Submitted:
16 October 2023
Posted:
17 October 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Work-part material, CNC machine and endmill cutter
2.2. Cutting conditions, machining environment and design of experiments
2.3. Measurement tool
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Signal-to Noise interpretation
3.2. ANOVA analysis and the impact of the factors
3.3. Response surface design (RSD) for Ra and the analysis of three-dimensional (3D) surface plots
3.3.1. Response surface design (RSD) for Ra
R2 = 99.71%
R2 = 97.84%
3.3.2. Analysis of three-dimensional (3D) surface plots
3.4. Response optimization using desirableness function evaluation
3.5. Confirmation experiment
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Nomenclature
| S/N | Signal-to-Noise |
| ANOM | Analysis of Mean |
| ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
| RSD | Response Surface Design |
| NEA | Nozzle Elevation Angle |
| Eq | Equation |
| Ra | Machined surface quality or surface roughness |
| FFD | Full factorial design |
| hr | hour |
| ml | milli-liter |
| HB | Brinell Hardness |
| CNC | Computer Numerical Control |
| MQL | Minimum Quantity Lubrication |
References
- Lee, Y.; Resiga, A.; Yi, S.; Wern, C. ; The Optimization of Machining Parameters for Milling Operations by Using the Nelder–Mead Simplex Method. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2020, 4, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mladen., B.; M., Budaka; CNC programming of pocket machining. 16th International Scientific Conference On Production Engineering - CIM 2017 2017. .
- Kariuki, L., W.; E. EIkua, B., W.; G. Nyakoe, N., N.; Generation and optimization of pocket miiling tool paths - A review. Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Sustainable Research and Innovation 2014. 5.
- Nisar, L.; Banday, B.; Amatullah, M.; Farooq, M.; Thoker, A.; Maqbool, A.; Wahid, M. An investigation on effect of process parameters on surface roughness and dimensional inaccuracy using Grey based Taguchi method. Materials Today: Proceedings 2021, 46, 6564–6569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayuti, M., A. Sarhan, A. D.; Salem, F. Novel uses of SiO2 nano-lubrication system in hard turning process of hardened steel AISI4140 for less tool wear, surface roughness and oil consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production 2014, 67, 265–276. [CrossRef]
- Sharma, V.; Rana, M.; Singh, T.; Singh, A.; Chattopadhyay, K. Multi-response optimization of process parameters using Desirability Function Analysis during machining of EN31 steel under different machining environments. Materials Today: Proceedings 2021, 44, 3121–3126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, V.; Singh, T.; Rana, M.; Singh, K. Multi-output optimization during MQL based face milling of EN-31 steel employing Taguchi coupled grey relational analysis. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022, 65, 3216–3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, M.; Singh, T.; Sharma, V.; Saini, A.; Singh, J. Optimization of surface integrity in face milling of AISI 52,100 alloy steel using Taguchi based grey relational analysis. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022, 50, 2105–2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masooth, P.; Jayakumar, V.; Bharathiraja, G. Experimental investigation on surface roughness in CNC end milling process by uncoated and TiAlN coated carbide end mill under dry conditions. Materials Today: Proceedings 2020, 22, 726–736. [Google Scholar]
- Rana, M.; Singh, T.; Saini, A.; Singh, J.; Sharma, V.; Singh, M.; Rooprai, R. Multi response optimization of nozzle process parameters in MQL assisted face milling of AISI 52,100 alloy steel using TGRA. Materials Today: Proceedings 2021, 44, 3177–3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, T.; Sharma, V.; Rana, M.; Saini, A.; Rooprai, R.; Singh, M. Multi response optimization of process variables in MQL assisted face milling of EN31 alloy steel using grey relational analysis. Materials Today: Proceedings 2021, 47, 4062–4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, V.; Singh, T.; Singh, K.; Rana, M.; Gehlot, A. Optimization of surface qualities in face milling of EN-31 employing hBN nanoparticles-based minimum quantity lubrication. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 69, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoudi, S.; Vafarda, A.; Hadad, M.; Jafarian, F. Experimental investigation into the effects of nozzle position, workpiece hardness, and tool type in MQL turning of AISI 1045 steel. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, L.; Yuan, S.; Liu, Q. Influence of Minimum Quantity Lubrication Parameters on Tool Wear and Surface Roughness in Milling of Forged Steel. CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, 2012, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.; Liu, Si.; Yan, Lutao.; Xiong, Q.; Experimental evaluation on the effect of the position of the nozzle in end milling under minimum quantity lubrication condition. Applied Mechanics and Materials 2012, 155–156, 42–46.
- Dubey, V.; Sharma, K.; Pimenov, D. Prediction of Surface Roughness Using Machine Learning Approach in MQL Turning of AISI 304 Steel by Varying Nanoparticle Size in the Cutting Fluid. lubricants 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, N.; Long, T.; Ngoc, T. Study of Effects of MoS2 Nanofluid MQL Parameters on Cutting Forces and Surface Roughness in Hard Turning Using CBN Insert. Fluids 2023, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, T.; Sharma, V.; Rana, M.; Singh, K.; Saini, A. GRA based optimization of tool vibration and surface roughness in face milling of hardened steel alloy. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022, 50, 2288–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salur, E. Understandings the tribological mechanism of Inconel 718 alloy machined under different cooling/lubrication conditions. Tribology International 2022, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, N.; Ganesh, M.; Srinivasan, D.; Gupta, M.; Korkmaz, M.; Krolczyk, J. Role of sustainable cooling/lubrication conditions in improving the tribological and machining characteristics of Monel-400 alloy. Tribology International 2022, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meher, J.; Nayak, B.; Panda, A.; Kumar, R.; Sahoo, A. Recent research development of CNC based milling machining conditions: A comprehensive review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 62, 3983–3989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meral, G.; Sarikaya, M.; Dilipak, H.; Seker, U. Multi-response Optimization of Cutting Parameters for Hole Quality in Drilling of AISI 1050 Steel. Arab J Sci Eng 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, N.; Yilmaz, M. Investigation of abrasive + erosive wear behaviour of surface hardening methods applied to AISI 1050 steel. Materials and Design 2004, 27, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karna, S.; Sahai, R. An Overview on Taguchi Method. International Journal of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, 2012, 1, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, W.; Tarng, Y. Design optimization of cutting parameters for turning operations based on the Taguchi method. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 1998, 84, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karna, S.; Singh, R.; Sahai, R. Application of Taguchi Method in Indian Industry. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 2012, 11. [Google Scholar]
- Derringer, G.; Suich, R. Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables. Journal of Quality Technology 1980, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sait, A.; Aravindan, S.; Haq, A. Optimisation of machining parameters of glass-fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) pipes by desirability function analysis using Taguchi technique. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2009, 43, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]










| %Weight | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | Si | Mn | Pmax | Smax | Cr | Mo | Ni |
| 0.533 | 0.293 | 0.883 | 0.04 | 0.012 | 0.255 | 0.098 | 0.183 |
| Test temperature | Ultimate tensile | 0.2% Yield (MPa) | % Elong | Hardness |
| (oC) | Strength (MPa) | |||
| Room | 690 | 365.4 | 23.7 | 197 |
| Parameters and unit | Value |
| Density (g / cm3) | 7.85 |
| Thermal conductivity (W / mK) | 49.8 |
| Elastic Modulus (GPa) | 190-210 |
| Special heat capacity (J / goC) | 0.486 |
| Melting (oC) | 1425 - 1540 |
| Machine Tool | CNC Vertical EMCOMAT FB450 MC |
| Tool Holder | DIN 69871 / SK40 |
| Endmill Cutter | SECO JS553, type: 553140Z3.0-SIRON-A |
| Depth of cut, d (mm) | 0.5 |
| Cutting Speed, Vc (m / min) | 110, 155, 200 |
| MQL surroundings | |
| +Air Pressure P, (bar) | 1, 2, 3 |
| +Lubricant flow rate, Q (ml / h) | 120, 180, 240 |
| +Lubricant used | Mineral oil |
| Circular Pocket Depth, CPD (mm) | 20 |
| Spraying Distance, SD (mm) | 35 |
| Nozzle Elevation Angle, NEA (Degrees) | 30o, 45o, 60o |
| Exp.no | Coded value | Actual value | ||||||
| A | B | C | D | Vc (m/min) | P (bar) | Q (ml/hr) | NEA (degrees) | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 110 | 1 | 120 | 30o |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 110 | 2 | 180 | 45o |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 110 | 3 | 240 | 60o |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 155 | 1 | 180 | 60o |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 155 | 2 | 240 | 30o |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 155 | 3 | 120 | 45o |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 200 | 1 | 240 | 45o |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 200 | 2 | 120 | 60o |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 200 | 3 | 180 | 30o |
|
Exp. no |
Coded values | Actual values | Measured parameters | |||||||||||||
| A | B | C | D | Vc | P | Q | NEA | Surface roughness (μm) | ||||||||
| Reading | Average | S/N ratios | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 110 | 1 | 120 | 30o | 0.273 | 0.331 | 0.213 | 0.351 | 0.391 | 0.3118 | 10.1225 | |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 110 | 2 | 180 | 45o | 0.247 | 0.226 | 0.311 | 0.196 | 0.271 | 0.2502 | 12.0343 | |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 110 | 3 | 240 | 60o | 0.331 | 0.265 | 0.219 | 0.355 | 0.580 | 0.3500 | 9.1186 | |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 155 | 1 | 180 | 60o | 0.228 | 0.547 | 0.283 | 0.190 | 0.213 | 0.2922 | 10.6864 | |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 155 | 2 | 240 | 30o | 0.232 | 0.197 | 0.112 | 0.285 | 0.223 | 0.2098 | 13.5639 | |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 155 | 3 | 120 | 45o | 0.202 | 0.191 | 0.234 | 0.469 | 0.366 | 0.2924 | 10.6805 | |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 200 | 1 | 240 | 45o | 0.346 | 0.271 | 0.315 | 0.483 | 0.403 | 0.3636 | 8.7875 | |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 200 | 2 | 120 | 60o | 0.386 | 0.485 | 0.334 | 0.391 | 0.402 | 0.3996 | 7.9675 | |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 200 | 3 | 180 | 30o | 0.256 | 0.277 | 0.219 | 0.204 | 0.221 | 0.2354 | 12.5639 | |
|
Exp. no |
Coded values | Actual values | Measured parameters | ||||||||||||
| A | B | C | D | Vc | P | Q | NEA | Surface roughness (μm) | |||||||
| Reading | Average | S/N ratios | |||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 110 | 1 | 120 | 30o | 0.284 | 0.422 | 0.404 | 0.326 | 0.376 | 0.3624 | 8.8162 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 110 | 2 | 180 | 45o | 0.576 | 0.525 | 0.597 | 0.217 | 0.668 | 0.5166 | 5.7369 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 110 | 3 | 240 | 60o | 0.467 | 0.712 | 0.338 | 0.321 | 0.952 | 0.5580 | 5.0673 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 155 | 1 | 180 | 60o | 0.387 | 0.585 | 0.594 | 0.535 | 0.480 | 0.5162 | 5.7436 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 155 | 2 | 240 | 30o | 0.373 | 0.397 | 0.396 | 0.606 | 0.312 | 0.4168 | 7.6014 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 155 | 3 | 120 | 45o | 0.409 | 0.527 | 0.367 | 0.341 | 0.613 | 0.4514 | 6.9088 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 200 | 1 | 240 | 45o | 0.270 | 0.737 | 0.512 | 0.784 | 0.293 | 0.5192 | 5.6933 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 200 | 2 | 120 | 60o | 0.367 | 0.471 | 0.510 | 0.847 | 0.758 | 0.5906 | 4.5741 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 200 | 3 | 180 | 30o | 0.279 | 0.221 | 0.558 | 0.175 | 0.217 | 0.2900 | 10.7520 |
| Level | Factors | Level | Factors | |||||||
| Vc | P | Q | NEA | Vc | P | Q | NEA | |||
| 1 | 10.425 | 9.865 | 9.590 | 12.083 | 1 | 0.3040 | 0.3225 | 0.3346 | 0.2523 | |
| 2 | 11.644 | 11.189 | 11.762 | 10.501 | 2 | 0.2648 | 0.2865 | 0.2593 | 0.3021 | |
| 3 | 9.773 | 10.788 | 10.490 | 9.258 | 3 | 0.3329 | 0.2926 | 0.3078 | 0.3473 | |
| Delta | 1.871 | 1.323 | 2.171 | 2.826 | Delta | 0.0681 | 0.0360 | 0.0753 | 0.0949 | |
| Rank | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Rank | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| Level | Factors | Level | Factors | |||||||
| Vc | P | Q | NEA | Vc | P | Q | NEA | |||
| 1 | 6.540 | 6.751 | 6.766 | 9.057 | 1 | 0.4790 | 0.4659 | 0.4681 | 0.3564 | |
| 2 | 6.751 | 5.971 | 7.411 | 6.113 | 2 | 0.4615 | 0.5080 | 0.4409 | 0.4957 | |
| 3 | 7.006 | 7.576 | 6.121 | 5.128 | 3 | 0.4666 | 0.4331 | 0.4980 | 0.5549 | |
| Delta | 0.466 | 1.605 | 1.290 | 3.928 | Delta | 0.0175 | 0.0749 | 0.0571 | 0.1985 | |
| Rank | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | Rank | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| No. | Factors | Mean of S/N ratio in correspondence with response value at the valuable levels | Mean | Max (1,2,3) | Max - Mean |
Contribution % |
Delta | Rank | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
| 1 | Vc (m/min) | 10.4251 | 11.6435 | 9.7729 | 10.6138 | 11.6435 | 1.0296 | 24.39 | 1.8706 | 3 |
| 2 | P (bar) | 9.8654 | 11.1885 | 10.7876 | 10.6138 | 11.1885 | 0.5746 | 13.61 | 1.3231 | 4 |
| 3 | Q (ml / hr) | 9.5901 | 11.7614 | 10.4899 | 10.6138 | 11.7614 | 1.1476 | 27.19 | 2.1713 | 2 |
| 4 | NEA (degrees) | 12.0833 | 10.5007 | 9.2574 | 10.6138 | 12.0833 | 1.4695 | 34.81 | 2.8259 | 1 |
| No. | Factors | Mean of S/N ratio in correspondence with response value at the valuable levels | Mean | Max (1,2,3) | Max - Mean |
Contribution % |
Delta | Rank | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
| 1 | Vc (m/min) | 6.5401 | 6.7512 | 7.0064 | 6.7659 | 7.0064 | 0.2405 | 6.03 | 0.4663 | 4 |
| 2 | P (bar) | 6.7510 | 5.9708 | 7.5760 | 6.7659 | 7.5760 | 0.8101 | 20.32 | 1.6052 | 2 |
| 3 | Q (ml / hr) | 6.7663 | 7.4108 | 6.1206 | 6.7659 | 7.4108 | 0.6449 | 16.18 | 1.2902 | 3 |
| 4 | NEA (degrees) | 9.0565 | 6.1129 | 5.1283 | 6.7659 | 9.0565 | 2.2906 | 57.47 | 3.9282 | 1 |
| No. | MQL and cutting speed factors | Coded factors | The recorded and measured surface roughness results (μm) |
Average Ra (μm) |
||||||||||
| Vc (m/min) |
P (bar) |
Q (ml / hr) |
NEA (degrees) |
x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | Ra1 | Ra2 | Ra3 | Ra4 | Ra5 | ||
| 1 | 110 | 1 | 120 | 30o | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0.273 | 0.331 | 0.213 | 0.351 | 0.391 | 0.3118 |
| 2 | 110 | 2 | 180 | 45o | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.247 | 0.226 | 0.311 | 0.196 | 0.271 | 0.2502 |
| 3 | 110 | 3 | 240 | 60o | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.331 | 0.265 | 0.219 | 0.355 | 0.580 | 0.3500 |
| 4 | 155 | 1 | 180 | 60o | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0.228 | 0.547 | 0.283 | 0.190 | 0.213 | 0.2922 |
| 5 | 155 | 2 | 240 | 30o | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0.232 | 0.197 | 0.112 | 0.285 | 0.223 | 0.2098 |
| 6 | 155 | 3 | 120 | 45o | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0.202 | 0.191 | 0.234 | 0.469 | 0.366 | 0.2924 |
| 7 | 200 | 1 | 240 | 45o | 1 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0.346 | 0.271 | 0.315 | 0.483 | 0.403 | 0.3636 |
| 8 | 200 | 2 | 120 | 60o | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0.386 | 0.485 | 0.334 | 0.391 | 0.402 | 0.3996 |
| 9 | 200 | 3 | 180 | 30o | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0.256 | 0.277 | 0.219 | 0.204 | 0.221 | 0.2354 |
| 10 | 155 | 2 | 180 | 45o | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.292 | 0.205 | 0.190 | 0.198 | 0.216 | 0.2202 |
| 11 | 155 | 2 | 180 | 45o | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.360 | 0.202 | 0.192 | 0.221 | 0.202 | 0.2354 |
| No. | MQL and cutting speed factors | Coded factors | The recorded and measured surface roughness results (μm) |
Average Ra (μm) |
||||||||||
| Vc (m/min) |
P (bar) |
Q (ml / hr) |
NEA (degrees) |
x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | Ra1 | Ra2 | Ra3 | Ra4 | Ra5 | ||
| 1 | 110 | 1 | 120 | 30o | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | 0.284 | 0.422 | 0.404 | 0.326 | 0.376 | 0.3624 |
| 2 | 110 | 2 | 180 | 45o | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.576 | 0.525 | 0.597 | 0.217 | 0.668 | 0.5166 |
| 3 | 110 | 3 | 240 | 60o | -1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.467 | 0.712 | 0.338 | 0.321 | 0.952 | 0.5580 |
| 4 | 155 | 1 | 180 | 60o | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0.387 | 0.585 | 0.594 | 0.535 | 0.480 | 0.5162 |
| 5 | 155 | 2 | 240 | 30o | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0.373 | 0.397 | 0.396 | 0.606 | 0.312 | 0.4168 |
| 6 | 155 | 3 | 120 | 45o | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0.409 | 0.527 | 0.367 | 0.341 | 0.613 | 0.4514 |
| 7 | 200 | 1 | 240 | 45o | 1 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0.270 | 0.737 | 0.512 | 0.784 | 0.293 | 0.5192 |
| 8 | 200 | 2 | 120 | 60o | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0.367 | 0.471 | 0.510 | 0.847 | 0.758 | 0.5906 |
| 9 | 200 | 3 | 180 | 30o | 1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0.279 | 0.221 | 0.558 | 0.175 | 0.217 | 0.2900 |
| 10 | 155 | 2 | 180 | 45o | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.869 | 0.441 | 0.302 | 0.517 | 0.255 | 0.4768 |
| 11 | 155 | 2 | 180 | 45o | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.116 | 0.359 | 0.246 | 0.522 | 0.435 | 0.5356 |
| Response | Object. | Optimum Conditions | Lower | Target | Upper | Weights | Import. | Predicted | Desirability | |||
| Vc (m/min) | P (bar) | Q (ml/hr) |
NEA (degrees) |
|||||||||
|
Ra (Up-milling) |
Min. | 143.636 | 2.3333 | 184.242 | 30 | 0.2098 | 0.2098 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.1555 | 1 |
|
Ra (Down-milling) |
Min. | 162.727 | 3 | 164.848 | 30 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.2818 | 1 |
| No. | Vc (m/min) | P (bar) | Q (ml/hr) | NEA (degrees) | Experimental Result |
RSD predicted | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface Roughness for Up-milling side | |||||||
| 1 | Vc2, P2, Q2, NEA1 (Taguchi) | 155 | 2 | 180 | 30 | 0.1612 | |
| 2 | Vc, P, Q, NEA (Predicted optimum values from RSD) | 143.6364 | 2.3333 | 184.2424 | 30 | 0.1555 | |
| Surface Roughness for Down-milling side | |||||||
| 1 | Vc3, P3, Q2, NEA1 (Taguchi) | 200 | 3 | 180 | 30 | 0.2900 | |
| 2 | Vc, P, Q, NEA (Predicted optimum values from RSD) | 162.7273 | 3 | 164.8485 | 30 | 0.2818 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).