## 4 Experimental Verification
### Force-Thermal Follow-Up Loading Experiment
#### 4.2.2 Driving Force Experiment  
Driving force experiments were conducted during the extension process of the telescopic wing under three different loading conditions. The experimental results were compared with the previously presented simulation model calculations for analysis. During the experiments, the force load was derived from the time-varying distributed load calculated using the dynamic multi-point distribution method proposed in this study, while the thermal load was applied through conductive heating using thermal loading units.  
To evaluate the consistency between the experimental data and simulation results, this study presents a trend comparison of experimental and simulation outcomes under three different loading conditions. The driving force variation trends under the three loading scenarios are depicted in Figure 38.  
In all three cases, the experimental and simulation results exhibit generally consistent trends. However, the experimentally measured driving force is generally lower than the simulation data. The primary reason is attributed to the strict constraints applied in the simulation settings, which tightly restrict component deformation. This leads to significant differences in deformation across different regions, particularly under thermal loading conditions. Non-uniform deformation increases friction, resulting in higher driving forces in simulations. Conversely, during the experiment, installation gaps and errors allow for a certain degree of free thermal expansion deformation in various directions, reducing the required driving force to some extent. Nevertheless, the overall deformation trends under identical loading conditions remain consistent between the experimental and simulation results.  
To quantitatively evaluate the consistency between the experimental and simulation results for driving force, two error estimation metrics were calculated: the root mean square error (RMSE) and the coefficient of determination (R\({}^{2}\)). Table 9 presents the error  
Figure 38: Comparison of driving force under force–thermal conditions.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Force Load** & **Thermal Load** & **Force–Thermal Load** \\ \hline RMSE (mm) & 2.2223 & 1.4937 & 2.9976 \\ R\({}^{2}\) & 0.9301 & 0.9828 & 0.9651 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Deflection deformation errors.  
calculation results for the driving force. From the comparison between experimental and simulation results, all three loading conditions exhibited good trend consistency. In particular, under the force-only loading condition, the experimental and simulation results showed the highest agreement, with a small RMSE value and an R\({}^{2}\) of 0.9508, indicating that the simulation model under force-only loading is highly accurate. However, under thermal loading and combined force-thermal loading, the discrepancies between the experimental and simulation results increased. Specifically, under force-thermal coupled loading, the RMSE value was larger, suggesting a decline in model prediction accuracy under multi-load coupling.  
In the experimental section, the response capability of the follow-up loading system was first tested, verifying its high follow-up response capability. Subsequently, experimental tests were conducted under three loading conditions, namely thermal load, force load, and combined force-thermal load, focusing on performance metrics, such as deflection deformation and driving force. These results were compared with simulation data. By calculating RMSE and R\({}^{2}\), the fitting accuracy between experimental and simulation results was analyzed, validating the feasibility of the proposed force-thermal follow-up loading method and the correctness of the theoretical and simulation analysis.