## 5 Results and Discussion  
### Linear Models  
To evaluate the structural behavior of the seat component, the results from the linear models were analyzed first. These models provided insights into the elastic response of the structure, highlighting the impact of mapped thickness variations compared to uniform thickness assumptions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Applied Load**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Point A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Point B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Point C**} \\ \cline{2-9} \# Test & **[kg]** & **[N]** & **Displacement [mm]** & **Residual [-]** & **Displacement [mm]** & **Residual [-]** & **Displacement [mm]** & **Residual [-]** \\ \hline
1 & 5.3 & 52.0 & 5.35 & - & 1.57 & - & - & - \\  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Y-negative armrest push test results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Point A** & **Point B** & **Point C** \\ \hline Maximum deflection [mm] & 15.21 & 2.99 & 0.876 \\ Threshold 5\% [mm] & 0.76 & 0.15 & 0.044 \\ Maximum residual [mm] & 0.40 & 0.05 & 0.036 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Maximum displacement and threshold values Y-positive armrest push test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Point A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Point B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Point C**} \\ \cline{2-7} \# Test & **[kg]** & **[N]** & **Displacement [mm]** & **Residual [-]** & **Displacement [mm]** & **Residual [-]** & **Displacement [mm]** & **Residual [-]** \\ \hline
1 & 5.7 & 55.9 & 9 & - & 1.54 & - & - & - \\
2 & 4.6 & 45.1 & 7.21 & - & 1.27 & - & - & - \\
3 & 5.5 & 54.0 & 8.72 & 0.01 & 1.54 & 0.01 & 0.393 & 0.035 \\
4 & 8.0 & 78.5 & 12.95 & 0.01 &  
The stamping simulation revealed a general thinning of the sheet-metal, along with a slight increase in thickness in the intersection area between the backrest and the seat. These results show that the calculations were completed successfully, with the \(\varepsilon\) index achieving convergence to eight decimal orders. The \(\varepsilon\) index represents the error that is computed to solve the matrix equation that gives the displacement vector. The lower the index the lower the error of the solution reached with the FEM model. On average, the mapped model exhibited greater flexibility, primarily due to the reduced overall thickness caused by stretching during the stamping process. Compared to the real data, the FEM models generally demonstrated greater stiffness, except at Point B, where the deviations were relatively minor. The deviations were particularly pronounced at Point C, highlighting limitations in the model's ability to capture the deformation in this area accurately. The following points are specifically relevant to note:  
* At Point A, the measured displacement was 5.60 mm, while the uniform thickness model simulated a displacement of 4.88 mm (a 12.90% deviation); the mapped thickness model simulated the value 5.11 mm, reducing the deviation to 8.70%. * At Point B, the measured displacement was 1.26 mm, with the uniform thickness model simulating a displacement of 1.35 mm (a 7.30% deviation); the mapped model produced the value 1.42 mm, resulting in a 12.60% deviation. * At Point C, the measured displacement was 0.413 mm, but the uniform thickness model simulated a displacement of only 0.175 mm (a 57.60% deviation); the mapped model, though slightly better, simulated a displacement of 0.194 mm, still resulting in a high deviation of 53.10%. All the details mentioned above are summarized in Table 13.  
The strain distributions, shown in Figure 13, revealed slight differences in the deformation contour lines. The regions of deformation were marginally larger in the mapped model than in the uniform thickness model, indicating the influence of localized thinning on the structural response. Stress distributions, shown in Figure 14, highlight significant stress concentrations around the anchor holes.