See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266376223

Fatigue Life Prediction of Leaf Spring through

Multi Mean S-N Approach

Article in Applied Mechanics and Materials · October 2014

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.663.83

CITATIONS READS

0 235

1 author:

Yat Sheng Kong

National University of Malaysia
9 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yat Sheng Kong on 08 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 663 (2014) pp 83-87
© (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.663.83

Fatigue Life Prediction of Leaf Spring through Multi Mean S-N Approach

Y.S. Kong1,2,a, M.Z. Omar2,3,b, L.B. Chua1 and S. Abdullah2,3

1
APM Engineering & Research, Unit 4.1, Level 4, Block B, Peremba Square, Saujana Resort,
Seksyen U2, 40150 Shah Alam, Selangor
2
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Centre for Automotive Research, Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
a
knnthkong@hotmail.com, bzaidi@eng.ukm.my

Keywords: Leaf spring, stress-life method, fatigue life

Abstract. Parabolic leaf spring is a suspension component for heavy vehicles where spring itself
experiences repeated cyclic loading under operating condition. Fatigue life of the parabolic leaf
spring is vital since the deflection of the spring is large and continuous. To determine the fatigue
life of the parabolic leaf spring, material properties input to the design is important. The objective of
this study is to predict the fatigue life of a parabolic leaf spring based on two different material
grades which are SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H under constant amplitude loading through various
mean stress method. SAE 51B60H is the material with slightly higher carbon, manganese and
chromium content compared to material SAE 5160. Chemical composition differences between
SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H have significant effects on the mechanical properties and fatigue life.
In this analysis, finite element method together with multi mean curve stress life (S-N) approach has
been implemented to estimate the fatigue life of the spring. Goodman, Gerber and Interpolate mean
stress correction method were adopted to correct the damage calculation for mean stress. The results
show that interpolate and Goodman method predict the fatigue life of the material with higher
accuracy. On the other hand, material SAE 51B60H yields higher fatigue life compared to material
SAE 5160.

Introduction
Leaf spring design is based on stress and load carry capacity. Numerous work on leaf spring
have been presented such as conversion of traditional multi-leaf spring design to lighter parabolic
leaf spring base on stress analysis [1] and fatigue life analysis based on variable amplitude loading
[2]. The analysis of leaf springs is inseparable from stress and fatigue analysis due to the cyclic
loading exerted from uneven road terrain. Fatigue life of leaf spring depends on the design where
the stress level plays an important role. On the other hand, selection of spring material is also one of
the factors that may affect the fatigue life of the leaf spring.
Fatigue damage analysis for the design of vehicle structures rely on models that have been
developed last hundred years or so. There are a few recommended approaches for fatigue life
analysis. One of the examples is stress-life (S-N) approach. Stress life method is defined in Basquin
equation:
,
S a = σ f ( 2 N f )b (1)

where Sa is the stress amplitude, is the fatigue strength coefficient, Nf is the reversal to failure
and b is the fatigue strength exponent respectively. S-N approach is used for prediction of the
components subjected to high cycle fatigue, where the materials are within elastic limit. It adopts
material S-N curves to calculate for stress concentrations, empirical modification factors for surface

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP,
www.ttp.net. (ID: 175.136.249.225-03/10/14,04:04:04)
84 Automotive Engineering and Mobility Research

finish effects and mean stress effects. The most widely used mean stress correction methods are
Gerber [3] and Goodman [4]. Gerber and Goodman equations are shown in equation (2) and (3)
respectively:

σa σm
+( )2 = 1 (2)
Se Su

σa σm
+ =1 (3)
Se Su

For fatigue damage calculation, Palmgren-Miner linear damage summation rule is used [5,6].
Palmgren-Miner linear damage rule is defined as:
n
Ni
D=∑ =1 (4)
i =1 N fi

where n is the number of loading blocks, Ni is the number of applied cycles, Nfi is the number of
constant amplitude cycles to failure, D is the accumulated fatigue damage. Failure occurs when the
summation of individual damage values caused by each cycle reaches a value of one.
In this analysis, multi mean curve SN method was proposed to predict the cycle life of parabolic
leaf spring. Interpolate mean stress fatigue damage calculation method was applied together with
multi mean curve SN method. It causes the damage lookup to be performed by interpolating the
between the SN curves using both the mean and amplitude stress of the cycle. Multi mean curve SN
method possess multiple S-N curve, each one corresponding to a particular mean stress and held a
series of amplitude stress to life points. Multi mean life curve of material SAE 5160 and SAE
51B60H were obtained through experimental method and then used as input for fatigue software to
predict the fatigue of a parabolic leaf spring design using mean stress interpolation method. At the
same time, Gerber and Goodman mean stress correction method were also presented and compared
with interpolate method. Differences of cycle life between these two materials were reported with
Goodman, Gerber and interpolate mean stress correction method. SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H
could produce high variance in fatigue life of same parabolic leaf spring design. Nevertheless,
fatigue requirement of leaf spring is depending on spring manufacturer with consideration of
material costs where this study intends to serve them the guideline in material selection.

Methodology
Material chemical composition of SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H were obtained and listed in
Table 1. Carbon content of SAE 5160 is higher than SAE 51B60H while the manganese and
chromium content of the SAE 51B60H is higher than the SAE 5160. Higher chromium and
manganese content promote strength and hardenability as well as oxidation resistance of the carbon
steel [7].

Table 1: Chemical composition of SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H

Chemical composition (wt%) C Si Mn P S Cr

SAE 5160 0.64 0.35 1.00 0.035 0.035 0.90
SAE 51B60H 0.60 0.35 1.10 0.035 0.035 1.00

Finite element (FE) method was implemented prior to fatigue analysis. Nonlinear implicit
scheme was applied to the parabolic leaf spring model to obtain the stress strain behaviour. General
procedure of FE method includes meshing, apply boundary conditions for leaf spring operating
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 663 85

conditions [8] and materials, run solver was applied to process the geometric model. A parabolic
leaf spring FE model with 70052 hexa elements was solved through Altair® HyperWorks® Radioss
solver. Stress strain behaviour of the implicit simulation was used as input to the fatigue solver
together with constant amplitude loading.

(a) (b)

Fig. 1: Multi mean stress curve for (a) SAE 5160 and (b) SAE51B60H

In order to implement the multi mean S-N method, multi mean stress life curve was first
generated. Mechanical properties of the spring material SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H is listed in
Table 2. The multi mean stress curve for material SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H was plotted in
Figure 1. From Fig. 1, it can be seen that the effects of mean stress and amplitude stress towards the
life cycles for material SAE 5160 is higher than SAE 51B60H. This implies that the material grade
SAE 51B60H have better fatigue life than material SAE 5160. The mean stress life curve was
generated through experimental lab fatigue testing with leaf spring specimens. Through the actual
leaf spring specimens, the shot peening effects which significantly affect the fatigue life of the leaf
spring products were taking into consideration [9].

Table 2: Mechanical properties of spring steel material

Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)

SAE 5160 1440 205
SAE 51B60H 1500 205

Results and Discussion

Fatigue life estimation of material SAE 5160 and SAE 51B60H were conducted in virtual
simulation and shown in Fig. 2. SN engine was employed as the solver in this analysis. In this
analysis, mean stress of 623 MPa and stress range of 420 MPa were utilized to simulate the fatigue
life of parabolic leaf spring which is reflecting the actual lab testing requirement. Mean stress of
623 MPa is within the design consideration of vehicle laden condition and stress range of 420 MPa
depicts the estimated maximum loads could be transmitted from road. It is noteworthy that the
86 Automotive Engineering and Mobility Research

spring is within elastic limit. In this uniaxial analysis, principal stress is selected and combined into
scalar value. In case of the value of stress range or life cycles out of the multi curve, extrapolation
method was used to position above the maximum curve using top two curves.

Fig. 2: Fatigue life simulation of leaf spring in nCode DesignLife®

Table 3: Fatigue life of spring material with different mean stress correction method

Goodman Gerber Interpolate

SAE 5160 3.653 × 105 1.595 × 106 2.179 × 105
SAE 51B60H 7.526 × 106 1.218 × 108 2.442 × 106

Table 4: Fatigue damage of spring material with different mean stress correction method

Goodman Gerber Interpolate

SAE 5160 2.737 × 10-6 6.269 × 10-7 2.384 × 10-6
SAE 51B60H 1.329 × 10-7 8.208 × 10-9 4.094 × 10-7

From Table 3, interpolate method with multi mean curve indicates a most conservative result
with compared to others. Goodman mean stress correction method with standard stress life method
provides much lower cycle life compared to Gerber method. Gerber mean stress method has
predicted the fatigue life of the parabolic leaf spring with extensive high life cycles. Goodman mean
stress method is more conservative than Gerber during the fatigue simulation of leaf spring [10].
Compared to Gerber and Goodman, Interpolate mean stress method is the most conservative. For
fatigue damage analysis, the fatigue damage of simulation results is shown in Table 4. The fatigue
damage is inversely proportional to the fatigue life of the parabolic leaf springs. For material cost
consideration, SAE 5160 yields three times lower than SAE 51B60H. Besides that, manufacturing
process cost of SAE 5160 is also slightly lower than SAE51B60H. However, the standard
requirement of parabolic leaf spring is to surpass 200,000 life cycles under the test condition [11].
Based on the simulation result, design of parabolic leaf spring could be replaced by material
SAE5160 instead of SAE 51B60H where the fatigue requirement was fulfilled and material costs
were reduced.

Conclusions
In this analysis, fatigue life of parabolic leaf spring was predicted with different mean stress
correction method. Goodman and interpolate method had showed lower life cycles compared to
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 663 87

Gerber. On the other hand, material SAE 51B60H provides the parabolic leaf spring with higher
fatigue life cycle compared to SAE 5160 in all stress life analysis method. This analysis provides
the guideline to leaf spring designer on durability assessment and requirements. Cost of the material
as well as its suitability in manufacturing should be carefully considered in meeting the fatigue
requirement of the leaf spring products.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to APM Engineering & Research and Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia for supporting this research project.

References
[1] Y.S. Kong, M.Z. Omar, L.B. Chua, S. Abdullah, Stress behavior of a novel parabolic spring for
light duty vehicle, International Review of Mechanical Engineers. 6, 3 (2012) 617-620.
[2] F.N. Ahmad Refngah, S. Abdullah, A. Jalar, L.B. Chua, European Journal of Scientific
Research. 28, 3 (2009) 351-363.
[3] J.Y. Mann, The historical development of research on the fatigue of materials and structures.
The Journal of the Australian Institute of Metals. 3, 30 (1958) 222-241.
[4] J. Goodman, Mechanics Applied to Engineering, London, Longmans Green and Co, 1919.
[5] A. Palmgren, Die lebensdauer von kugellagern, Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure.
68, 14 (1924) 339-341.
[6] M.A. Miner, Cumulative damage in fatigue, J Appl Mech. 12, 3 (1945) 159-64.
[7] P.J. Cunat, Alloying Elements In Stainless Steel And Other Chromium-Containing Alloys,
International Chromium Development Association, Paris, 2004.
[8] Shimoseki, Masayoshi, Toshio Kuwabara, Toshio Hamano, and Toshiyuki Imaizumi, eds. FEM
for Springs. Springer, German 2003.
[9] M.A.S Torres, H.J.C Voorwald, An evaluation of shot peening, residual stress and stress
relaxation on the fatigue life of AISI 4340 steel, International Journal of Fatigue. 24, 8 (2002) 877-
886.
[10] J.P. Karthik, K.L. Chaitanya, C. Tara Sasanka, Fatigue life prediction of a parabolic spring
under non-constant amplitude proportional loading using finite element method, International
Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 46 (2012) 143-156.
[11] APM spring testing procedure, APM Springs Sdn Bhd, Selangor, Malaysia.

View publication stats