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

net/publication/351428769

A Finite Element Analysis of Automobile Leaf Spring

Conference Paper · March 2021

CITATION READS

1 4,631

4 authors:

Shahriar Hasan Ashfaq Ahmed

Jahangirnagar University Brown University
5 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nihal Ahmed Muntasir Mamun

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Khulna University of Engineering and Technology
20 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashfaq Ahmed on 08 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Finite Element Analysis of Automobile Leaf Spring

Shahriar Hasan1, Ashfaq Ahmed2, Nihal Ahmed1, Muntasir Mamun1

1Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology
(KUET),
Khulna - 9203, Bangladesh.
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technol-

ogy (BUET),
Dhaka - 1000, Bangladesh.
ashfaqahmed.buet@gmail.com
Abstract. Leaf springs are a special kind of springs and are one of the most im-
portant components of an automobile suspension system. Leaves are basically a
series of flat plates, usually of semi-elliptical shape. Generally, a multi-leaf
spring used in automobile suspension consists of two types of leaves i.e. gradu-
ated-length leaves and full-length leaves. The advantage of leaf spring over heli-
cal spring is that the ends of the spring may be guided along a definite path as it
deflects to act as a structural member in addition to energy absorbing device. The
main function of leaf spring is not only to support vertical load but also to isolate
road induced vibrations. It is subjected to millions of load cycles leading to fa-
tigue failure. The static analysis determines the safe stress and strain of the leaf
spring and to study the behavior of structures under practical conditions. Our
present study attempts to analyze the safe load of the leaf spring. It also validates
the concept of cantilever beam employed in the theoretical analysis of multi-leaf
spring. A lot of research work has been carried out in the context of leaf spring
considering its material and significant progress has been observed in the field of
weight reduction, and improvement of load-carrying capacity under the replace-
ment with any advanced material. Finite element analysis has been carried out to
determine safe stresses and payloads. The multi-leaf spring was modeled in
SOLIDWORKS 2015 and the same were analyzed under similar conditions using
ANSYS Workbench 19.2 software considering structural steel and SAE 1074
spring steel as the spring material. Theoretical and software-based results are pre-
sented and compared for validation. Dimensions are taken from the multi-leaf
spring used in the vehicles in Bangladesh.

Keywords: Leaf spring, Structural steel, SAE 1074.

1 Introduction

Spring is defined as an elastic body; whose function is to distort when loaded and to
recover its original shape when the load is removed. Leaf springs possess many desir-
able suspension features, such as dampening, forward bite, rollover steer, high anti-
squat percentage, and high lateral stiffness. In addition, the leaf spring suspension is
more forgiving on chassis set-up errors [1]. It differs from the conventional helical
spring in a way that it can be guided along a definite path and it deflects under the
application of load while acting as a structural member. Leaf springs absorb the vehicle
2

vibrations, shocks, and bump loads (induced due to road irregularities) by means of
spring deflections so that the potential energy is stored in the leaf spring and then re-
lieved slowly [2]. The ability to store and absorb more amount of strain energy ensures
the comfortable suspension system. Semi-elliptic leaf springs are almost universally
used for suspension in light and heavy commercial vehicles. The leaf spring is based
upon the theory of a beam of uniform strength. The lengthiest blade has eyes on its
ends. This blade is called the main or master leaf, the remaining blades are called grad-
uated leaves. When the vehicle comes across a projection on the road surface, the wheel
moves up, leading to the deflection of the spring. This changes the length between the
spring eyes. If both the ends are fixed, the spring will not be able to accommodate this
change of length. So, to accommodate this change in length shackle is provided at one
end, which gives a flexible connection. The master leaf and the graduated-length leaves
are to support the transverse shear force. In order to maintain proper alignment and to
restrict the lateral shifting of leaves, rebound clips are used [3]. During loading, the
spring deflects and moves in the direction perpendicular to the load applied. When the
leaf spring deflects, the upper side of each leaf tips slides or rubs against the lower side
of the leaf above it. This produces some damping which reduces spring vibrations [4].
Existing research on leaf spring is based on cyclic creep, cyclic deformation, failure of
leaf spring, composite leaf spring, glass fiber reinforced leaf spring, premature failure
analysis, etc. at different static load. Shiva Shankar and Vijayarangan [5] manufactured
a composite mono leaf spring with an integral eye and tested under static load condi-
tions. Also, fatigue life prediction was also done to ensure a reliable number of life
cycles of a leaf spring. Niklas Philipson and Modelan modeled [6] a leaf spring in a
conventional way and simulated for the kinematic and dynamic comparatives. Zhi’an
Yang and et al. [7] studied the cyclic creep and cyclic deformation. Efforts were taken
for Finite Element Analysis of multi-leaf springs. These springs were simulated and
analyzed by using ANSYS [8]. C.K. Clarke and G.E. Borowski [9] evaluated the failure
of leaf spring at different static load conditions and J.J. Fuentes et al. [10] studied the
effect of premature fracture in Automobile Leaf Springs. Mouleeswaran et al. [11] de-
scribes static and fatigue analysis of steel leaf springs and composite multi-leaf spring
made up of glass fiber reinforced polymer using life data analysis. The present work
makes an attempt to validate the above concept by performing static structural analysis
using ANSYS software for the evaluation of maximum von mises stress, maximum von
mises strain, total deformation, and subsequently strain energy of leaf spring. Different
researches have been carried out regarding performance, the response of components
to static and dynamic loads, crashworthiness, safety, and others by different institutions
and automotive companies. The goal of meshing in ANSYS Workbench is to provide
robust, easy to use meshing tools that will simplify the mesh generation process. These
tools have the benefit of being highly automated along with having a moderate to a high
degree of user control. The results obtained from the analysis depend upon the selection
of the finite element and the mesh size. Although the finite element model does not
behave exactly like the actual structure, it is possible to obtain sufficiently accurate
results for most practical applications.
 3

Fig. 1. General structure of a leaf spring used in Bangladesh.

Usually, the eyes, through which the spring is attached to the hanger or shackle, are
provided with bushings of some anti-friction material such as bronze or rubber. The
other leaves of the spring are known as graduated leaves. Since the master leaf has to
withstand vertical bending loads as well as loads due to sideways of the vehicle and
twisting, therefore due to the presence of stresses caused by these loads, it is usual to
provide two full-length leaves and the rest graduated leaves. Generally, two types of
materials (structural steel and SAE1074) are used in industrial purpose and in the auto-
mobile sectors. The problem statement of this study is to make a valid comparison
among the elastic stress, strain, and total deformation between these two materials un-
der different range of loads. So, at the end of this study, we will be able to select the
better material accordingly.

2 Physical Modeling

Length of span or overall length of the spring, 2L1=1100 mm

Assuming,
Width of band or distance between centers of U bolts. It is the ineffective length of
the spring, l = 80 mm
Number of full-length leaves, nF = 2
Number of full graduated leaves, nG = 5
n = Total number of leaves, n = nF + nG = 2 + 5 = 7
Effective length of the spring, 2L = 2L1 – l = 1100 – 80 = 1020 mm
Thickness of each leaf, t = 7 mm and the width of the leaf, b = 70 mm
Camber of the leaf spring, y = 60 mm
Effective length
Length of smallest leaf = - Ineffective length
𝑛−1
Effective length
Length of next leaf or nth leaf = × n + Ineffective length
𝑛−1
(𝐿1 )2
Relation between radius of curvature (R) and the camber (y), R=
2𝑦
The exact relation, y(2R+y) = 2(L1)
1020
length of the smallest leaf = + 80 = 250𝑚𝑚
7−1
1020
length of the 2nd leaf = × 2 + 80 = 420𝑚𝑚
7−1
4

1020
length of the 3rd leaf = × 3 + 80 = 590𝑚𝑚
7−1
1020
length of the 4th leaf = × 4 + 80 = 760𝑚𝑚
7−1
1020
length of the 5th leaf = × 5 + 80 = 930𝑚𝑚
7−1
1020
length of the 6th leaf = × 6 + 80 = 1100𝑚𝑚
7−1
length of the 6th leaf & master leaf is same = 1100mm

Radius of the curvature is found by,

y(2R+y) = (L1)2
(550)2 1 (550)2
 60(2R+60) = (550)2  2R+60 = R = [ − 60] = 2490.833mm
60 2 60

Fig. 2. Dimension of the leaf spring used in Bangladesh.

3 Material Properties and Mesh Generation

Fig. 3. Material Properties of Structural Steel

 5

Fig. 4. Material Properties for SAE 1074.

Fig. 5. Mesh generation on the eye of the leaf spring

Generally, the results are getting better and better with the increase of number of ele-
ments, but there is an optimum where the results are near about the actual result. It
means reaching near about the actual result with minimum number of elements.
Table 1. Values with corresponding element size

Equivalent
Element Element Equivalent Strain Total
Stress
Size(mm) No (Max) Displacement(mm)
(Max)(MPa)
10 4088 43.624 0.00021813 0.46705
9 5152 43.762 0.00021882 0.46719
8 6408 43.862 0.00021932 0.46735
7 8650 43.606 0.00021806 0.46706
6 13872 44.046 0.00022024 0.46781
5 23086 47.484 0.00023734 0.46797
4 44262 46.859 0.00023431 0.4682
3 104952 47.132 0.00023566 0.4686
2 339185 47.464 0.00023732 0.46895
6

Equivalent Stress vs Element No

50
45
40
Equivalent Stress

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Element No

Fig. 6. Relationship between equivalent stress and the number of elements.

Furthermore, to obtain the most accurate result in the shortest possible time, numer-
ical analysis it is one of the most important and effective analyzing tools.

4 Boundary Condition and Validation

The leaf spring is mounted on the axle of an automobile. The frame of the vehicle is
connected to the ends of the leaf spring. The ends are constructed in such a way that
they form an eye-like structure. The front eye of the spring is directly connected with
the frame by means of a simple pin joint; hence, it can freely rotate about the pin about
Z- axis but is restricted for any kind of translation and rotation in all the other directions.
So, under the static structural domain of ANSYS software, the Remote Displacement
was inserted and except rotation about Z-axis, all other motions were constrained to set
the above boundary condition.

Fig. 7. Boundary condition for the leaf spring.

 7

Now, the rear eye of the leaf spring is connected with the frame through a flexible link
known as shackle. So, it has the flexibility to slide along length of the spring. These
were again established through Remote Displacement by setting X-direction as uncon-
strained for translation according to the geometry, while keeping all other translator
motions restricted and keeping all other rotational motions constrained for the rear eye
of the spring.

One paper was verified for this work. Analysis of Dr. R.N. Barman [1] was analyzed
by using ANSYS 19.2 software.

Table 2. Equivalent stress data for present work and paper’s work

Load Equivalent Stress (Von Mises) (MPa)

(N)
R. N. Barman [1] Present Model Error (%)
5000 47.536 46.994 1.14
10000 95.127 93.988 1.2
15000 142.610 140.98 1.14

5 Result and Discussion

As explained in the previous section, this research work is an analysis of the static
structure of a leaf spring generally used in automobiles. Two commonly used materials
(i.e. Structural steel and SAE 1074) have been considered to testify the static behavior
of the leaf spring. These materials were taken due to their effective mechanical prop-
erty, availability. By an interval of 1,000 N, the load was continuously applied up to
the ultimate strength of 460 MPa and 820 MPa for structural steel and SAE 1074 re-
spectively. This analysis includes a variation of Equivalent stress, Equivalent Elastic
Strain, Total Deformation, and Total Strain Energy with loads. The contour for each
case has been included.

The contour for applying 5,000 N and 10,000 N load has been depicted. In both
cases, the findings are almost the same. As the load has been increased two times, the
value of other parameters has also increased following linearity. The equivalent stress
is maximum at the rear eye section and minimum at the front eye section. The upper
and bottom part of the spring has experienced slightly more stress than the core part
[fig. 8 (a) & 8 (b)]. When the load is applied, the leaf spring tends to deform most at
the middle portion. The deformation of the front eye is less where the deformation of
the rear eye is near average [fig. 8 (c) & 8 (d)]. The maximum equivalent elastic strain
is higher at the rear eye and the minimum at the front eye and the whole leaf spring
have moderate equivalent elastic strain. [fig. 8 (e) & 8. (f)] The maximum strain energy
happens at the rear eye section. The upper and bottom parts of the leaf spring are show-
ing a moderate amount of strain energy. [fig. 8 (g) & 8 (h)].
8

5.1 Structural Steel

(a) Equivalent stress for 5,000 N (b) Equivalent stress for 10,000 N

(c) Total deformation for 5,000 N (d) Total Deformation for 10,000 N

(e) Equivalent Strain for 5,000 N (f) Equivalent Strain for 10,000 N

(g) Strain Energy for 5,000 N (h) Strain Energy for 10,000 N
Fig. 8. Contour of Structural strain leaf spring for various parameter.
 9

The contour for leaf spring applying 5,000 N and 10,000 N was also analyzed. The
equivalent stress is maximum at the rear eye section and minimum at the front eye
section. The upper and bottom part of the spring has experienced slightly more stress
than the core part [fig 9 (a) & 9 (b)]. When the load is applied, the leaf spring tends to
deform most at the middle portion. Deformation of the front eye is less where defor-
mation of the rear eye is near average [fig 9 (c) & 9 (d)].

The maximum equivalent elastic strain is higher at the rear eye and the minimum at
the front eye and the whole leaf spring have moderate equivalent elastic strain. [fig 9
(e) & 9 (f)] The maximum strain energy happens at the rear eye section. The upper and
bottom parts of the leaf spring are showing a moderate amount of strain energy. [fig 9
(g) & 9 (h)].

5.2 SAE 1074

(b) Equivalent stress for 10,000 N

(a) Equivalent stress for 5,000 N

(c) Total deformation for 5,000 N (d) Total deformation for 10,000 N

(e) Equivalent Strain for 5,000 N (f) Equivalent Strain for 10,000 N
10

(g) Strain Energy for 5,000 N (h) Strain Energy for 10,000 N

Fig. 9. Contour SAE 1074 strain leaf spring for various parameter

5.3 Comparison of Structural Steel vs SAE 1074

Fig. 10. Total deformation comparison

Fig. 11. Total strain energy comparison

 11

Fig. 12. Equivalent elastic strain comparison

Fig. 13. Equivalent stress comparison

Fig. (10 – 13) shows that for a particular load, SAE 1074 has less equivalent stress
than structural steel. It is also noticed that as the load increases, the difference between
the equivalent stress of structural steel and SAE 1074 is being reduced. Here also SAE
has less equivalent elastic strain than structural steel but the difference goes higher as
the load goes higher. SAE has less total deformation than structural steel but the differ-
ence goes higher as the load goes higher. The strain energy is almost the same when
the load is minimal but it starts to fluctuate when the load increases. The structural steel
leaf spring can be used up to 2.44 tons vehicle where the SAE 1074 leaf spring can be
used up to 5.30 tons of vehicle. The mass of structural steel leaf spring is 20.406 kg
where the SAE 1074 leaf spring has a mass of 20.016 kg. So, some weight can be re-
moved by using SAE 1074.

6 Conclusion
In this work, a leaf spring used in the automobile industries has been analyzed. The
statics mechanism of the physical structure has been studied. A model of leaf spring
was designed using SolidWorks 2015 and was simulated using the commercial software
package ANSYS Static Structural 19.2 by varying loads to investigate the behavior of
 12

static properties for two different materials in terms of better efficiency and good me-
chanical advantage. The materials used in this case are structural steel and SAE 1074.
For the material structural steel, the maximum safe load is 6,000 N as the yield stress
is 250 MPa. For SAE 1074, the maximum safe load is 13,000 N as the yield stress is
570 MPa. The equivalent strain for SAE 1074 is less than that of structural steel. It is
observed that the maximum equivalent stress is developed at the rear eye sections for
both materials. This factor should be kept in mind at the time of design, fabrication, and
selecting material for the eye section. Though the capacity to absorb energy is more in
structural steel, it is recommended to use SAE 1074 over structural steel considering
the safe load, yield stress, and the weight of the vehicle it can be used in. As this is the
static analysis of the structure, this research can be further extended to the dynamic
analysis. The modern shape optimization techniques can be applied to achieve effective
shape as well as reduce weight. This static analysis can be a solution for the existing
over vibration problem of an automobile.

7 References
1. R. Ghosh, S. Ghimire and D. R. N. Barman,STATIC ANALYSIS OF MULTI-LEAF
SPRING USING ANSYS WORKBENCH 16.0,International Journal of Mechanical En-
gineering and technology (IJMET), vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 241-249, 2016.
2. Senthil kumar and Vijayarangan, “Analytical and Experimental studies on Fatigue life Pre-
diction of steel leaf soring and composite leaf multi leaf spring for Light passenger vehicles
using life data analysis” ISSN 1392 1320 material science Vol. 13 No.2 2007
3. V.B. Bhandari, design of machine elements (McGraw Hill Education, ISBN: 0-07-0681791-
1, 2014).
4. G. Harinath Gowd, E. Venugopal Goud, Static analysis of leaf spring, International Journal
of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST), ISSN: 0975-5462 Vol. 4 No.08 August
2012.
5. Shiva Shankar and Vijayarangan “Mono Composite Leaf Spring for Light Weight Vehicle
Design, End Joint, Analysis and Testing” ISSN 1392 Material Science Vol. 12, No.3, 2006.
6. Niklas Philipson and Modelan AB “Leaf spring modelling” idea on Science Park SE-22370
Lund, Sweden.
7. Zhi’an Yang and et al “Cyclic Creep and Cyclic Deformation of High-Strength Spring
Steels and the Evaluation of the Sag Effect: Part I. Cyclic Plastic Deformation Behavior”
Material and Material Transaction A Vol 32A, July 2001—1697.
8. Muhammad Ashiqur Rahman and et al “Inelastic deformations of stainless steel leafsprings-
experiment and nonlinear analysis” Meccanica Springer Science Business Media B.V. 2009.
9. C.K. Clarke and G.E. Borowski “Evaluation of Leaf Spring Failure” ASM International,
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Vol5 (6) Pg. No. (54-63).
10. J.J. Fuentes and et al “Premature Fracturein Automobile Leaf Springs” Journal of Science
Direct, Engineering Failure Analysis Vol. 16 (2009) Pg. No. 648-655.
11. Mouleeswaran Senthil Kumar and Sabapathy Vijayarangan (2007). Analytical and experi-
mental studies on fatigue life prediction of steel and composite multi-leaf spring for light
passenger vehicles using life data analysis. Materials Science 13(2) 141-146.

View publication stats