Home Marathon runner algorithm: theory and application in mathematical, mechanical and structural optimization problems
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Marathon runner algorithm: theory and application in mathematical, mechanical and structural optimization problems

  • Ali Mortazavi

    Dr. Ali Mortazavi currently holds the position of Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, Izmir Democracy University, Izmir, Turkey. He earned his PhD degree from the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences at Ege University. His main interest is about the machine learning and optimization techniques developments and application in civil engineering. Throughout his career, he has conducted research projects, authored research papers for both high quality national and international journals and delivered presentations at various conferences.

     EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: May 23, 2024
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Materials Testing
From the journal Materials Testing Volume 66 Issue 8

Abstract

This study proposes a novel human-inspired metaheuristic search algorithm called marathon runner algorithm. This method mimics competitive behaviors observed in real marathon runners through mathematical modeling. Unlike classical elitist algorithms that prioritize position of the best agent, the marathon runner algorithm introduces a novel concept called vision point. This point considers the quality of the entire population, not just the leader. By guiding the population towards vision point, the risk of getting trapped in local optima is reduced. A two-part evaluation was conducted to thoroughly assess the search capabilities of the marathon runner algorithm. First, it is tested against a set of unconstrained benchmark mathematical functions and the algorithm’s quantitative attributes, such as complexity, accuracy, stability, diversity, sensitivity, and convergence rate are analyzed. Subsequently, the algorithm was applied to mechanical and structural optimization problems with both continuous and discrete variables. This application demonstrated the effectiveness of the algorithm in solving practical engineering challenges with constraints. The outcomes are compared with those obtained by six other well-established techniques. The obtained results indicate that the marathon runner algorithm yields promising and competitive solutions for both mathematical, mechanical, and structural problems.

Keywords: optimization techniques; metaheuristic algorithms; constrained optimization problems; unconstrained optimization problems; discrete and continuous variables
Corresponding author: Ali Mortazavi, Civil Engineering Department, Izmir Democracy University, Izmir, Turkey, E-mail:

About the author

Ali Mortazavi

Dr. Ali Mortazavi currently holds the position of Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, Izmir Democracy University, Izmir, Turkey. He earned his PhD degree from the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences at Ege University. His main interest is about the machine learning and optimization techniques developments and application in civil engineering. Throughout his career, he has conducted research projects, authored research papers for both high quality national and international journals and delivered presentations at various conferences.

  1. Research ethics: Not applicable.

  2. Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: The author states no conflict of interest.

  4. Research funding: None declared.

  5. Data availability: Not applicable.

References

[1] S. Koziel and X. S. Yang, Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2011.10.1007/978-3-642-20859-1Search in Google Scholar

[2] J. S. Arora, Introduction to Optimum Design, 4th ed., Boston, Academic Press, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[3] A. Mortazavi, “A fuzzy reinforced Jaya algorithm for solving mathematical and structural optimization problems,” Soft Comput., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2181–2206, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09206-5.Search in Google Scholar

[4] E. C. Kandemir and A. Mortazavi, “Optimization of seismic base isolation system using a fuzzy reinforced swarm intelligence,” Adv. Eng. Software, vol. 174, 2022, Art. no. 103323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2022.103323.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Z. Meng, B. S. Yıldız, G. Li, C. Zhong, S. Mirjalili, and A. R. Yildiz, “Application of state-of-the-art multiobjective metaheuristic algorithms in reliability-based design optimization: a comparative study,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., vol. 66, no. 8, p. 191, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-023-03639-0.Search in Google Scholar

[6] P. Mehta, S. M. Sait, B. S. Yıldız, M. U. Erdaş, M. Kopar, and A. R. Yıldız, “A new enhanced mountain gazelle optimizer and artificial neural network for global optimization of mechanical design problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 544–552, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0332.Search in Google Scholar

[7] B. S. Yıldız, et al.., “A novel hybrid arithmetic optimization algorithm for solving constrained optimization problems,” Knowl. Base. Syst., vol. 271, 2023, Art. no. 110554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110554.Search in Google Scholar

[8] P. Mehta, B. S. Yildiz, S. M. Sait, and A. R. Yildiz, “A novel hybrid Fick’s law algorithm-quasi oppositional–based learning algorithm for solving constrained mechanical design problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 1817–1825, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0235.Search in Google Scholar

[9] S. Kumar, et al.., “Chaotic marine predators algorithm for global optimization of real-world engineering problems,” Knowl. Base. Syst., vol. 261, 2023, Art. no. 110192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110192.Search in Google Scholar

[10] A. Mortazavi, “The performance comparison of three metaheuristic algorithms on the size, layout and topology optimization of truss structures,” J. Sci. Technol., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 28–41, 2019. https://doi.org/10.22531/muglajsci.593482.Search in Google Scholar

[11] M. Moloodpoor, A. Mortazavi, and N. Ozbalta, “Thermal analysis of parabolic trough collectors via a swarm intelligence optimizer,” Sol. Energy, vol. 181, pp. 264–275, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.02.008.Search in Google Scholar

[12] I. Ahmadianfar, O. Bozorg-Haddad, and X. Chu, “Gradient-based optimizer: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm,” Inf. Sci., vol. 540, pp. 131–159, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.037.Search in Google Scholar

[13] F. Mendi, T. Baskal, and M. K. Külekci, “Application of genetic algorithm (GA) for optimum design of module, shaft diameter and bearing for bevel gearbox,” Mater. Test., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 431–436, 2012. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.110349.Search in Google Scholar

[14] H. Liu, S. Duan, and H. Luo, “A hybrid engineering algorithm of the seeker algorithm and particle swarm optimization,” Mater. Test., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1051–1089, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2021-2138.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Z. Meng, Q. Qian, M. Xu, B. Yu, A. R. Yıldız, and S. Mirjalili, “PINN-FORM: a new physics-informed neural network for reliability analysis with partial differential equation,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 414, 2023, Art. no. 116172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2023.116172.Search in Google Scholar

[16] M. Kopar, A. R. Yıldız, and B. S. Yıldız, “Optimum design of a composite drone component using slime mold algorithm,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 1857–1864, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0245.Search in Google Scholar

[17] M. U. Erdaş, M. Kopar, B. S. Yildiz, and A. R. Yildiz, “Optimum design of a seat bracket using artificial neural networks and dandelion optimization algorithm,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 1767–1775, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0201.Search in Google Scholar

[18] P. Champasak, N. Panagant, N. Pholdee, S. Bureerat, P. Rajendran, and A. R. Yildiz, “Grid-based many-objective optimiser for aircraft conceptual design with multiple aircraft configurations,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 126, no. B, 2023, Art. no. 106951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106951.Search in Google Scholar

[19] N. Sabangban, et al.., “Simultaneous aerodynamic and structural optimisation of a low-speed horizontal-axis wind turbine blade using metaheuristic algorithms,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 699–714, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2022-0308.Search in Google Scholar

[20] B. S. Yildiz, et al.., “A novel hybrid flow direction optimizer-dynamic oppositional based learning algorithm for solving complex constrained mechanical design problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 134–143, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2022-0183.Search in Google Scholar

[21] P. Mehta, et al.., “A novel generalized normal distribution optimizer with elite oppositional based learning for optimization of mechanical engineering problems,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 210–223, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2022-0259.Search in Google Scholar

[22] D. Gürses, P. Mehta, S. M. Sait, S. Kumar, and A. R. Yildiz, “A multi-strategy boosted prairie dog optimization algorithm for global optimization of heat exchangers,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 1396–1404, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0082.Search in Google Scholar

[23] A. Yildirim, E. Demirci, S. Karagöz, Ş. Özcan, and A. R. Yildiz, “Experimental and numerical investigation of crashworthiness performance for optimal automobile structures using response surface methodology and oppositional based learning differential evolution algorithm,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 346–363, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2022-0304.Search in Google Scholar

[24] M. Kopar and A. R. Yildiz, “Composite disc optimization using hunger games search optimization algorithm,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1222–1229, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0067.Search in Google Scholar

[25] S. M. Sait, P. Mehta, D. Gürses, and A. R. Yildiz, “Cheetah optimization algorithm for optimum design of heat exchangers,” Mater. Test., vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1230–1236, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0015.Search in Google Scholar

[26] C. M. Aye, et al.., “Airfoil shape optimisation using a multi-fidelity surrogate-assisted metaheuristic with a new multi-objective infill sampling technique,” CMES-Comput. Model. Eng. Sci., vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 2111–2128, 2023. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.028632.Search in Google Scholar

[27] S. Anosri, et al.., “A comparative study of state-of-the-art metaheuristics for solving many-objective optimization problems of fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicle conceptual design,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3657–3671, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-023-09914-z.Search in Google Scholar

[28] J. H. Holland, “Genetic algorithms and adaptation,” in Adaptive Control of Ill-Defined Systems, O. G. Selfridge, E. L. Rissland, and M. A. Arbib, Eds., Boston, MA, Springer US, 1984, pp. 317–333.10.1007/978-1-4684-8941-5_21Search in Google Scholar

[29] I. Rechenberg, “Evolutionsstrategien,” in Simulationsmethoden in der Medizin und Biologie, B. Schneider, and U. Ranft, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1978, pp. 83–114.10.1007/978-3-642-81283-5_8Search in Google Scholar

[30] B. Javidy, A. Hatamlou, and S. Mirjalili, “Ions motion algorithm for solving optimization problems,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 32, pp. 72–79, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.035.Search in Google Scholar

[31] V. K. Patel and V. J. Savsani, “Heat transfer search (HTS): a novel optimization algorithm,” Inf. Sci., vol. 324, pp. 217–246, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.044.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Y.-J. Zheng, “Water wave optimization: a new nature-inspired metaheuristic,” Comput. Oper. Res., vol. 55, pp. 1–11, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.10.008.Search in Google Scholar

[33] A. Baykasoğlu and Ş. Akpinar, “Weighted Superposition Attraction (WSA): a swarm intelligence algorithm for optimization problems – Part 2: constrained optimization,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 37, pp. 396–415, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.08.052.Search in Google Scholar

[34] A. F. Nematollahi, A. Rahiminejad, and B. Vahidi, “A novel meta-heuristic optimization method based on golden ratio in nature,” Soft Comput., vol. 24, pp. 1117–1151, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03949-w.Search in Google Scholar

[35] F. Glover, “Tabu search – Part I,” ORSA J. Comput., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 190–206, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.1.3.190.Search in Google Scholar

[36] R. V. Rao, V. J. Savsani, and D. P. Vakharia, “Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems,” Comput. Aided Des., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 303–315, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015.Search in Google Scholar

[37] K. S. Lee and Z. W. Geem, “A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering optimization: harmony search theory and practice,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 194, no. 36, pp. 3902–3933, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.09.007.Search in Google Scholar

[38] S.-C. Chu, T.-T. Wang, A. Riza Yildiz, and J.-S. Pan, “Ship rescue optimization: a new metaheuristic algorithm for solving engineering problems,” J. Internet Technol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 61–78, 2024. https://doi.org/10.53106/160792642024012501006.Search in Google Scholar

[39] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Neural Networks, 1995 Proceedings, IEEE International Conference, vol. 4, Perth, WA, IEEE Xplore, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968Search in Google Scholar

[40] M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, and A. Colorni, “Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B Cybern., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 29–41, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1109/3477.484436.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] X.-S. Yang, “Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization,” in Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and Applications, O. Watanabe, and T. Zeugmann, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 169–178.10.1007/978-3-642-04944-6_14Search in Google Scholar

[42] M.-Y. Cheng and D. Prayogo, “Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm,” Comput. Struct., vol. 139, pp. 98–112, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.03.007.Search in Google Scholar

[43] K. N. Das and T. K. Singh, “Drosophila food-search optimization,” Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 231, pp. 566–580, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.01.040.Search in Google Scholar

[44] M. S. Gonçalves, R. H. Lopez, and L. F. F. Miguel, “Search group algorithm: a new metaheuristic method for the optimization of truss structures,” Comput. Struct., vol. 153, pp. 165–184, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.03.003.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Y.-C. Liang and J. R. Cuevas Juarez, “A novel metaheuristic for continuous optimization problems: virus optimization algorithm,” Eng. Optim., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 73–93, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2014.994868.Search in Google Scholar

[46] S. Arora and S. Singh, “Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel approach for global optimization,” Soft Comput., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 715–734, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3102-4.Search in Google Scholar

[47] D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, “No free lunch theorems for optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–82, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893.Search in Google Scholar

[48] J. Anderson, “A million monkeys and Shakespeare,” Significance, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 190–192, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00533.x.Search in Google Scholar

[49] X. Zhao, Y. Zhou, and Y. Xiang, “A grouping particle swarm optimizer,” Appl. Intell., vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 2862–2873, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-019-01409-4.Search in Google Scholar

[50] W. N. Chen, et al.., “Particle swarm optimization with an aging leader and challengers,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 241–258, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2011.2173577.Search in Google Scholar

[51] M. M. Noel, “A new gradient based particle swarm optimization algorithm for accurate computation of global minimum,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 353–359, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.037.Search in Google Scholar

[52] C. Li, S. Yang, and T. T. Nguyen, “A self-learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization problems,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B Cybern., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 627–646, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2011.2171946.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] Z. Zhou and Y. Shi, “Inertia weight adaption in particle swarm optimization algorithm,” in Advances in Swarm Intelligence, Y. Tan, Y. Shi, Y. Chai, and G. Wang, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 71–79.10.1007/978-3-642-21515-5_9Search in Google Scholar

[54] International Association of Athletics Federations, “IAAF competition rules for road races,” Archived from the original, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[55] A. Mortazavi and M. Moloodpoor, “Differential evolution method integrated with a fuzzy decision-making mechanism and Virtual Mutant agent: theory and application,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 112, 2021, Art. no. 107808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107808.Search in Google Scholar

[56] N. H. Awad, M. Z. Ali, P. N. Suganthan, J. J. Liang, and B. Y. Qu, “Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2017 special session on real-parameter optimization,” Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, School of Computer Information Systems, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jordan, School of Electrical Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Tech. Rep., 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[57] P. N. Suganthan, et al.., “Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special session on real-parameter optimization,” Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, IIT Kanpur, India, Tech. Rep., Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, May 2005 AND KanGAL Report 2005005, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

[58] Y. Lee, J. J. Filliben, R. J. Micheals, and P. Jonathon Phillips, “Sensitivity analysis for biometric systems: a methodology based on orthogonal experiment designs,” Comput. Vis. Image Understand., vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 532–550, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2013.01.003.Search in Google Scholar

[59] K. Hussain, M. N. M. Salleh, S. Cheng, and Y. Shi, “On the exploration and exploitation in popular swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 7665–7683, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3592-0.Search in Google Scholar

[60] K. Tang, Z. Li, L. Luo, and B. Liu, “Multi-strategy adaptive particle swarm optimization for numerical optimization,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 37, pp. 9–19, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2014.08.002.Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2024-05-23
Published in Print: 2024-08-27

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. An improved white shark optimizer algorithm used to optimize the structural parameters of the oil pad in the hydrostatic bearing
  3. Microstructure and oxidation of a Ni–Al based intermetallic coating formation on a Monel-400 alloy
  4. Friction, wear, and hardness properties of hybrid vehicle brake pads and effects on brake disc roughness
  5. Development of sinter linings for high-speed trains
  6. Wear resistance optimized by heat treatment of an in-situ TiC strengthened AlCoCrFeNi laser cladding coating
  7. Mechanical analysis of hybrid structured aircraft wing ribs with different geometric gaps
  8. Thermo-mechanical characteristics of spent coffee grounds reinforced bio-composites
  9. Compositional zoning and evolution of symplectite coronas in jadeitite
  10. Effect of niobium addition on the microstructure and wear properties of mechanical alloyed Cu–Al–Ni shape memory alloy
  11. Optimization of electric vehicle design problems using improved electric eel foraging optimization algorithm
  12. Effects of infill pattern and compression axis on the compressive strength of the 3D-printed cubic samples
  13. Microstructure and tribological properties of aluminum matrix composites reinforced with ZnO–hBN nanocomposite particles
  14. Marathon runner algorithm: theory and application in mathematical, mechanical and structural optimization problems
  15. Parameter identification of Yoshida–Uemori combined hardening model by using a variable step size firefly algorithm
  16. Identification of the tip mass parameters in a beam-tip mass system using response surface methodology
  17. Production and characterization of waste walnut shell powder that can be used as a sustainable eco-friendly reinforcement in biocomposites
  18. Anticorrosion performance of a zinc-rich cycloaliphatic epoxy resin coating containing CeO2 nanoparticle
https://doi.org/10.1515/mt-2023-0091
Keywords for this article
optimization techniques; metaheuristic algorithms; constrained optimization problems; unconstrained optimization problems; discrete and continuous variables

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. An improved white shark optimizer algorithm used to optimize the structural parameters of the oil pad in the hydrostatic bearing
  3. Microstructure and oxidation of a Ni–Al based intermetallic coating formation on a Monel-400 alloy
  4. Friction, wear, and hardness properties of hybrid vehicle brake pads and effects on brake disc roughness
  5. Development of sinter linings for high-speed trains
  6. Wear resistance optimized by heat treatment of an in-situ TiC strengthened AlCoCrFeNi laser cladding coating
  7. Mechanical analysis of hybrid structured aircraft wing ribs with different geometric gaps
  8. Thermo-mechanical characteristics of spent coffee grounds reinforced bio-composites
  9. Compositional zoning and evolution of symplectite coronas in jadeitite
  10. Effect of niobium addition on the microstructure and wear properties of mechanical alloyed Cu–Al–Ni shape memory alloy
  11. Optimization of electric vehicle design problems using improved electric eel foraging optimization algorithm
  12. Effects of infill pattern and compression axis on the compressive strength of the 3D-printed cubic samples
  13. Microstructure and tribological properties of aluminum matrix composites reinforced with ZnO–hBN nanocomposite particles
  14. Marathon runner algorithm: theory and application in mathematical, mechanical and structural optimization problems
  15. Parameter identification of Yoshida–Uemori combined hardening model by using a variable step size firefly algorithm
  16. Identification of the tip mass parameters in a beam-tip mass system using response surface methodology
  17. Production and characterization of waste walnut shell powder that can be used as a sustainable eco-friendly reinforcement in biocomposites
  18. Anticorrosion performance of a zinc-rich cycloaliphatic epoxy resin coating containing CeO2 nanoparticle
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 15.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mt-2023-0091/html
Scroll to top button