## 4 Discussion  
The high correlation coefficient (R = 0.9875) signified a robust positive linear relationship between the simulated model derived from FEA and the test results obtained through EMA. Moreover, the r-square value indicated that approximately 97.52% of the variability in the test results can be accounted for by the simulated FEA model. The standard error of 1.1148 represents the average deviation between the observed EMA test results and the predicted values obtained from the simulated FEA model. A lower standard error signifies  
Figure 15: Front wheel weight (**left**), rear wheel weight (**middle**), and weight indicator (**right**). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Wheel**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Side**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Mass (kg)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Before**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**After**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Fr} & L & 495 & \multirow{2}{*}{dif. 15} & 515 & \multirow{2}{*}{dif. 35} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & R & 480 & & 480 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Front axle mass (Fr)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{975} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{995} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Re} & L & 615 & \multirow{2}{*}{dif. 65} & 590 & \multirow{2}{*}{dif. 40} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & R & 550 & & 550 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Rear axle mass (Re)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1165} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1140} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total vehicle mass (Fr + Re = T)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2140} & 2135 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Ratio criteria} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{45.56\% (accept.)} & 46.60\% (accept.) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{G.V.W. criteria} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{accept.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{accept.} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{B} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\leq\)710} & \(\leq\)715 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c} Technical specification of single cab mass (kg) [3], model GUN122R-BTFXYT3 and -BTFLXT3, G.V.W.; Fr (1165), Re (1685) and total G.V.W. (2850).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of wheel mass with accepted basic performance and safety requirements. a more accurate fit of the model in predicting the EMA test results. These findings demonstrate that the FEA model provides a substantial explanation for the observed variation in the EMA test results. Therefore, in the analysis and validation for assessing the failure behavior, the properties were chosen as a density of 2.45 g/cm\({}^{3}\) and a Young's modulus of 88.7 GPa. The selection of a CL steel section over a ST section can be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, the CL section offers cost advantages as it requires less material compared to a box-shaped section while still providing structural support. Secondly, the CL section offers flexibility in design and installation, allowing for easier customization and adaptation to different construction requirements. However, it is important to note that the CL steel section's open design reduces the cross-sectional area available for carrying loads, resulting in reduced strength and stiffness. This characteristic makes the CL section more susceptible to bending and deformation compared to the ST section. In contrast, the ST steel section is stronger than the CL steel section due to its geometric properties. The ST section has equal thickness on all sides, enabling a uniform distribution of stress and load-carrying capacity. This uniform stress distribution enhances the box-shaped section's ability to resist bending and deformation more effectively. The results of the comparison of the mass of a CBF four-wheel vehicle before and after modifying the structure and shifting the CG position of the side-swing door towards the front of the car by 20 cm are presented. According to the manufacturer's standards for the GUN122R-BTFXYT3 and -BTFLXT3 vehicle models, the G.V.W. does not exceed the specified values for the front wheel (1165 kg) and rear wheel (1685 kg), and the total G.V.W. is equal to 2850 kg.