## 4 Results and Discussion
### Experimental Results and Comparison
#### 4.1.2 Comparison Between FEM and Experimental Data for the 180 mm Frame
Finally, in the two-clamp configuration (Figure 30), the lowest level of plastic activation was observed among all setups, indicating a more flexible structural response (Figure 32). This corroborates the behavior observed in the 260 mm frame for the corresponding arrangement. Figure 31: Distribution of equivalent plastic strain in the model with 3 clamps (180 mm): (**a**) global distribution of plastic strain in FEA; (**b**) detail of the upper connection region; (**c**) detail of the lower connection region. Figure 32: Distribution of equivalent plastic strain in the model with 2 clamps (180 mm): (**a**) global distribution of plastic strain in FEA; (**b**) detail of the upper connection region. The absence of significant plasticization in the numerical models confirms that the applied loads in the experimental procedures remained within the elastic limit, validating the adopted methodology and ensuring the preservation of material integrity. Analysis of the 180 mm Frame Under the Same Applied Load  
To further evaluate the structural behavior of the 180 mm frame, three different configurations were analyzed, each subjected to the same vertical load of 20,000 N. The application of a constant load enabled a direct comparison between models based on the results of finite element numerical simulations. A uniform [PERSON] stress scale (0-375 MPa) was adopted across all models, allowing for a consistent visual comparison of the results. The configuration with four clamps (Figure 33a) exhibited the most uniform structural behavior. Blue and light green regions predominated, indicating moderate stress levels distributed evenly across the structure, with only small, localized areas near the upper clamps reaching higher levels (172-241 MPa). The absence of continuous critical zones suggests good stiffness and effective stress redistribution, with low concentrations and preserved structural integrity within the elastic range. The configuration with three clamps (Figure 33b) showed a comparable stress pattern, with most of the structure maintaining moderate stress levels. However, localized critical zones emerged in the lower and upper regions of the beam, highlighted by yellow and reddish tones (>241 MPa). This shift in the stress pattern indicates a slight loss in the uniformity of stress distribution, which may influence the structural response under varying load intensities. The configuration with two clamps (Figure 33c) presented the most critical scenario. Large areas along the web of the beam, as well as regions around the upper and lower clamps, displayed yellow-orange and red tones, indicating elevated stress levels. The distribution became visibly less uniform, with stress concentrations in specific regions under tension and compression. This behavior reflects a reduced capacity for stress redistribution and a greater tendency toward localized deformations, although the structure remained within the elastic regime. The comparison between the three configurations reveals a gradual reduction in the ability to control internal stress as the number of clamps decreases. The configuration with four fixation points demonstrated greater uniformity in stress distribution, minimizing critical regions. In contrast, configurations with fewer clamps showed reduced structural stiffness, higher stress concentrations, and less efficient redistribution of internal forces. These results highlight the importance of properly dimensioning both the number and  
Figure 24:0 Von Mises stress fields for the 180 mm frame under a constant load of 20,000 N, shown for configurations with (a) 4, (b) 3, and (c) 2 clamps. placement of fixation elements, particularly in compact structural systems designed for modularity, disassembly, and reuse.