## 3 Results
### Effect of Cutting Direction in Playwood  
The effect of cutting direction on AWJ lag for plywood is shown in Table 6. The results show no significant differences when the cutting direction was changed from longitudinal to transverse. Multivariate variance analysis also confirmed this effect as statistically insignificant. Therefore, cutting direction need not be prioritized in optimizing the AWJ cutting process for plywood. However, it is essential to note that for specific applications or materials, the cut direction could have a more substantial effect. When optimizing cutting parameters for specific applications, it is essential to analyze individual factors separately while considering their interactions, as suggested by [PERSON] et al. [39]. For example, the combination of material thickness and traverse speed can significantly affect both cutting quality and the economic efficiency of the process. This study aligns with the previous study [40], confirming the significant influence of critical parameters such as abrasive mass flow rate, traverse speed, and material thickness on AWJ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cutting Direction**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Lagging AWJ (um)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Average Value (um)** & **Standard Error (um)** & **\(-\)95.00\% (um)** & **+95.00\% (um)** \\ \hline longitudinal & 1066.52 & 2.129 & 1024.43 & 1108.62 \\ \hline transverse & 1062.28 & 2.129 & 1020.18 & 1104.37 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: AWJ lagging regarding the cutting direction in plywood. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Abrasive Flow (g/min)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**AWJ Lagging (um)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Average Value (um)** & **Standard Error (um)** & **\(-\)95.00\% (um)** & **+95.00\% (um)** \\ \hline
250 & 1067.12 & 2.608 & 1015.56 & 1118.67 \\ \hline
350 & 1010.60 & 2.608 & 959.04 & 1062.16 \\ \hline
450 & 1115.48 & 2.608 & 1063.93 & 1167.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Average values of AWJ lagging for various abrasive mass flow rates. cutting quality. However, notable differences emerged regarding the impact of cutting direction, which was found to be insignificant for plywood. This may be due to the specific properties of this material. Additional literature [40; 41; 42; 43; 44] highlighted that the surface quality is a crucial aspect of hydro abrasive cutting, influenced by the adjustment of parameters. The focus on surface quality and the development of topographic functions during this process is a very current and widely discussed topic. The surface quality is a crucial factor not only for cutting efficiency but also for the subsequent material processing. Various parameters, such as traverse speed, abrasive flow, or water jet pressure, significantly influence the surface quality. Therefore, optimizing these settings is essential, as well as accounting for material-specific factors that can affect the cutting surface. Current research focuses on surface topography to find optimal cutting parameters for achieving a high-quality cut while minimizing defects such as rough edges or burrs. This issue is gaining importance with the growing industry demands for precision and quality of cut products. Approximate Cost Overview:  
At an operating pressure of 400 MPa, the high-pressure pump typically requires a power input of around 30-40 kW, which, at a feed rate of 50 mm/min, results in an energy consumption of approximately 10-12 kWh per meter of cut. Abrasive consumption (e.g., garnet) ranges from 0.2-0.4 kg/min, which equates to about 4-8 kg per meter of cut, depending on the abrasive flow rate settings. Given a market price for garnet of approximately EUR 0.8-1.2 per kg, the material costs for abrasive can reach EUR 3-8 per meter of cut.