## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**MC, \%** & **Angle, \({}^{\circ}\)** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Specific Cutting Energy \(E_{H}\), mJ\(\cdot\)mm\({}^{-2}\)**} & **CV \({}^{*}\)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Mean**} & **Min \({}^{*}\)** & **Max \({}^{*}\)** & **SD \({}^{*}\)** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{46.30} & 0 & 35.70 & 26.54 & 53.33 & 7.95 & 22.21 \\  & 15 & 31.68 & 22.80 & 41.45 & 6.22 & 19.62 \\  & 30 & 35.64 & 22.87 & 46.37 & 8.03 & 22.53 \\  & 45 & 41.05 & 22.62 & 58.63 & 12.25 & 29.84 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{37.05} & 0 & 69.89 & 59.17 & 90.84 & 11.85 & 16.95 \\  & 15 & 75.51 & 62.66 & 89.60 & 7.40 & 9.80 \\  & 30 & 76.37 & 56.72 & 107.02 & 16.58 & 21.70 \\  & 45 & 63.05 & 54.74 & 67.81 & 3.82 & 6.06 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{25.43} & 0 & 70.77 & 62.72 & 80.57 & 6.01 & 8.49 \\  & 15 & 76.72 & 70.19 & 89.66 & 6.49 & 8.46 \\  & 30 & 63.56 & 55.07 & 76.92 & 7.57 & 11.91 \\  & 45 & 62.27 & 48.77 & 76.07 & 8.04 & 12.91 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{15.21} & 0 & 80.05 & 58.46 & 95.34 & 13.40 & 16.74 \\  & 15 & 76.63 & 66.31 & 85.09 & 5.33 & 6.95 \\  & 30 & 92.33 & 77.89 & 106.54 & 10.03 & 10.86 \\  & 45 & 81.82 & 66.38 & 97.52 & 11.40 & 13.93 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1.35} & 0 & 61.85 & 56.09 & 72.70 & 5.74 & 9.28 \\  & 15 & 72.30 & 64.27 & 83.47 & 5.73 & 7.92 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 30 & 99.88 & 85.14 & 110.92 & 8.68 & 8.69 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 45 & 78.11 & 73.07 & 85.46 & 3.77 & 4.83 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)CV—Coefficient of variation; SD—Standard definition; Min—Minimum value; Max—Maximum value.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Specific cutting energy \(E_{H}\) values obtained. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Factor** & **Sum of Square** & **Degree of Freedom** & **Mean Square** & **F\({}_{emp}\); F-Ratio** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Shear stress \(\tau_{t}\)} & MC: moisture content & 277.53 & 4 & 69.38 & 52.02 & \textless{}0.0001 \\  & A: angle & 647.11 & 3 & 215.70 & 161.73 & \textless{}0.0001 \\  & MC \(\times\) A & 375.73 & 12 & 31.31 & 23.48 & \textless{}0.0001 \\  & Error & 240.07 & 180 & 1.33 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Specific cutting energy \(E_{j}\)} & MC: moisture content & 53,842.1 & 4 & 13,460.5 & 168.80 & \textless{}0.0001 \\  & A: angle & 2880.5 & 3 & 950.2 & 11.92 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & MC \(\times\) A & 9176.9 & 12 & 764.7 & 9.59 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Error & 14,353.8 & 180 & 79.7 & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of analysis of variation of shear stresses \(\tau_{t}\) and specific cutting unit energy \(E_{j}\) for willow plant stems. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Shear Stress \(\tau_{t}\)**} \\ \hline
**Moisture Content \(MC\), \%** & **Sample Size** & **Mean, \%** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Homogeneous Groups**} \\
**Group I** & **Group II** & **Group III** & **Group IV** \\ \hline  
\(\times\) & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Division of shear stress \(\tau_{t}\) and specific cutting energy (\(E_{\mu}\)) values into homogeneous groups based on moisture content (\(MC\)) and sliding-cutting angle (\(A\)). Figure 5: Shear stress \(\tau\)t of window stems as a function of moisture content and sliding-cutting angle. The findings indicate that the specific cutting energy values for willow stems vary significantly depending on their moisture content and the sliding-cutting angle. To provide a generalised understanding of the factors affecting specific cutting energy in willow stems and to enable its prediction, it was necessary to develop a mathematical relationship. To make the cutting energy model as reliable as possible, variables were introduced that were strongly correlated with the dependent variable, i.e., moisture content and the sliding-cutting angle, and at the same time as little correlated with each other as possible.