
supports differ from actual experimental condi- 9 9
tions.

The following statistical error metrics were used: s

P9
i=1 AE2i
• Absolute Error (AE): RMSERA =
9
r
AEi = |Xexp,i − Xref,i | (B1) 1.56282 + 0.60962 + · · · + 0.56282 (B7)
=
9
• Mean Absolute Error (MAE): √
r
32.6013
= = 3.62237 = 1.90325 N
n 9
1X
MAE = AEi (B2)
n i=1
s
P9
i=1 (AEi − MAERA )2
• Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): σRA =
8
v r
u n
u1 X (1.5628 − 1.74173)2 + · · · + (0.5628 − 1.74173)2
=
RMSE = t AE2i (B3) 8
n i=1
15.1010 √
r
= = 1.88763 = 1.37391 N
8
• Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE): (B8)
n
1 X Xexp,i − Xref,i Larger errors occur when the load is farther from the
MAPE = × 100% (B4)
n i=1 Xref,i fixed support, due to the greater sensitivity of the reac-
tion forces to load position.
• Standard Deviation (σ):
sP
n 2 2. Propped Cantilever: Fixing Moment Error
i=1 (AEi − MAERA ) Analysis
σRA = (B5)
n−1
For the propped cantilever, the fixing moment at the
Here, Xref denotes theoretical or FEM reference values. fixed end MA was compared across nine load positions.
The absolute errors were consistently small, of the order
of 10−3 N·m.
1. Fixed Beam: Reaction Force Error Analysis

For the fixed beam, reaction force at support RA was MAEMA = 0.003887 N·m (B9)
measured at nine load positions. The absolute errors
RMSEMA = 0.0043295 N·m (B10)
between experimental and theoretical values are listed in
Table IV. σMA = 0.0038896 N·m (B11)
 9

This indicates excellent agreement between experimen- 5. Confidence Interval Estimation

tal and theoretical values. The presence of the prop re-
duces the sensitivity of fixing moment to small boundary
Assuming normally distributed errors, the 95% confi-
imperfections.
dence interval for the fixed beam RA MAE is

3. Comparison Between Fixed and Propped

Cantilever Configurations σ
CI95% = MAE ± t0.025,8 √ (B16)
n
To compare error magnitudes between beam configu-
rations, the relative increase in Mean Absolute Error was
With t0.025,8 = 2.306,
computed as

MAEpropped − MAEfixed 1.37391

Relative MAE Increase = ×100% CI95% = 1.74173 ± 2.306 × (B17)
MAEfixed 3
(B12)
= 1.74173 ± 1.055 N (B18)
Substituting the computed values:
indicating that the true MAE lies between 0.687 N and
Relative MAE Increase == 45.69% (B13) 2.797 N with 95% confidence.
The total experimental uncertainty is expressed as
This increase reflects the greater sensitivity of inde-
terminate systems to small experimental uncertainties,
rather than reduced theoretical accuracy.
2 2 2 2 2
Utotal = Uboundary + Uload + Uinstrument + Umodel (B19)

4. Error Propagation in Indeterminate Beam

Reactions Estimated contributions for the fixed beam are:

For propped cantilever beams, support reactions de- Uboundary ≈ 12% (B20)
pend on compatibility equations:
Uload ≈ 5% (B21)
Uinstrument ≈ 3% (B22)
P b2 (3a + b) P a2 (3b + a) Umodel ≈ 8% (B23)
RA = , RB = (B14)
L3 L3
Small uncertainties in load position propagate as giving

√
∆RA ∆a ∆b Utotal = 242 = 15.56% (B24)
≈3 +2 (B15)
RA a b

For a typical positional uncertainty of ±1 mm, the re- The difference between estimated uncertainty and ob-
sulting reaction uncertainty lies in the range of 3–5%, served MAPE reflects correlated error sources and un-
consistent with observed experimental scatter. modelled systematic effects.