## 4 Method Validation
### Simulation
Table 5 also summarizes the loading details. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Master** & **Slave** & **Contact** & **Constrained DOFs** \\ \hline Base & Sheetmetal & TIE (Linear)/SLIDE (NL) & Translation along Z \\ L-Plate & Sheetmetal & TIE & Translation along X and Z \\ Pad & Sheetmetal & TIE & Translation along X and Z \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Contact definition and constrained degrees of freedom (DOFs) for structural parts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Part** & **Material** & **E [GPa]** & **Yield Stress [MPa]** & **Property** & **Mathematical Model** \\ \hline Sheet-metal & Steel & 190 & Variable & PSHELL & Variable \\ Base & Steel & 210 & 350 & PSOILD & Linear \\ L-Plate & Steel & 210 & 350 & PSOILD & Linear \\ Pad & Steel & 210 & 350 & PSOILD & Linear \\ M8 Screws & Steel & 210 & 640 & PBEAM & Linear \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Material properties and mathematical models for structural components. Figure 9: Free body diagram showing forces and reactions. The evaluation of the structural performance of the stamped sheet-metal component was conducted using two distinct modeling approaches: linear and nonlinear models. These models were designed to investigate the impact of thickness mapping and material property definitions on the accuracy and reliability of the FEM predictions. Comparing the results of linear and nonlinear analyses provided insights into the elastic and elastoplastic behavior of the component, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of its response to applied loads. The linear models focused on the elastic range of the material, while the nonlinear models captured yielding and stress redistribution in critical areas, incorporating localized effects derived from the stamping simulation data. Two linear models were developed to assess the influence of thickness mapping on the component's elastic behavior. The linear simulation model used two different thickness assumptions: one assuming a uniform initial thickness of 1.2 mm, and the other incorporating thickness variations obtained from the stamping simulation, which ranged approximately from 0.92 mm to 1.72 mm in extreme cases. However, to simplify the analysis and maintain computational efficiency, only thickness variations within the range of 1.1 mm to 1.2 mm were considered in the structural FEM model. This conservative range captures the majority of the sheet's deformation while excluding extreme thinning/thickening effects that would require additional refinement in the meshing process. Both models utilized a linear elastic material definition with identical Young's modulus values. The loads were intentionally kept small to ensure that the material remained in the elastic range, even during physical tests. This approach was necessary due to the presence of hardened areas in the stamped component, which still contained zones with lower yield stresses. The mapped model exhibited higher compliance due to the reduced thickness in some areas, consistent with experimental observations. The exclusion of L-Plates in these models, justified by the low magnitude of the applied loads, simplified the analysis without introducing significant errors. The results highlighted the importance of incorporating thickness variations, as the mapped model provided a more accurate representation of the component's elastic behavior. The nonlinear models extended the analysis to include material yielding and stress redistribution. The standard model utilized elastoplastic hardening properties derived from the stamping simulation but assumed a constant thickness of 1.2 mm (Figure 10). In contrast, the mapped model employed an elastic-plastic material definition with thickness variations. In the nonlinear simulation, a conservative approximation is employed by modeling the exponential part of the stress-strain relation with a straight line. This approximation assumes perfect plastic behavior after yielding, without considering strain hardening effects.