# FEA for Optimizing Design and Fabrication of Frame Structure of Elevating Work Platforms
## 1 Introduction  
Elevating Work Platforms (EWPs) are essential tools across a wide range of industries, including construction, maintenance, manufacturing, warehousing, and increasingly, agriculture [1]. These platforms provide safe and efficient access to elevated work areas, allowing workers to perform tasks that would otherwise be challenging or dangerous [2]. Common types of EWPs include scissor lifts, boom lifts (both articulating and telescopic), and vertical mast lifts, each designed to meet the specific needs of different operational environments. Scissor lifts are frequently used in confined spaces for vertical lifting tasks, such as indoor maintenance. Boom lifts, with their extendable arms, are ideal for tasks that require a longer horizontal reach, making them popular in building maintenance andutility work. Vertical mast lifts, known for their compact size and maneuverability, are suited to narrow areas, such as warehouses and industrial storage facilities. In agriculture, EWPs are increasingly used for tasks such as pruning, harvesting, and maintenance of orchards and plantations [3]. Boom lifts and scissor lifts are particularly valuable for reaching high branches during tree pruning, ensuring that workers can trim and maintain plants at significant heights safely and efficiently. Recently, a study [4] explored the use of EWPs in olive tree pruning, introducing a mechanized pruning system equipped with an elevated work platform with a double extendable arm, carried using the three-point hitch of the tractor. This study emphasized that agricultural EWPs, when properly designed and equipped, can transform labor-intensive tasks into safer, faster, and more efficient processes, thereby increasing productivity and reducing the need for manual ladder work. In traditional olive growing, where trees can reach up to 10 m in height, EWPs offer significant advantages over ladders in pruning operations. A study by [5] compared mobile elevated work platforms with ladders in olive tree pruning, demonstrating that EWPs reduce physical strain on workers and improve pruning efficiency, making them a safer and more effective alternative. By reducing repetitive and strenuous movements required for pruning at heights, EWPs contribute to lower worker fatigue and a reduced risk of musculoskeletal injuries, which is especially important in physically demanding agricultural tasks. However, agricultural applications of EWPs present unique challenges that require specialized design and material selection to ensure both structural integrity and operational efficiency. EWPs used outdoors must endure uneven terrain, environmental exposure, and dynamic loads associated with movement and pruning tasks [6; 7]. These conditions demand frames that are not only robust enough to withstand repeated use but also lightweight for easy maneuverability. The structural frame of an EWP is critical to its safety, stability, and functionality, as it must support variable loads while withstanding both static and dynamic forces during operation. Material selection, therefore, becomes a key aspect of frame design, directly influencing the platform's strength, durability, weight, and overall performance. In agriculture and other demanding environments, selecting the right materials can make the difference between a safe, efficient platform and one prone to failure. Strong materials can improve stability and support heavier loads, but they often add weight, which may reduce maneuverability and increase operational costs. Conversely, lighter materials enhance mobility and efficiency but may compromise structural integrity if not adequately reinforced [8]. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has become an essential tool for optimizing material selection and frame design in EWPs [9; 10; 11]. FEA enables the simulation of the behavior of different materials under various loading conditions, as defined by UNI EN 280 standards [12], identifying the most suitable materials for each type of EWP based on expected usage scenarios [13; 14; 15].