## 5 Results and Discussion
### Structural Analysis of the Opening  
Due to the structure's nature, conducting full-scale experimental tests is impractical due to machinery limitations. Instead, experiments are performed at a scaled-down model level. This scaling includes adjusting the load conditions to ensure proper correlation between experimental and numerical results. The scaling process involves modifying the geometries of openings \(a\) and \(b\) in all three coordinate directions and adjusting the thickness variable. This approach allows for meaningful structural testing despite size constraints and ensures that fatigue life determinations are accurate and reliable in the context of experimental and numerical data correlation. The scaling procedure is carried out globally on the geometries of openings \(a\) and \(b\) in all three directions corresponding to the three coordinate axes. It is performed in a similar manner with the thickness variable as with its main counterparts (Figure 22).  
An arithmetic relationship is established between the geometric and load variables, allowing for the adjustment of the fatigue life of the original model and the experimentally tested model, which is not feasible in terms of size, obtained through a scaling factor \(\alpha\)  
Figure 21: Distribution of von Mises stresses due to sea pressure and container weight for \(V_{1}\). (**a**) Upright condition, (**b**) heel condition.  
Figure 22: Scaling process of the original submodel at unit scale factor (\(\alpha\)) values, 0.75 and 0.5 (dimensions in mm). (**a**) Opening \(a\), (**b**) opening \(b\).  
The rationale behind this procedure is to enhance the level of reliability between the two models, enabling a high-level alignment of the experimental and numerical domains. The technique for obtaining results is characterized by an iterative process, starting with fatigue life data from the original model and yielding the following expression.  
\[F_{2}=\frac{F_{1}}{\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)^{2}} \tag{14}\]  
where \(F_{2}\) (with \(F_{2}<F_{1}\)) represents the load required to be applied to the experimental model to achieve the same fatigue life as the numerical original model (\(F_{1}\)). From this scenario, the concept is generalized to make the mathematical model valid for all three proposed geometries and independently applicable (Table 8). The bilogarithmic diagram arises as a direct consequence of manipulating the above expression, and with its derivation, the process is standardized by introducing additional scaling factors that establish the regression line defining the behavior and forming the fundamental relationship between variables with a high degree of reliability (Figure 23).  
In Figure 24, the stress distribution for each of the geometries defining the openings and each of the established scaling factors is observed.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Scale Factor** & **Load (kN)** & **Fatigue Life (Cycles)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Opening \(a\)} & 1 & 200 & \\  & 0.75 & 112.5 & 183,000 \\  & 0.5 & 50 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Opening \(b\)} & 1 & 200 & \\  & 0.75 & 112.5 & 189,000 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 0.5 & 50 & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Iterative process of fatigue life equalization for each cut-out geometry and established scaling factor.  
Figure 23: Bilogarithmic diagram of the relationship between geometric and load variables.