Comparative numerical assessment of SPH, EFG, and SPG methods for orthogonal cutting of steel

Comparative numerical assessment of SPH, EFG, and SPG methods for orthogonal cutting of steel | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF correspondence Comparative numerical assessment of SPH, EFG, and SPG methods for orthogonal cutting of steel Sherzod Ibodulloev, Umarkhon Turaev This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9702933/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study presents a comparative analysis of three mesh-free methods—Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), Element-Free Galerkin (EFG), and Smoothed Particle Galerkin (SPG)—for modelling orthogonal cutting of steel using the Johnson–Cook constitutive model within the LS-DYNA framework. The objective is to evaluate their accuracy, numerical stability, and physical consistency under identical boundary conditions. The simulations consider thermomechanical coupling, including plastic deformation and heat generation in the cutting zone. The results show that all three methods predict comparable cutting forces, with deviations within 8% of available literature data. However, significant differences are observed in numerical behavior. The SPH method exhibits tensile instability and non-physical stress oscillations, while EFG and SPG produce smoother and more stable stress and temperature fields. Validation of the SPG method against three independent experimental and numerical sources demonstrates high accuracy, with an average error of 2.2% for the main cutting force. A parametric analysis indicates that increasing the strain rate from 0.0001 to 2 s⁻¹ increases the yield strength by a factor of 1.49. Furthermore, a strong correlation (r = 0.97) is observed between temperature and accumulated plastic strain. Owing to its inherent bond-based fracture mechanism and stable numerical performance, the SPG method is identified as the most suitable approach for industrial machining simulations. metal cutting mesh-free methods SPH EFG SPG Johnson–Cook model LS-DYNA Full Text Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files 2FigureAnimationEFGandSPG.pptx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9702933","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"correspondence","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":639754158,"identity":"b9690ff7-c721-47b3-9cc8-b01dddc79df4","order_by":0,"name":"Sherzod Ibodulloev","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers (TIIAME)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sherzod","middleName":"","lastName":"Ibodulloev","suffix":""},{"id":639754159,"identity":"543204e2-a5de-49e9-8080-22182b9a557b","order_by":1,"name":"Umarkhon Turaev","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Samarkand State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Umarkhon","middleName":"","lastName":"Turaev","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-05-13 11:08:51","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9702933/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9702933/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109296193,"identity":"61550c29-07b0-47b3-a189-5c3a699becd4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-15 08:46:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":577477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ComparativeAssessmentofMeshfreeMethods.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9702933/v1_covered_ae633d8d-7fde-4037-86d5-a993bd758737.pdf"},{"id":109255696,"identity":"a1d95846-4244-4bd8-b19f-bad44378a716","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-14 10:00:43","extension":"pptx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15960657,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"2FigureAnimationEFGandSPG.pptx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9702933/v1/a4851371dc7eb0d5747eb063.pptx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Comparative numerical assessment of SPH, EFG, and SPG methods for orthogonal cutting of steel","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"metal cutting, mesh-free methods, SPH, EFG, SPG, Johnson–Cook model, LS-DYNA","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9702933/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9702933/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents a comparative analysis of three mesh-free methods\u0026mdash;Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH), Element-Free Galerkin (EFG), and Smoothed Particle Galerkin (SPG)\u0026mdash;for modelling orthogonal cutting of steel using the Johnson\u0026ndash;Cook constitutive model within the LS-DYNA framework. The objective is to evaluate their accuracy, numerical stability, and physical consistency under identical boundary conditions. The simulations consider thermomechanical coupling, including plastic deformation and heat generation in the cutting zone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results show that all three methods predict comparable cutting forces, with deviations within 8% of available literature data. However, significant differences are observed in numerical behavior. The SPH method exhibits tensile instability and non-physical stress oscillations, while EFG and SPG produce smoother and more stable stress and temperature fields. Validation of the SPG method against three independent experimental and numerical sources demonstrates high accuracy, with an average error of 2.2% for the main cutting force.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA parametric analysis indicates that increasing the strain rate from 0.0001 to 2 s⁻\u0026sup1; increases the yield strength by a factor of 1.49. Furthermore, a strong correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.97) is observed between temperature and accumulated plastic strain. Owing to its inherent bond-based fracture mechanism and stable numerical performance, the SPG method is identified as the most suitable approach for industrial machining simulations.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparative numerical assessment of SPH, EFG, and SPG methods for orthogonal cutting of steel","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-14 10:00:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9702933/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c8bc00c0-c305-4f22-b8c7-04518ea5ef51","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 14th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-05-14T09:23:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-05-13T12:56:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics","date":"2026-05-13T10:51:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-14T10:00:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-14 10:00:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9702933","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9702933","identity":"rs-9702933","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}