Volume 22 (1) 2023 Page 1 - 12

Mekanika: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika

Design Analysis and Structural Prediction of Bus Driver Chair Support: A

Study Case using HOQ and FEM
Joung Hyung Cho1, Ridwan Ridwan2, Rama Panji Kusuma3, Joko Triyono3, Nurul Muhayat3,*,
Aprianur Fajri3, Fajar Budi Laksono3
1 Department of Industrial Design, Pukyong National University, Busan, South Korea
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universitas Merdeka Madiun, Madiun, Indonesia
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Keywords: The bus driver's comfort is crucial. The location of the driver's seat, which is
Driver seat support, finite correlated with the seat support design, is one of the elements supporting his
element method, shear comfort. The bus business chosen as a representative is PT Selamet Trans
force, house of quality, Abadi, which has its headquarters in Pati City, Central Java. By considering the
the safety factor Safety Factor, House of Quality (HOQ), weight, shape, and seat support
dimensions, this study intends to ascertain how the characteristics of the bus
seat support form after receiving a load or force. Conducting a field visit to
gather the necessary data is the initial step in this research. The following stage
is to decide on the design criteria based on the collected data. Next, use
Solidwork to model the design. Using the Finite Element Method (FEM), this
program can investigate design characteristics. The loading simulation under
consideration includes clutch engagement, bus brake application, and clutch
engagement, whether the support is static or stationary. The validation with two
supporting journals is then run as the following step to validate the findings.
The constant chair support fulfills the typical value, according to the study's
findings, whereas support 1 is the most fracture-prone. The outcomes of
supports 2 and 3 demonstrate that the support strength is weak since it is
subjected to an unequal load.

1 Introduction

The safety of land transportation is one of the important topics to study. Many factors must be
considered because of economic interests and people's lives. As an illustration, in 2019, 116,411 land
transportation accidents occurred in Indonesia [1]. This figure is predicted to continue to increase until 2035
as the number of vehicles in operation increases [2]. This increase in the number of cars can be suppressed
by optimizing existing modes of mass transportation. It is anticipated that the number of private vehicle
users will decline, along with the accident rate. Buses are one of the mass forms of transportation that have
the potential to be developed in Indonesia because it is cheap, accessible, and tend to be more
environmentally friendly.

https://dx.doi.org/10.20961/mekanika.v22i1.44371

Revised 17 March 2023; received in revised version 20 March 2023; Accepted 21 March 2023
Available Online 31 March 2023

2579-3144
© 2023 Mekanika: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika. All right reserved 1
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

BPS-Statistic Indonesia defines a bus as a motor vehicle with more than eight passenger seats
weighing more than 3500 kg. Currently, there are thousands of buses (0.17% of the total active vehicles in
Indonesia) operating with thousands of passengers who must be carried around every day [1], [3].
Therefore, the safety of this mode of transportation needs to be carefully calculated. There are so many
aspects that affect the level of bus safety for passengers. The bus's technical performance and human error
influence some of these aspects. Poor bus performance, such as brake damage, structural failure, or engine
damage, can impact passenger safety. The human error factor is a driver who is not focused on working or
experiences fatigue when driving.

Along with the times, the technology installed in bus transportation has also been updated. This
update aims to improve the comfort and safety of bus passengers when traveling. Many aspects must be
updated, including the driver's seating position. The driver's role plays a crucial part on a bus. The comfort
of the passengers will be impacted regardless of how well-maintained the bus maybe if the driver is not at
ease. Positioning the driver's seat and its design and long-term comfort can influence that person's comfort.
Because the driver's ability to focus on driving will be impaired by fatigue, this will also put the passengers
in danger. Due to their inability to focus on the road conditions while tired, drivers are a significant factor
in many accidents [4]–[6]. One of the critical elements in the bus driver's seat comfort while operating the
vehicle is the layout of the driver's room. This part pertains to the ergonomic element, namely the arranging
position in vehicle design, specifically the link between humans and their work environment, the
instruments they use at work, and other factors related to work safety, efficiency, and effectiveness [7]. The
driver room layout differs between buses. They started with the style and design of the driver's seat,
legroom, backrest inclination, and seat support.

The Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approach was used in prior studies to redesign chairs [8],
[9]. By taking anthropometric measurements (adjusted for body shape) and analyzing how much value the
added value had on the chair redesign for the user, the study was conducted regarding the quality of the
chair and comfort. Many aspects still need to be modernized based on the outdated bus seat design,
particularly those that deal with seat support. This research involved revamping the support to create a
driver's seat support that is both safer and more comfortable for bus drivers considering safety factors and
House of Quality (HOQ) [10]–[12]. The Finite Element Method is used to implement Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) form to simulate different loading scenarios in this study. In addition, selecting
materials is one of the considerations that must be considered. The material used must be appropriate
because even if the design is good, but the material is wrong, the risk of failure will remain high.
2 Literature Review
Previous research on chair design optimization using FEM has been presented by [13]. The results
showed that a good chair design must be robust in accepting loading and have a relatively small mass. The
seat must be able to evenly distribute the load to each of its fulcrums. The safety factor must adjust to the
maximum load the chair can handle. Due to frequent limitations, proper seat balance will maintain the seat's
lifespan. Concerning the bus structure, the smaller the seated mass, the lighter the load the chassis will
receive [14]–[16]. The part that connects the seat with the chassis is called support. This part can be further
optimized to obtain the most suitable shape and size. Stress analysis using FEM makes it possible to see
the voltage distribution in this support part. Simulation can be carried out in various conditions that affect
the loading scenario. This method is considered more time efficient when compared to using the
experiential method directly [17].
The chair's shape should adjust to the posture of the human body. In this case, anthropometry is
needed so that the chair's design can comfort its users [8], [18]. A design that does not offer comfort will
make the user tired quickly. A static seat with a bus driver's seat has a different function. In stationary seats,
the only consideration is the force of gravity. However, the seats on the driver's bus receive more complex
loadings affected by the acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle. The angle of application modifies this
2
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

complicated force. An adjustable seat configuration is more advisable, changing the individual driver. More
specific research utilizing interview data from heterogeneous sources is essential.
3 Research Methods
3.1 Materials and Design
This research was conducted at PT Selamet Trans Abadi, Pati, Central Java - Indonesia. The first
step taken is to collect data through field observations. The observations, HOQ, and the VOC questionnaire
show that the chair support on the bus needs to be redesigned. Several design variations were then created
using SolidWorks 2019 Student Version software. The material used in this study was adjusted to the actual
conditions, namely AISI 1020, shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of AISI 1020 [19]
Material Tensile Strength Yield Strength Elastic Modulus Shear Modulus Elongation
AISI 1020 420 MPa 350 MPa 205 GPa 80 GPa 36.5%

3.2 Methods
The method used in this study has been validated using a benchmarking procedure with previous
research [20]. The variations of the chair supports were selected based on the survey results. These results
are used to see the user's response to the seat support form during testing to see which support is better.
After obtaining the actual shape dimension data, proceed with a simulation using the SolidWorks 2019
Student Version application. The simulation begins with modeling. The first step when making a model is
to sketch the supports using the sketch mode. Then after the sketch is complete, it is refined using methods
on features such as extrude and shell to shape the graphic into the actual shape of the support.
Furthermore, input settings are carried out, and we are in this phase; what is done is starting to add
a simulation mode to Solidworks. This mode will be used for running the simulation. The boundary
condition applied is to give a clamp on one side and then a force on the other, adjusted to the actual state.
This study discusses the support of using a pinch pedestal. The clamp support is to bolt the holes on the
supports to the base or walls in the bus's interior. So the fixed geometry setting was chosen on the
SolidWorks in the lower bolt hole, intending that the simulation resembles the actual conditions where the
seat supports are bolted to the bus's interior. The load on the supports of the upper seat frame and the driver
is also carried out. The giving of this burden is divided into three types. The first is the static load scenario,
in which loading happens as soon as the driver is seated. From top to bottom, loading condition (F) occurs
in the direction of the pedestal. The second condition is the load when stepping on the clutch. The pressure
exerted on five trials averages 30 Kg, converted to 294.2 N. These results are obtained by placing the scale
on the clutch and then stepping on the grip to determine how much force is needed to make the clutch shift
the transmission gears. The third condition is the load when applying the brakes, where when you step on
the brake pedal, there is a force that pushes the chair with a backward force and a forward force. The result
is a decrease in speed resulting in a pull from behind. In this study, a bus boundary condition with a 60
km/hour rate is given, then brakes within 100 m to a speed of 0 km/hour [14], [16]. After the simulation
with various loads, validation is followed by an analysis of the results and conclusions. Verification and
validation are done by comparing the simulation results from two settings to produce research objects.
4. Result and Discussion
A good driver seat design can provide comfort for the wearer but still has solid technical
specifications that accept the loading. Stress analysis using FEM has been taken to test whether the product
design meets the engineering requirements. The simulation is carried out by providing loading as described
in the research parameters. The bus driver's seat support simulation results will be displayed in graphs and
tables. The discussion is carried out by observing contour figures and comparing existing values.
3
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

4.1. Static Load Condition

Data can be obtained from testing static load conditions arranged in Table 2 and Figure 1. The
relationship between the loading weight and stress on each support has been identified.
Table 2. Stress results in static condition
Type Weight (Kg) Stress Result (MPa)
70 22.67
Uniform 95 30.79
120 38.87
70 60.35
Support 1 95 81.9
120 103.5
70 18.9
Support 2 95 25.7
120 32.5
70 5.3
Support 3 95 7.24
120 9.1

120
103,5
100 70 kg
81,9
Stress result (MPa)

80 95 kg
60,35
60 120 kg

38,87
40 30,79 32,5
22,67 25,7
18,9
20
5,3 7,24 9,1
0
Uniform Support 1 Support 2 Support 3
Type of Support

Figure 1. Simulation results in static load condition

Figure 1 shows that for all loads, both 70kg, 95kg, and 120kg, the three of them show that the result
of support 1 has the highest stress among other supports. Whereas for all loads, the tension of support 3
shows the smallest number. The pressure on support 1 is due to the bolt holes attached to the wall. This
phenomenon causes the load to be held more by the supports, the seats, and the bus driver. As for other
supports, the bolt holes are attached to the floor. Support 3 is the best because of the three loads; support
three still has the lowest tension. This result is due to the design of support 3, which can distribute the stress
more evenly than the other supports.
These results also illustrate that the four supports can still accept the load without fractures or fractures
in the chair supports. The standard value expected of support that can withstand the load or input stress is
4
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

taken from the three lowest data in the 45 MPa. Thus, the four supports still meet the FOS, where the
resulting von mises stress is not more than the yield strength so that the supports' shape, the supports'
position, and the load applied to the supports can affect the stress simulation resulting in the SolidWorks
2019 program.

4.2. Condition When Stepping on The Clutch

Based on the results of testing the load conditions when stepping on the clutch, data can be obtained,
which are then arranged in Table 3, then in Figure 2 shows the previously generated data in graphical form.

Table 3. Stress results when stepping on the clutch

Type Weight (Kg) Stress Result (MPa)
70 19.15
Uniform 95 27.26
120 35.35
70 60.6
Support 1 95 82.16
120 103.7
70 33.4
Support 2 95 39.8
120 46.2
70 9.77
Support 3 95 11.1
120 12.4

Table 3 shows the support characteristics due to gear displacement. Support 1 experiences the
maximum stress when compared to other types of support. However, this stress value is still in the elastic
area. This phenomenon means that this condition is relatively safe if the load imposed is relatively stable
at a certain period. What needs to be watched out for is the influence of the fatigue phenomenon on the
material. The design uses soft AISI 1020 material, where the risk of fatigue failure is still possible. Support
3 shows the best performance, where the stress that appears tends to be the least when compared to other
types. This small stress value is estimated to be below the material fatigue limit, so it is predicted that the
design will not fail under normal conditions. The human error factor is interesting to consider because each
driver has their style when driving a bus. Inexperienced drivers may shorten the life of components due to
mistakes when moving gears.

5
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

120
103,7
100 70 kg
82,16
Stress result (MPa)

80 95 kg

60,6
60 120 kg
46,2
39,8
40 35,35 33,4
27,6
19,15
20 9,77 11,1 12,4

0
Uniform Support 1 Support 2 Support 3
Type of Support

Figure 2. Simulation results in stepping on the clutch condition

Uniform and support type 2 have almost the same characteristics. The range of stress experienced by
these two types of support is relatively small. Both kinds of support show maximum stress at a load of 120
kg. However, the stress that arises is much smaller when compared to type 1 support. The uniform type,
support 2 and support 3 have pretty good performance and are worth considering.
4.3. The Condition When Applying the Brakes
Data can be obtained from testing static load conditions, which are then arranged in Table 4, then
Figure 3 shows the results in graphical form.
Table 4. Stress results when applying the brakes
Type Weight (Kg) Stress Result (MPa)
70 24.03
Uniform 95 32.98
120 41.9
70 60.9
Support 1 95 82.9
120 105
70 22.16
Support 2 95 30.64
120 39.1
70 5.77
Support 3 95 7.95
120 10.21

6
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

120
105
100 70 kg
82,9
Stress result (MPa)

80 95 kg
60,9
60 120 kg
41,9 39,1
40 32,98 30,64
24,03 22,16
20 5,77 10,21
7,95
0
Uniform Support 1 Support 2 Support 3
Type of Support

Figure 3. Simulation results in applying brakes condition

Based on the results shown in Figure 3, the increase in each support tends to be more consistent
compared to when under static load conditions and stepping on the clutch. This phenomenon is because the
direction of the load given when applying the brakes tends to be more evenly distributed. When the driver
applies the brakes, there is an inertial loading from the back. As can be seen, the supports can still hold the
chair's weight when it is simultaneously loaded from the front, rear, and above. Another factor that affects
is the shape of the support, which in testing the support coupling 2, experienced a drastic increase. This
condition is due to the body of support design 2, which makes it possible that if the loading is not balanced,
the load received by the supports will be more significant so that the stress results from the simulation will
experience a drastic increase.
4.4. Factor of Safety
A bus is a superstructure that combines a wide variety of more superficial structures. The safety factor
is one of the benchmarks for the strength of the design in receiving a load. Each section will give a different
response. Concerning stress, each nodal will have an additional value depending on the magnitude of the
force compared to the cross-sectional area. Safety factors will form contours because the distribution will
be diverse.
In comparison, the minimum distribution value of each design variation will be selected as its
performance benchmark. The suggested safety factor varies depending on the circumstance. A safety factor
of at least two is deemed adequate for static loads, but a much higher recommendation is needed for
dynamic and impact loads. At least a minimum safety factor of two to five is required to prevent the impact
load from causing failures in the structure. The simulation of the safety factor described in the parameters
can be used as a graph. Figure 4 demonstrates how the contour of support 2 is almost identical to the
constant support marketed generally. Due to its large size and shape compared to the other three supports,
support 3 has the highest safety factor. Support 1 has the lowest yield because the position of the clamp
support is on the wall and not on the bus floor, so the authorization's weight will also affect the stress result.
All types of support are safe in the face of existing static loads. However, the conditions will be very
different when there is a load impact or repeated load. Support 1 will experience a relatively dangerous
catastrophic failure.

7
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

25 23,6

20
Safety Factor

15

10
5,8 6,2
5 2,3

0
Uniform Support 1 Support 2 Support 3
Type of Support

Figure 4. Simulation result: safety factor

4.5. Von-Mises Stress Result
Figure 5 shows the von mises stress on the supports resulting from the simulation. These results are
of high value in certain sections due to differences in the dimensions of the supports, so the resulting stress
points vary. Figure 5 describes how each support distributes the incoming stress. The blue color description
explains that the support part receives the least stress. The interest in red represents the part of the support
with the highest value stress. The difference between most components that bear the heaviest loads, mainly
the bolt holes to the bus body, may be noticed more by expanding Figure 7.
a b

c d

Figure 5. Von mises stress results on support: (a) uniform; (b) support 1; (c) support 2; (d) support 3

8
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

In uniform supports, the bolt holes are subjected to internal tension when bolted to the bus floor.
Then support one shows the same stress when bolted to the bus wall. As a consequence of support 2, when
it is run against the floor, the pressure is more even in the bolt-hole area and less reaches the critical point
compared to constant support and support 1. This condition occurs due to the bolt holes on the support plate
affixed to the bus floor. Ladder 3 differs from the previous three supports in terms of its features. According
to the simulation results, pedestal 3 is under significantly less stress. Besides, it has similarities with support
2, with a few critical points around the bolt holes. This fact shows that in the actual conditions, as shown
in Figure 6, the bolt holes will experience corrosion faster because they are the clamp support of the seat
supports, which are the first to withstand the load when driving in any condition and position.

Figure 6. The actual condition of the support bolt hole after years of use

a b

c d

Figure 7. Magnification of the bolt hole of each support: (a) uniform; (b) support 1; (c) support 2; (d) support 3

9
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

The stress distribution in bolt holes shown in Figure 7 can be observed. This hole is directly
intersected with the bolt, which is assumed to be fixed support. The corner has a contour of red color,
indicating the occurrence of a stress concentration. The characteristic of fixed support is that it can channel
forces from various directions. This type of fulcrum makes the structure rigid so that the area closest to the
pedestal will receive both the action and the reaction forces. The contours of the blue color represent areas
that do not experience stress at all. This part will have the most extended life compared to where the stress
concentration occurs.
4.6. Driver Response Based on HOQ Data
The best way to find out the needs of drivers is to conduct an interview. Ergonomic and
anthropometric assessments for each individual showed different results. The data obtained is then
processed so that it can be interpreted objectively. Based on the questionnaire distributed to several drivers
about how the driver thought about each support, the following is the driver's response in the form of a
graph in Figure 8.

Modification Size Design Instalation

100
93 93 93
90 85
79 79
80 75 75
68 69
70 65 64
60
Value

50 47 46
41
40 36

30

20

10

0
Uniform Support 1 Support 2 Support 3

Figure 8. Importance of measuring HOQ value

According to the interviews with drivers, the most critical aspect of chair support design is the ease
of installation and little change in the initial setup. These aspects include production standards, support
strength, and support comfort. Aspects of size and design are not too crucial for drivers, so the priority of
drivers from seat support is the safety and comfort of seat support in helping the performance of driving a
bus. A poor design will quickly tire the driver, so they are not focused on working.
5. Conclusions
Based on studies conducted on the characteristics of the supports, it can be determined that:
1. Three types of testing with constant support produce the most consistent findings. As shown by the
lowest value is lower than the average. These findings indicate that the uniform supports have
complied with the required standard values.

10
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

2. Support 1 on three different test types demonstrates that the results are most susceptible to fracturing.
The bolt holes' location on the bus wall is significantly higher than the range value.
3. Because the supports were not evenly loaded, supports 2 and 3 on three different types of testing
displayed a sharp increase in stress.
4. Despite the findings of stable pressure showing that support is the best for spreading or distributing
stress, constant support is still the best support to utilize.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the RKAT PTNBH Universitas Sebelas Maret Year 2021, under the
Community Service Scheme of “Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Hibah Grup RIset" (PKM HGR-UNS),
with the grant/contract no. 261/UN27.22/HK.07.00/2021. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support.
References
1. BPS-Indonesia, Land Transportation Statistic 2020, 1st ed. Jakarta: BPS Indonesia, 2020.
2. A. Jusuf, I. P. Nurprasetio, and A. Prihutama, “Macro data analysis of traffic accidents in Indonesia,” J. Eng.
Technol. Sci., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 133–144, 2017.
3. I. N. Satrio Wicaksono, M. Rizka Faisal Rahman, Sandro Mihradi, “Finite element Analysis of Bus Rollover
Test in Accordance with UN ECE R66 Standard,” J. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 799–810, 2017.
4. W. Widiasih and H. Murnawan, “Penyusunan Konsep untuk Perancangan Produk Pot Portable dengan
Pendekatan Quality Function Deployment (QFD),” Tek. Ind., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 76–85, 2016.
5. L. Wang, Y. Wang, L. Shi, and H. Xu, “Analysis of risky driving behaviors among bus drivers in China: The
role of enterprise management, external environment and attitudes towards traffic safety,” Accid. Anal. Prev.,
vol. 168, no. 26, p. 106589, 2022.
6. A. T. James, D. Vaidya, M. Sodawala, and S. Verma, “Selection of bus chassis for large fleet operators in
India: An AHP-TOPSIS approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 186, no. April, p. 115760, 2021.
7. E. Suhendar and Suroto, “Penerapan Metode Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Dalam Upaya
Peningkatan Kualitas Pelayanan Akademik Pada UB,” Fakt. Exacta, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 372–386, 2014.
8. A. Agustina and I. Maulana, “Rancang Ulang Kursi Taman dengan Evaluasi Ergonomi Antropometri dan
Biomekanik,” Simp. Nas. RAPI XII, pp. 8–15, 2013.
9. Z. Arifin, D. D. D. P. Tjahjana, R. A. Rachmanto, S. Suyitno, S. D. Prasetyo, and T. Trismawati, “Redesign
Mata Bor Tanah Untuk Pembuatan Lubang Biopori Di Desa Puron, Kecamatan Bulu, Kabupaten
Sukoharjo,” Mek. Maj. Ilm. Mek., vol. 19, no. 2, p. 60, 2020.
10. Z. Arifin, S. D. Prasetyo, S. Suyitno, D. D. D. P. Tjahjana, R. A. Rachmanto, W. E. Juwana, C. H. B.
Apribowo, and T. Trismawati, “Rancang Bangun Alat Elliptical trainer Outdoor,” Mek. Maj. Ilm. Mek., vol.
19, no. 2, p. 104, 2020.
11. Z. Arifin, S. D. Prasetyo, T. Triyono, C. Harsito, and E. Yuniastuti, “Rancang Bangun Mesin Pencacah
Limbah Kotoran Sapi,” J. Rekayasa Mesin, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 187–197, 2020.
12. Z. Arifin, S. D. Prasetyo, U. Ubaidillah, S. Suyitno, D. D. D. P. Tjahjana, W. E. Juwana, R. A. Rachmanto,
and A. R. Prabowo, “Helmet Stick Design for BC3 Paramlympic Bocia Games,” Math. Model. Eng. Probl.,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 637–644, 2022.
13. S. Dahlan and R. A. N. Al Hakim, “Optimasi Desain Kursi Menggunakan Metode Elemen Hingga,”
ROTASI, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 160, 2018.
14. A. Kerebih Jembere, V. Paramasivam, S. Tilahun, and S. K. Selvaraj, “Stress analysis of different cross-
section for passenger truck chassis with a material of ASTM A148 Gr 80-50,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 46,
pp. 7304–7316, 2021.
15. S. Nandhakumar, S. Seenivasan, A. M. Saalih, and M. Saifudheen, “Weight optimization and structural
analysis of an electric bus chassis frame,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 37, no. Part 2, pp. 1824–1827, 2020.
16. R. Lopes, B. V. Farahani, F. Q. de Melo, N. V. Ramos, and P. M. G. P. Moreira, “A numerical dynamic
analysis of a multi-body bus,” Procedia Struct. Integr., vol. 37, no. C, pp. 81–88, 2021.
17. A. Sedmak, “Computational fracture mechanics: An overview from early efforts to recent achievements,”
Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 2438–2474, 2018.
18. T. Widodo, I. Fardiansyah, and A. Gufron, “Mendesain Meja Dan Kursi Ergonomi Dengan Mengacu Pada
Nilai Antropometri Untuk Bagian Checking Rubber (Outsole) Di {PT}. Victory Chingluh Indonesia,” J. Ind.
Manuf., vol. 6, no. 2, p. 123, 2021.
11
 Volume 22 (1) 2023

Joung Hyung Cho et al.

19. S. Dewangan, N. Mainwal, M. Khandelwal, and P. S. Jadhav, “Performance analysis of heat treated AISI
1020 steel samples on the basis of various destructive mechanical testing and microstructural behaviour,”
Aust. J. Mech. Eng., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 74–87, 2022.
20. A. Fajri, A. Rio, E. Surojo, and F. Imaduddin, “Validation and Verification of Fatigue Assessment using FE
Analysis : A Study Case on the Notched Cantilever Beam,” in IGF26 - 26th International Conference on
Fracture and Structural Integrity Validation, 2021.

12