## 4 Results and Discussion
### Experimental Results and Comparison
#### 4.1.1 Comparison Between FEM and Experimental Data for the 260 mm Frame
Figure 20: Distribution of equivalent plastic strain in the model with 4 clamps (260 mm): (**a**) global distribution of plastic strain in FEA; (**b**) detail of the upper connection region; (**c**) detail of the lower connection region. Plasticization is minimal for the three-clamp configuration (Figure 21), suggesting that the structure accommodates stresses through load redistribution. Finally, in the two-clamp configuration (Figure 22), the lowest level of plastic activation is observed among all configurations, indicating a more flexible structural behavior. The absence of significant plasticization in the simulations reinforces that the applied loads in the experimental analyses remained within the structure's elastic range, validating the adopted approach and confirming that the tests did not compromise the material's integrity. Frame Analysis Under the Same Applied Load  
To complement the structural performance assessment, three distinct frame configurations were compared, all subjected to the same vertical load of 29,392 N. The same Von  
Figure 21: Distribution of equivalent plastic strain in the model with 3 clamps (260 mm): (**a**) global distribution of plastic strain in FEA; (**b**) detail of the lower connection region. Figure 22: Distribution of equivalent plastic strain in the model with 2 clamps (260 mm): (**a**) global distribution of plastic strain in FEA; (**b**) detail of the lower connection region. Mises stress scale (0-375 MPa) was adopted across the numerical models, enabling a direct comparison of structural efficiency and stress redistribution among the configurations. The four-clamp configuration (Figure 23a) exhibited the most efficient performance, with stresses predominantly ranging from 34.4 MPa to 138 MPa, mainly concentrated near the upper clamps and at the contact interface with the L-shaped plate. Blue and green tones dominate the stress map, indicating efficient force redistribution and low concentrations of critical stress zones. In the three-clamp configuration (Figure 23b), localized stress is increased, with some regions reaching values between 172 MPa and 241 MPa, particularly at the beam interface. The removal of one clamp reduces stiffness, concentrating stresses in more confined areas and increasing the risk of local deformations. The two-clamp configuration (Figure 23c) presents the most critical structural condition. Orange and red regions indicate stress levels close to the upper limit of the adopted scale. These concentrations occur primarily in the lower region of the beam and around the upper clamps, reflecting a reduced capacity for stress redistribution. Even under a constant load, the structural response varies significantly depending on the geometry and number of fastening points. There is a progressive reduction in structural efficiency from the most rigid configuration (four clamps) to the least rigid (two clamps). This reinforces the importance of optimizing the number and layout of clamps according to the desired stiffness and applied load, aiming to enhance the efficiency and safety of reusable systems operating within the elastic range.