Applied Boundary conditions:-

LOAD (F)

FIXED
Fig. 3.21 Applied Boundary Conditions

 Considering as cantilever beam

Solution Analysis

Different type of solution tools like deflection, stress etc. that can be used in solution analysis
are represented below

Fig.3.22 Solution Analysis in ANSYS Workbench 13.0

3.8.1 Geometric Modelling
Geometric modelling has been done changing only number of leafs and thickness of leafs
keeping n*t= const. (overall thickness of leaf spring). Length of the leaf spring has not been
changed. Different models of leafs spring taking n*t=const., for a max permissible deflection
of 175mm has been evaluated as under:

Table 3.3 Comparative study of Different Geometric Models

No. of leafs Thickness of Max. Max. Deflection (Mpa)

leaf
Stress
(mm)
7 5.5 (Mpa)
635.8 356.82

6 6.4 545.62 256.2

5 7.7 421.23 144.77

4 9.62 365.05 113.05

3 12.83 271.365 62.365

2 19.25 179.08 29.136

From the table it has been evaluated that geometric model having 5 leafs with thickness of
7.7mm provides the Max. Deflection of 144mm which is within the permissible range of
175mm. Max. Stress evaluated is also under safe limit.
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS RESULTS USING ANSYS WORKBENCH 13.0

Static analysis (Stress & Deflection) of different geometric models (Ref. Table3.1-3.2)
developed using Pro-E wildfire 4.0 has been evaluated using Ansys Workbench 13.0 as
under:

4.1) CASE 1: Type-1A – Multi-leaf spring having 4 graduated leaf’s (including master
leaf).

Fig 4.1 Stress analysis of Type -1A at F=2200N

Fig 4.2 Deflection Analysis of Type-1A at F = 2200N

 Model (1A) >
Geometry
Object Name Geometry
State Fully Defined
Definition
Source C:\Users\Ashok Bhatia\Desktop\m.tech work\asm00012.x_t
Type Parasolid
Length Unit Meters
Element Control Program Controlled
Display Style Part Color
Bounding Box
Length X 457.5 mm
Length Y 104. mm
Length Z 60. mm
Properties
Volume 5.0147e+005 mm³
Mass 3.9365 kg
Scale Factor Value 1.
Statistics
Bodies 4
Active Bodies 4
Nodes 23123
Elements 11431

Model (1A) > Geometry >

Parts
Object Name A C D E
State Meshed
Graphics Properties
Visible Yes
Transparency 1
Definition
Suppressed No
Stiffness Behavior Flexible
Coordinate System Default Coordinate System
Reference Temperature By Environment
Material
Assignment steel (55Si2Mn90)
Nonlinear Effects Yes
Thermal Strain Effects Yes
Bounding Box
Length X 457.5 mm 330. mm 220. mm 110. mm
Length Y 83. mm 33.859 mm 18.894 mm 9.9669 mm
Length Z 60. mm
Properties
Volume 2.2088e+005 mm³ 1.4089e+005 mm³ 93299 mm³ 46396 mm³
 Moment of Inertia Ip1 649.97 kg·mm² 340.91 kg·mm² 223.35 kg·mm² 110.79 kg·mm²
Moment of Inertia Ip2 35300 kg·mm² 10447 kg·mm² 3183.9 kg·mm² 476.84 kg·mm²
Moment of Inertia Ip3 34912 kg·mm² 10124 kg·mm² 2967.7 kg·mm² 369.09 kg·mm²
Statistics
Nodes 10173 6366 4311 2273
Elements 5052 3109 2124 1146
Mesh Metric None

Model (1A) > Coordinate Systems > Coordinate System

Object Name Global Coordinate System

State Fully Defined
Definition
Type Cartesian
Ansys System Number 0.
Origin
Origin X 0. mm
Origin Y 0. mm
Origin Z 0. mm
Directional Vectors
X Axis Data [ 1. 0. 0. ]
Y Axis Data [ 0. 1. 0. ]
Z Axis Data [ 0. 0. 1. ]

Model (1A) > Connections > Contact Regions Model (1A) > Mesh > Mesh Controls

Object No No No
Name Separation - Separation - Separation - Patch Conforming Method Body
Sizing
A To C C To D D To E
State Fully Defined State Fully Defined
Scope Scope
Scoping Geometry Selection Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Method Geometry 4 Bodies
Contact 1 Face Object Name
Target 1 Face Suppressed No
Contact A C D Method Tetrahedrons
Bodies Algorithm Patch Conforming
Target C D E Element Midside Use Global Setting
Bodies Nodes
Definition Type Element
Type No Separation Size
Scope Mode Automatic Element Size 7. mm
Behavior Asymmetric Behavior Soft
Suppressed No
Advanced
Formulation Pure Penalty
Normal Program Controlled
Stiffness
Update Never
Stiffness
Pinball Program Controlled
Region
 Model (1A) > Static Structural > Solution > Results

Object Name Total Equivalent

Model (1A) > Static Structural > Loads Deformation Stress
Object Name Force Fixed State Solved
Support Scope
State Fully Defined Scoping Geometry Selection
Scope Method
Scoping Method Geometry Selection Geometry All Bodies
Geometry 1 Face 4 Faces Definition
Definition Type Total Equivalent (von-
Type Force Fixed Support Deformation Mises) Stress
Define By Components By Time
Coordinate Global Coordinate Display Time Last
System System Calculate Yes
X Component 0. N (ramped) Time History
Y Component -2200. N (ramped) Identifier
Z Component 0. N (ramped)
Use Average Yes
Suppressed No
Results
Minimum 0. mm 9.2508e-002 MPa
Maximum 61.56 mm 506.83 MPa

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Constants

Density 7.85e-006 kg mm^-3

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Isotropic Elasticity

Temperature C Young's Modulus MPa Poisson's Ratio
2.1e+005 0.27

steel (55Si2Mn90) > Tensile Yield Strength

Tensile Yield Strength MPa
1470

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Tensile Ultimate Strength

Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa
1962
4.2 CASE 1: TYPE 1B - Multi-leaf spring having 3 graduated leaf’s (including master
leaf) & one full length leaf.

Fig. 4.3 Stress Analysis of Type-1B at F=2475N

Fig. 4.4 Deflection Analysis of Type-1B at F=2475N

Model (1B) > Geometry

Object Name Geometry
State Fully Defined
Definition
Source C:\Users\Ashok Bhatia\Desktop\m.tech work\65.5\New folder\asm00011.x_t
Type Parasolid
Length Unit Meters
Element Control Program Controlled
Display Style Part Color
Bounding Box
Length X 457.5 mm
Length Y 104. mm
Length Z 60. mm
Properties
 Volume 5.9714e+005 mm³
Mass 4.6875 kg
Model (1B) > Mesh > Mesh Control
Object Name Patch Conforming Method Body Sizing
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 4 Bodies
Definition
Suppressed No
Method Tetrahedrons
Algorithm Patch Conforming
Element Midside Nodes Use Global Setting
Type Element Size
Element Size 7. mm
Behavior Soft

Model (1B) > Static Structural > Loads

Object Name Fixed Support Force
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 4 Faces 1 Face
Definition
Type Fixed Support Force
Suppressed No
Define By Components
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System
X Component 0. N (ramped)
Y Component -2475. N (ramped)
Z Component 0. N (ramped)

Model (1B) > Static Structural > Solution > Results

Object Name Equivalent Stress Total Deformation
State Solved
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Type Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress Total Deformation
By Time
Display Time Last
Calculate Time History Yes
Use Average Yes
Identifier
Results
Minimum 0.20105 MPa 0. mm
Maximum 547.06 MPa 61.315 mm

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Constants

Density 7.85e-006 kg mm^-3

 Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Isotropic Elasticity

Temperature C Young's Modulus MPa Poisson's Ratio

2.1e+005 0.27

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Tensile Yield Strength

Tensile Yield Strength MPa

1470

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Tensile Ultimate Strength

Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa

1962

4.3) CASE 2: TYPE-2A: Multi-leaf spring (7 leafs) made of steel having no

separation contacts between different leafs.

Fig. 4.5 Stress Analysis of Type-2A (Steel Spring) at F=3250N

Fig. 4.6 Deflection Analysis of Type-2A (Steel Spring) at F = 3250N

 Fig. 4.7 Shear Stress Analysis of Type – 2A (Steel Spring) at F= 3250N

Model (2A-Steel Spring) > Geometry

Object Name Geometry
State Fully Defined
Definition
Source C:\Users\Ashok Bhatia\Desktop\m.tech work\validtion\asm0001.x_t
Type Parasolid
Length Unit Meters
Element Control Program Controlled
Display Style Part Color
Bounding Box
Length X 575. mm
Length Y 211.85 mm
Length Z 34. mm
Properties
Volume 5.0255e+005 mm³
Mass 3.945 kg
Scale Factor Value 1.
Statistics
Bodies 7
Active Bodies 7
Nodes 26038
Elements 11797

Model (2A Steel Spring) > Mesh > Mesh Controls

Object Name Patch Conforming Method Body Sizing
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 7 Bodies
Definition
Suppressed No
Method Tetrahedrons
Algorithm Patch Conforming
 Element Midside Nodes Use Global Setting
Type Element Size
Element Size 7. mm
Behavior Soft

Model (2A Steel Spring) > Static Structural > Loads

Object Name Fixed Support Force
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 7 Faces 1 Face
Definition
Type Fixed Support Force
Suppressed No
Define By Components
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System
X Component 0. N (ramped)
Y Component -3250. N (ramped)
Z Component 0. N (ramped)

Model (2A Steel Spring) > Static Structural > Solution > Results
Object Name Total Deformation Equivalent Stress Shear Stress

State Solved
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Type Total Deformation Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress Shear Stress

By Time
Display Time Last
Calculate Time Yes
History
Identifier
Use Average Yes
Orientation XY Plane
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System

Results
Minimum 0. mm 0.24000 MPa -115.54 MPa
Maximum 162.44 mm 819.31 MPa 145.55 MPa

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Constants

Density 7.85e-006 kg mm^-3

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Isotropic Elasticity

Temperature C Young's Modulus MPa Poisson's Ratio
2.1e+005 0.27
 Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Tensile Yield Strength
Tensile Yield Strength MPa
1462

Steel (55Si2Mn90) > Tensile Ultimate Strength

Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa
1970

4.4 CASE 2 TYPE 2A: Multi-leaf spring (7 leafs) made of FGER (Fibre Glass
Epoxy Resin) having bonded contacts between different leafs.

Fig. 4.8 Stress Analysis of Type – 2A (FGER Spring) at F=3250N

Fig. 4.9 Deflection Analysis of Type – 2A (FGER Spring) at F= 3250N

Model (2A-FGER Spring) > Geometry

Object Name Geometry
State Fully Defined
Definition
Source C:\Users\Ashok Bhatia\Desktop\1.x_t
Type Parasolid
Length Unit Meters
Element Control Program Controlled
Display Style Part Color
Bounding Box
Length X 575. mm
 Length Y 225. mm
Length Z 34. mm
Properties
Volume 5.0606e+005 mm³
Mass 1.3158 kg
Scale Factor Value 1.

Model (2A-FGER Spring)) > Mesh > Mesh Controls

Object Name Patch Conforming Method Body Sizing
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 7 Bodies
Definition
Suppressed No
Method Tetrahedrons
Algorithm Patch Conforming
Element Midside Nodes Use Global Setting
Type Element Size
Element Size 7. mm
Behavior Soft

Model (2A-FGER Spring)) > Static Structural > Loads

Object Name Fixed Support Force
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 7 Faces 1 Face
Definition
Type Fixed Support Force
Suppressed No
Define By Components
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System
X Component 0. N (ramped)
Y Component -3250. N (ramped)
Z Component 0. N (ramped)

Model (2A-FGER Spring)) > Static Structural > Solution > Results
Object Name Total Deformation Equivalent Stress
State Solved
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Type Total Deformation Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress
By Time
Display Time Last
Calculate Time History Yes
Identifier
Use Average Yes
Results
 Minimum 0. mm 0.18895 MPa
Maximum 94.646 mm 229.61 MPa

E-GLASS/ EPOXY > Constants

Density 2.6e-006 kg mm^-3

E-GLASS/ EPOXY > Orthotropic Elasticity

Temperatur Young's Young's Young's Poisson' Poisson' Poisson' Shear Shear Shear
eC Modulu Modulu Modulu s Ratio s Ratio s Ratio Modulu Modulu Modulu
sX sY sZ XY YZ XZ s XY s YZ s XZ
directio directio directio MPa MPa MPa
n MPa n MPa n MPa
38600 8270 8270 0.26 .36 .26 4140 1698 2433

Strength E-GLASS/ EPOXY > Tensile Ultimate Strength

Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa
1062

E-GLASS/ EPOXY > Compressive Yield

Compressive Yield Strength MPa

610

4.5 CASE 2: TYPE 2B- Multi-Leaf (5 Leaf) spring made of FGER having no separation
contacts between different leafs.

Fig. 4.10 Stress Analysis of Type 2B at F= 3250N

 Fig. 4.11 Deflection Analysis of Type 2B at F= 3250N

Fig. 4.12 Shear Stress Analysis of Type 2B at F= 3250N

Model (2B) > Geometry

Object Name Geometry
State Fully Defined
Definition
Source C:\Users\Ashok Bhatia\Desktop\conclusion\5 leafs\asm0003.x_t
Type Parasolid
Length Unit Meters
Element Control Program Controlled
Display Style Part Color
Bounding Box
Length X 575. mm
Length Y 213.5 mm
Length Z 34. mm
Properties
Volume 5.4964e+005 mm³
Mass 1.4291 kg
Scale Factor Value 1.
Statistics
 Bodies 5
Active Bodies 5

Nodes 28454
Elements 15047
Mesh Metric None

Model (2B) > Mesh > Mesh Controls

Object Name Patch Conforming Method Body Sizing
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 5 Bodies
Definition
Suppressed No
Method Tetrahedrons
Algorithm Patch Conforming
Element Midside Nodes Use Global Setting
Type Element Size
Element Size 7. mm
Behavior Soft

Model (2B) > Static Structural > Loads

Object Name Fixed Support Force
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 5 Faces 1 Face
Definition
Type Fixed Support Force
Suppressed No
Define By Components
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System
X Component 0. N (ramped)
Y Component -3250. N (ramped)
Z Component 0. N (ramped)

Model (2B) > Static Structural > Solution > Results

Object Name Total Deformation Equivalent Stress Shear Stress

State Solved
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Type Total Deformation Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress Shear Stress

By Time
Display Time Last
Calculate Time Yes
History
Identifier
Use Average Yes
Orientation XY Plane
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System

Results
Minimum 0. mm 0.14786 MPa -29.985 MPa
Maximum 144.77 mm 421.23 MPa 27.762 MPa

E-Glass/epoxy > Constants

Density 2.6e-006 kg mm^-3

E-Glass/epoxy > Orthotropic Elasticity

Temperat Young Young Young Poisso Poisso Poisso Shear Shear Shear
ure C 's 's 's n's n's n's Modul Modul Modul
Modul Modul Modul Ratio Ratio Ratio us XY us YZ us XZ
us X us Y us Z XY YZ XZ MPa MPa MPa
directi directi directi
on on on
MPa MPa MPa
38600 8270 8270 0.26 .36 .26 4140 1698 2433

E-Glass/epoxy > Compressive Yield Strength

Compressive Yield Strength MPa
610

E-Glass/epoxy > Tensile Ultimate Strength

Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa
1062

Closure: Static analysis of various 3-D CAD models developed using Pro-E Wildfire 4.0
has been presented in this chapter.

In next chapter we are going to discuss the comparison between FEA results and analytical
results.
 CHAPTER 5

RESULT EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS

A comparative study of results of stress, deflection & weight for different models of leaf
springs made of Steel and FGER(fibre glass epoxy resin) has been evaluated as under:-

5.1) Comparing FEA and Analytical Results of Leaf Spring having 4 Graduated Leafs
(including master leaf)

TABLE 5.1: Comparative study of FEA Results (Ref. Fig. 4.1-4.2) and Analytical Results

Max. Stress Max. Deflection Stiffness

Parameters Load(N)
(Mpa) (Mpa) (N/mm)

Analytical 2200 493.88 65.04 33.83

FEA 2200 506.83 61.56 35.74

Variation (%) Nil 2.5 -5.6 5.6

From the above table, it has been observed, that there is small variation of 2.5% in Max.
Stress and of 5.6% in Max. Deflection and stiffness, when comparing FEA and Analytical
Results, which validates our CAD model.

600

500
M
ax. 400
Str
ess 300
(M Analytical
pa) 200
FEA

100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (N)

Fig.5.1 FEA and Analytical Variation of Max. Stress w.r.t. Applied Load Type 1A
 70

60
K=35.74 N/mm
M 50
ax.
De
40
fle
cti
on 30 FEA
(m Analytical
m) 20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Load (N)

Fig. 5.2 FEA and Analytical Variation of Max. Deflection w.r.t. Applied Load Type 1A

From the graphs it has been observed that Max. Stress and Max. Deflection increases linearly
w.r.t. increased applied load in both FEA and Analytical Results.

5.2 Comparing FEA and Analytical results of Leaf Spring having 3 graduated leafs
(including master leaf), and 1 full length leaf

TABLE 5.2: Comparative study of FEA Results (Ref. Fig. 4.3-4.4) and Analytical Results

Max. Stiffness
Parameter Load (N) Max. Stress(Mpa)
Deflection(mm) (N/mm)

Analytical 2475 556.20 68.05 38.05

FEA 2475 547.06 61.315 40.36

Variation
Nil -1.2 -5.8 -5.8
(%)

From the above table, it has been observed, that there is small variation of 1.2% in Max.
Stress and of 5.8% in Max. Deflection and stiffness, when comparing FEA and Analytical
Results, which validates our CAD model.
 600

500

M 400
ax.
Str
ess 300
(M FEA
pa)
Analytical
200

100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Load (N)

Fig. 5.3 FEA and Analytical Variation of Max. Stress w.r.t. Applied Load Type 2A

70
K=40.36 N/mm
60

M 50
ax.
De
40
fle
cti
on 30 FEA
(m Analytical
m) 20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Load (N)

Fig. 5.4 FEA and Analytical Variation of Max. Deflection w.r.t. Applied Load Type 2A

From the graphs it is observed that Max. Stress and Max. Deflection increases linearly w.r.t.
Increased applied load in both FEA and Analytical Results.
5.3 Comparing FEA and Experimental [4] results of Multi-Leaf Spring (steel) having 7
leafs

TABLE 5.3: Comparative study of FEA Results (Ref. Fig. 4.5-4.6) and Experimental Results
[4]

Max. Stress Stiffness

Parameter Load (N) Deflection (mm)
(Mpa) (N/mm)

Experimental 3250 680.05 155 20.97

FEA 3250 819.31 162.44 20.01

Variation (%) Nil 20.47 4.8 4.8

Evaluating results a variation of 4.8% in deflection is observed which validates our CAD
model.

5.4 Comparing FEA and Experimental [4] results of Multi-leaf spring(FGER) having 7
leafs with bonded contacts

TABLE 5.4: Comparative study of FEA Results (Ref. Fig. 4.8-4.9) and Experimental Results
[4]

Max. Deflection Stiffness

Parameter Load (N) Max. Stress (Mpa)
(mm) (N/mm)

Experimental 3250 222 94 34.57

FEA 3250 229.61 94.646 34.33

Variation (%) Nil 3.4 .7 -.99

From table, it has been observed that when static analysis of FGER leaf spring (Bonded
Contacts) is carried out using FEA software and compared with experimental results, for the
same static loading and boundary conditions, a slight variation about 1%is evaluated, which
validates our CAD model of FGER leaf spring.
5.5 Comparing FEA results of Steel leaf spring (with no separation contacts) with FGER
leaf spring (with bonded contacts)

TABLE 5.5: Comparative study FEA Results (Ref. Fig. 4.5-4.6) and FEA Results (Ref. Fig.
4.8-4.9)

Max. Stress Max. Stiffness

Parameter Load (N) Weight (kg)
(Mpa) Deflection(mm) (N/mm)

Steel Leaf
3250 819.31 162.44 3.945 20.01
spring

FGER leaf
3250 229.61 94.646 1.316 34.34
Spring

Variation
Nil -72 -41.76 -66.64 71.61
(%)

From the above table, it has been observed that when steel leaf spring (no-separation) contacts
is replaced with FGER leaf spring (Bonded contacts), under same static loading and boundary
conditions, Max. Stress in leaf spring decreases by 72%. Max. Deflection decreases about
42%, and about 66% reduction in weight has been observed. Whereas about 72% increment in
stiffness is observed.

5.6 Comparing FEA Results of Steel leaf spring having 7 leaf’s (No-Separation contacts)
with FGER leaf spring having 5 leafs (No-Separation contacts)

TABLE 5.6: Comparative study of FEA Results (Ref. Fig. 4.5-4.7) and FEA Results (Ref.
Fig. 4.10-4.12)

Max. Max. Shear

Weight Stiffness
Parameter Load (N) Stress Deflection Stress
(Mpa) (mm) (Mpa) (Kg) (N/mm)

Steel leaf
3250 819.31 162.44 145.55 3.945 20.01
spring

FGER
3250 421.23 144.77 27.762 1.429 22.45
Leaf spring

Variation
Nil -48.58 -10.88 -80.87 -63.75 12.19
(%)
From table it has been observed that when steel leaf spring having 7 leafs(No-Separation
Contacts) and FGER leaf spring having 5 leafs (No-Separation contacts) were analyzed under
same static conditions and boundary conditions using FEA software Ansys Workbench 13.0
there was decrement of about 48% in Max. Stress, about 11% in Max. Deflection and 81% in
shear stress. Stiffness of the leaf spring increases about 12%, whereas FGER leaf spring is
about 64% lighter that Steel leaf spring.

600
500
M
ax. 400
Str
ess300
(M
pa 200
)
100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Load (N)

Fig. 5.5 Variation of Max. Stress V/s Applied Load Type 2A

180
M 160
ax. 140
De 120
fle
cti 100 K=22.45 N/mm
on 80
(m 60
m)
40
20
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Load (N)

Fig.5.6 Variation of Max. Deflection V/s Applied Load Type 2A

From the graphs it has been observed that Max. Stress and Max. Deflection increases
linearly w.r.t. increase in applied load for FGER leaf spring.

Closure: Comparative study of FEA and Analytical results has been made in this chapter
and conclusions drawn from this comparative study will be presented in next chapter.
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

A comparative study of results of stress, deflection & weight for different models of leaf
springs made of Steel and FGER (fibre glass epoxy resin) has been made and concluded as
under:

1 ) About 70% increment in stiffness(20-34N/mm) is observed when steel leaf spring having
7 leafs with no separation contacts is replaced with FGER leaf spring having 7 leafs with
bonded contacts. Also about 66% decrement in weight is observed, which is the main concern
of automobile industry to use composites.

2 ) An increment of about 12% in stiffness(20 -22 N/mm) is observed when steel leaf spring
having 7 leafs with no separation contacts is compared with FGER leaf spring having 5 leafs
with no separation contacts, which has been developed by changing number of leafs &
thickness keeping n*t=const. Also a decrement of about 64% in weight and 80% in shear
stress is observed.

3) Linear variation of stress and deflection has been observed w.r.t. applied varying load,
whether it is steel leaf spring or FGER leaf spring.
 REFERENCES

[1] Mahmood M.Shokrieh, Davood Rezaei (2003), “Analysis and optimization of a composite
leaf spring”. Composite Structures 60 (2003) 317-325 Doi: 10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00349-5.

[2] J.P. Hou , J.Y. Cherruault , I. Nairne , G. Jeronimidis , R.M. Mayer (2006) “Evolution of
the eye-end design of a composite leaf spring for heavy axle loads” Composite Structures 78
(2007) 351–358 Doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.10.008.

[3] Gulur Siddaramanna Shiva Shankar, Sambagam Vijyarangan (2006) “Mono Composite
Leaf Spring for Light Weight Vehicle – Design, End Joint Analysis and Testing” ISSN 1392–
1320 MATERIALS SCIENCE (MEDŽIAGOTYRA). Vol. 12, No. 3, 220-225.

[4] Mouleeswaran Senthil Kumar, Sabapathy Vijyarangan (2007) “Analytical and

Experimental Studies on Fatigue Life Prediction of Steel and Composite Multi-leaf Spring for
Light Passenger Vehicles Using Life Data Analysis” ISSN 1392–1320 MATERIALS
SCIENCE (MEDZIAGOTYRA). Vol. 13, No. 2, 141-146.

[5] Muhammad Ashiqur Rahman, Muhammad Tareq Siddiqui and Muhammad Arefin
Kowser (June 2007) “Design and Non-Linear Analysis of A Parabolic Leaf Spring” Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, vol. ME37, 47-51.

[6] F. N. Ahmad Refngah, S. Abdullah, A. Jalar1 and L. B. Chua (2009), “Fatigue life
evaluation of two types of steel leaf springs” International Journal of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering (IJMME), Vol. 4, No. 2, 136-140.

[7] J.P. Meijaard , D.M. Brouwer , J.B. Jonker (2009) “Analytical and experimental
investigation of a parallel leaf spring guidance” Multi-body System Dynamics (2010) 23: 77–
97 , DOI 10.1007/s11044-009-9172-4.

[8] Myeong-Gyu Song, No-Cheol Park, Kyoung-Su Park, and Young-Pil Park(March 2011)
“Design of a Leaf Spring Using a Genetic Algorithm” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol.
47, No. 3, 590-593.

[9] Ahmet Kanbolat , Murathan Soner, Mustafa Karaagaç, Tolga Erdogus (2011) “Parabolic
Leaf Spring Optimization And Fatigue Strength Evaluation on The Base of Road Load Data,
Endurance Rig. Tests And Non Linear Finite Element Analysis” 11M-0069 SAE
international .
[10] Vinkel Arora, Dr. M.L Aggarwal, Dr. Gian Bhushan (2011) , “A Comparative Study of
CAE and Experimental Results of Leaf Springs in Automotive Vehicles “ ISSN : 0975-5462,
Vol. 3 No. 2,6856,6866.

[11] Vinkel Arora, Gian Bhushan and M.L. Aggarwal “Eye Design Analysis of Single Leaf
Spring in Automotive Vehicles Using CAE Tools” International Journal of Applied
Engineering and Technology ISSN: 2277-212X, Vol. 1 (1),88-97.

[12] Kumar Krishan and Aggarwal M.L.(2012),” A Finite Element Approach for Analysis of
a Multi Leaf Spring using CAE Tools” Research Journal of Recent Sciences. ISSN 2277-
2502, Vol. 1(2),92-96.

[13] Joo-teck Jeffrey Kueh, Tarlochan Faris (2012), “Finite element analysis on the static and
fatigue characteristics of composite multi-leaf spring” Journal of Zhejiang University-
SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering). doi:10.1631/jzus.A1100212, Kueh et al. / J
Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2012 13(3):159-164.

[14] Thippeswamy Ekbote, K.S.Sadashivappa, D. Abdul budan (2012) “Optimal design and
analysis of mono leaf composite spring by finite element analysis” ISBN: 978-81-909042-2-3,
41-46.

[15] R. B. Charde , Dr. D.V. Bhope (2012), “Investigation of stresses in master leaf of leaf
spring by finite element method and its experimental verification” International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST). ISSN : 0975-5462, Vol. 4 No.02, 633-640.

[16] www.nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-Madras/Machine_Design_II/pdf/4_5.pdf.

th
[17] A Text of Machine Design by Dr. P.C. Sharma and Dr. D.K.. Aggarwal, 9 edition, 357-
367, S.K. Kataraia & Sons publications.

rd
[18] Introduction to Machine Design by V. B. Bhandari,3 edition 2010, TMH Publication,
437-439.

th
[19] Text Book of Machine Design by S.G. Kulkarni,7 reprint 2006, TMH Publication, 115-
116

th
[20] Finite Element Method in Engineering By Singiresu S. Rao, 5 edition, 401-403,
Elsevier Inc.
[21] Pro-E wildfire 4.0, Manual/ Users help.

[22] Ansys workbench 13 .0, Manual/ Users help.

[23] CAD Modelling Analysis of a Leaf Spring, M.Tech Dissertation (M-1636), NIT
Kurukshetra.