## 5 Analysis of Selected Design Variants of the Considered Structure
### Comprehensive Analysis
#### 5.6.2 Simulation Comparison of Different Solutions at Various Thicknesses  
Next, an analysis of the comparative performance of the stress and deformation results for the five solutions across three thicknesses is presented in Figure 28.  
Figure 27: Comparison of different thicknesses of wall panels under each solution.  
From Figure 28a-e, it can be observed that:  
1. Deformation Analysis: Among these five solutions, the deformation changes are relatively stable as the wall thickness varies. Notably, Solution III exhibits the lowest deformation values, ranging from 1.1441 to 1.1522 mm, demonstrating excellent deformation control performance.
2. Stress Analysis: Solution I demonstrates good structural robustness, with relatively stable stress values across all thickness levels. In contrast, Solution II exhibits reduced stress values at thinner thicknesses, ranging from 2.8339 MPa at 1.5 mm to 3.923 MPa at 2.0 mm, indicating decreased structural stability as the material thins. Solution III maintains consistently low stress values, between 3.5288 and 3.9997 MPa across all thicknesses, suggesting a balanced stress resistance. Solution IV shows a similarly stable stress performance, with stress values ranging from 3.8951 to 4.007 MPa. Conversely, Solution V reveals a significant dependency on thickness, with stress levels sharply increasing from 2.6087 MPa at 2.5 mm to 6.7582 MPa at 1.5 mm, highlighting potential issues with high stress in thin-wall conditions.  
To determine the optimal solution and thickness, considering the data from both sets of charts, the following conclusions are drawn:  
1. Considering the analysis of stress and deformation characteristics at different thicknesses, Solution III is shown to be the most stable choice among the five options. It provides a robust balance between stress resistance and deformation control. It exhibits the lowest deformation values at various thicknesses. Although other schemes also show relatively stable deformations with changes in wall thickness, Solution III has a clear advantage. This advantage is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the structure under various loads and conditions.
2. Although thicker side walls (2.5 mm) generally offer better structural performance, with smaller deformations and stress, at a thickness of 2.0 mm, although the stress increases compared to 2.5 mm, the increase is more moderate compared to 1.5 mm, and the performance is similar to 2.5 mm. This suggests that a thickness of 2.0 mm may be a reasonable compromise in terms of cost-effectiveness and material efficiency.
3. While Solution V performs well at thicker dimensions, it exhibits a significant increase in stress as the material becomes thinner; therefore, this solution is ruled out.  
The comparison of the results before and after the structure and wall thickness adjustments is shown in Table 15. Before adjusting the structure, there was a stress concentration in the side wall panels. After adjusting the structure, this phenomenon was eliminated, and the strength and stability of the structure were ensured through simulation.  
Figure 28: The stress and deformation results of the five solutions are compared under three different wall thicknesses.