1

ABSTRACT

The leaf spring used in tractor trailer without much economical and technical
consideration. In the present work improvement areas where one can improve
the product quality while keeping the minimum cost. In the present work
analytical and Finite element method has been implemented to modify the
existing leaf spring with consider the dynamic load effect. One of the
important areas where one can improve the product quality while keeping the
cost low is the design aspect. One can design the product in such a way that its
performance increases while the customer has to pay less as compared to the
same product of other companies. Material and manufacturing process are
selected upon on the cost and strength factor whereas the design method is
selected on the basis of mass production. FEM and ANSYS software ensures a
healthy approach of designing the leaf spring thus epitomizing the traits that
are essential for the manufacturing.
In present work we are considering only the analytical analysis of leaf spring
of a tractor trailer of capacity 20 ton.







2

ABBREVIATIONS USED
K- Stiffness of spring
F.O.S- Factor of safety
f
b
- Allowable Bending Stress
T- Thickness of spring leaf
F- Force on each leaf
Deflection Of leaf
M- Maximum load acting
f
n
- Natural frequency of isolator
Y- Dynamic load factor
b- Width of leaves
t- Thickness of leaves
L- Length of leave
N
l
- Number of lower leaves
N
u
- Number of upper leaves
E- Youngs modulus
l
z
- Load Factor




3

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Springs are the oldest form of suspension known to man. In early times leather
straps were used on carriages to provide cushioning and stability. As steel
manufacturing was perfected during the Industrial Revolution it was
discovered that replacing leather straps with steel leaves provided a serious
improvement in ride, comfort and life of the suspension. Hence the first steel
leaf spring suspension was manufactured.
As a steel spring manufacturer since 1937, we have learned a few things about
springs and suspensions and believe the more we can share our knowledge
with you, the better understanding everyone will have about springs.
Characteristics of a good suspension include:
1. Maximum deflection consistent with required stability
2. Compatible with other vehicle components in terms of overall ride
3. Minimum weight
4. Low maintenance and operating costs
5. Minimize tire wear
6. Minimize wheel hop
7. Low initial cost
1.1 LEAF SPRING:
Originally Leaf spring called laminated or carriage spring, a leaf spring is a
simple form of spring, commonly used for the suspension in wheeled vehicles.
It is also one of the oldest forms of springing, dating back to medieval times.
Sometimes referred to as a semi-elliptical spring or cart spring, it takes the
form of a slender arc-shaped length of spring steel of rectangular cross-section.

4

The centre of the arc provides location for the axle, while tie holes are
provided at either end for attaching to the vehicle body. For very heavy
vehicles, a leaf spring can be made from several leaves stacked on top of each
other in several layers, often with progressively shorter leaves. Leaf springs
can serve locating and to some extent damping as well as springing functions.
A leaf spring can either be attached directly to the frame at both ends or
attached directly at one end, usually the front, with the other end attached
through a shackle, a short swinging arm. The shackle takes up the tendency of
the leaf spring to elongate when compressed and thus makes for softer
springiness.

Figure1.1 : description of leaf spring
1.2 TYPES OF LEAF SPRING:
There are only 3 basic types of leaf springs:
1.2.1 Multi-Leaf springs consist of heat-treated flat steel bars of diminishing
lengths formed to a predetermined arch held together by a bolt through
its center.

5

1.2.2 Mono-Leaf springs consist of only one heat-treated plate of steel whose
thickness is uniformly tapered from the center to each end. A tapered
mono-leaf spring can equal or exceed the strength of a multi-leaf spring.
1.2.3 Parabolic springs are multi-leaf versions of Mono-Leaf springs. That is,
they consist of 2 or more full tapered leaves.


Figure 1.2: Leaf Springs
1.3 SPRING EYES:
Leaf spring eyes hold the bushings through which bolts or pins pass through to
attach the spring to the vehicle. Spring eyes can be Standard, Berlin or
Reverse. Each has its own features.
1.3.1 STANDARD EYES are the most popular and easiest to make. Main
plates with Standard eyes can receive additional support by extending the
second leaf or wrap plate.

6

1.3.2 BERLIN EYES places the load through the centerline of the Main Plate,
which reduces lateral deflection.
1.3.3 REVERSE EYES will lower a vehicle while providing maximum spring
travel.The disadvantage of Berlin and Reverse eyes is that they cannot be
provided additional support from the second leaf. However this may not be
required in most cases.

Figure 1.3: types of eyes









7

CHAPTER 2
HISTORY OF LEAF SPRING

There were a variety of leaf springs, usually employing the word "elliptical".
"Elliptical" or "full elliptical" leaf springs referred to two circular arcs linked at
their tips. This was joined to the frame at the top center of the upper arc, the
bottom center was joined to the "live" suspension components, such as a solid
front axle. Additional suspension components, such as trailing arms, would be
needed for this design, but not for "semi-elliptical" leaf springs as used in the
Hotchkiss drive. That employed the lower arc, hence its name. "Quarter-
elliptic" springs often had the thickest part of the stack of leaves stuck into the
rear end of the side pieces of a short ladder frame, with the free end attached to
the differential, as in the Austin Seven of the 1920s. As an example of non-
elliptic leaf springs, the Ford Model T had multiple leaf springs over its
differential that were curved in the shape of a yoke. As a substitute for
dampers (shock absorbers), some manufacturers laid non-metallic sheets in
between the metal leaves, such as wood.
Leaf springs were very common on automobiles, right up to the 1970s, when
the move to front wheel drive, and more sophisticated suspension designs saw
automobile manufacturers use coil springs instead. U.S. passenger cars used
leaf springs until 1989 where the Chrysler M platform was the final production
vehicle marketed. However, leaf springs are still used in heavy commercial
vehicles such as vans and trucks, and railway carriages. For heavy vehicles,
they have the advantage of spreading the load more widely over the vehicle's
chassis, whereas coil springs transfer it to a single point. Unlike coil springs,
leaf springs also locate the rear axle, eliminating the need for trailing arms and

8

a Panhard rod, thereby saving cost and weight in a simple live axle rear
suspension.
A more modern implementation is the parabolic leaf spring. This design is
characterized by fewer leaves whose thickness varies from centre to ends
following a parabolic curve. In this design, inter-leaf friction is unwanted, and
therefore there is only contact between the springs at the ends and at the centre
where the axle is connected. Spacers prevent contact at other points. Aside
from a weight saving, the main advantage of parabolic springs is their greater
flexibility, which translates into vehicle ride quality that approaches that of
coil springs. There is a trade-off in the form of reduced load carrying
capability.
Like most other fundamental mechanisms, metal springs have existed since the
Bronze Age. Even before metals, wood was used as a flexible structural
member in archery bows and military catapults. Precision springs first became
a necessity during the Renaissance with the advent of accurate timepieces. The
fourteenth century saw the development of precise clocks which
revolutionized celestial navigation. World exploration and conquest by the
European colonial powers continued to provide an impetus to the clockmakers'
science and art. Firearms were another area that pushed spring development.
The eighteenth century dawn of the industrial revolution raised the need for
large, accurate, and inexpensive springs. Whereas clockmakers' springs were
often hand-made, now springs needed to be mass-produced from music wire
and the like. Manufacturing methodologies were developed so that today
springs are ubiquitous. Computer-controlled wire and sheet metal bending
machines now allow custom springs to be tooled within weeks, although the
throughput is not as high as that for dedicated machinery.


9

CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF LEAF SPRING

3.1 FORMULAE USED:
1. F.O.S=()
permit
2.
ted
/()
developed
=()
permitted
/()
developed
3. ()
developed
= bending stress developed =

4. ()
developed
= deflection =

5. L
z
= load factor =

)

6. ()
developed
=

[l
z
]
7. ()
developed
=

[l
z
]
8. Y=v
s
*f
n
*
9. f
n
=

10. v
s
=(2*g*s)
0.5
11. K=k
u
*k
l
/k
u
+k
l
12. K= (8Enbt
3
)/( 3l
3
)
3.2 MATERIAL USED IN THE EXISTING LEAF SPRING:
SAE 9260 cr-v steel
3.3 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SAE 9260:
Table 3.1
GRADE C % Ni % Mn % Cr % Mo %
SAE 9260 .56-.64 .55 .75-1.00 .50 .20-.30


10

3.4 SPECIFICATION OF SAE 9260 CR-V STEEL:
Table 3.2
PROPERTIES VALUE
Density 8000 kg/m^3
Elastic Modulus 204 Gpa
Tensile strength 1155 Mpa
Yield Strength 1034 Mpa
Hardness 335 BHN
















11

CHAPTER 4
CALCULATION

A tractor trailer of 20 ton capacity of M/s Awachat Industries pvt. Ltd is
considered for design of leaf springs used in it.
Material of spring used: SAE 9260 Cr-V steel
Bending stress allowable for this material (f
b
) = 1100 Mpa
F.O.S=1.5-2.0
Here we are considering a F.O.S of 2.0
Maximum permitted bending strength for springs= fb*S
z
Where S
z
=0.8+2.5/t
T=thickness of spring leaf (normally 8-15 mm)
Taking t=10 (intermediate value)
S
z
=1.05
Therefore,

b(permitted)
=1100*1.05 N/mm
2
=1155N/mm
2
Using factor of safety =2

(permitted)
/
(developed)
=2

(developed)=
577.5N/mm
2

Length of spring span = 700 to 800 mm
Therefore half length of cantilever beam= 350 to 400 mm
Let l=380 mm
Using concept of cantilever beam :
= wl^3/3EI = l^2/12Et



12

Table 4.1: calculation
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3
t=8 mm T=9 mm t=10 mm
()
developed
=8.51 mm
()
max
=17.02 mm
()
developed
=7.5 mm
()
max
=15mm
()
developed
=6.81mm
()
max
=13.62mm
K=(F)
max
/()
max
F=20000*9.8/2=98000N
K=5757.932N/mm
K=6533.33N/mm K=7195.3N/mm

Now considering dynamic factors
Using
Y = (v
s
*f*)/g
= 0.64v
s
*f
n
Where f
n
=natural frequency of isolater experienced by chassis
=1/2(k*1000/M)^0.5
M = maximum load acting = 20000 kg ( including trolley chassis weight)
We know
S=ut+1/2gt
2
u= initial download velocity =0 when trailer going inside a drop of some depth
s=1/2gt
2

&
V
s
= gt
Therefore
V
s
= (2gs)^0.5
For a safer design under normal consideration,
Considering a sudden drop of depth 0.15 mm, equivalent load capacity
changes.
For s= 0.15 mm

13

V
s
=1.7
Equivalent static load capacity=static load*load factor
Now for the three different thickness frequency would be:
Table 4.2: calculation
t=8mm t=9mm t=10mm
f
n
=2.70 f
n
=2.88 f
n
=3.02
Y=2.96 Y=3.15 Y=3.3
F=20000*2.96*9.8/4
F=144995N
F=20000*9.8*3.15/4
F=154351N
F=20000*9.8*3.3/4
F=161965.30N
()
developed
=

N=28
N=21 N=16

Therefore using t=10mm as no of springs are in the optimum range neither too
much nor less.
Now for calculating theoretical stiffness
()
developed
=wl^3/3EI
L=380mm
E=2.04*10^5N/mm
2
I=bt^3/12
W=20000*9.8/2=98000N
()
developed
=8.78mm
Therefore
()
max
=8.78*2=17.5mm
K=(F)
max
/()
max
Assumption in using this dynamic loading concept:
Spring considered linear i.e. single D.O.F
Since
Equivalent load bear by two different sets of leaf springs,
Force on each leaf spring,

14

2F= 20000*3.3*9.8/2 =323930N
F=323930/2
=161965N
Now,
Calculating
(F)
max
= k()
max
()
max
= 13.62mm
()
developed
= ()
max
/2
=6.81mm
For optimum design,
Most commonly used ratio of width : thickness = 10:1 by most designers.
Using this in our design
B=10t
Using

(developed)
= 577.5N/mm
2
= 3*F*l/2*n*b*t
2
&

()
developed
= 6.81mm = 3*f*l
3
/8Enbt
3
We get the relation
l
2
/t = 9622.63
Now to assume standard width of leaf
We are with following two most possible cases:
CASE1:
b=80mm
Thus t= 8 mm
l=340mm
& n=28leaf
CASE 2:
b=100mm

15

t=10 mm
l=372.8 mm
& n=16 leaf
Thus case 2 is more economical and is thus used.
If however instead of using all leaf of equal length we are considering full
length and graduated leaf:

(developed)
= 3*F*l/2*n
g
*b*t
2
[l
z
]
&
()
developed
= 3*f*l
3
/8Enbt
3
[l
z
]
Where l
z
= load factor=1/[1+1.5(n
f
/n
g
)]
N
f
=no. of full length leaf =1
N
g
=no. of graduated leaf=15
Therefore
()
developed
=6.20mm

(developed)
=530.53 N/mm
2
thus,
not a major effect of considering these changes.
We simply find the no of leaves in each spring and its effective length and
keep reducing length of each subsequent leaf linearly.

Figure 4.1: multiplate multi leaf spring

16

If,
K
u
=stiffness of upper spring
K
l
=stiffness of lower spring
K=2k
u
k
l
/k
u
k
l
= 7195.3
And from data book,
K
u
= (3.0 to 4.0) k
l
We choose 3.5 as the factor
K
u
= 3.5k
l
k
l
= 4625.55 N/mm

k
u
=1321.58 N/mm

using
k=8Enbt
3
/3l
3
we get
3.5=(l
l
/l
u
)^3(16/n
l
-1)
If
Table 4.3 : calculation
N
l
=8 N
l
=9 N
l
=10
L
l
=1.38l
u
L
l
=1.52 l
u
L
l
=1.67 l
u


Design criteria is such that :
1) More no of leaf in lower spring.
2) No of leaf in upper spring 6 or 7.
3) No of leaf in lower spring 9 or 10.
Table 4.3

Case 1 Case 2
If N
1
=9 N
1
=10
L
1
= 380 mm L
1
= 380 mm
N
u
= 7 N
u
= 6
L
u
= 250 mm L
u
= 228 mm

17

Therefore suitable cases here are:
From standard design data correct expression for ST Stepping spring:
N
l
/N
u
=L
l
/L
u
From these considerations
N
l
=10 & N
u
=6 is the correct option.
Thus specifications of leaf spring:
Table 4.4
Description Upper spring(mm) Lower
spring(mm)
No of leaves 6 10
Width of leaves b 100 100
Thickness of leaves t 10 10
Effective length 228 380
Youngs modulus E 2.04*10
5
N/mm
2
2.04*10
5
N/mm
2

4.1 CALCULATION OF LENGTH OF LEAVES
The length of the leaf springs leaves may be obtained as discussed below :
2L
l
= Length of span or overall length of the spring
= length of U - Bolts. It is the ineffective length of the spring
n
f
= Number of full length leaves
n
g
= Number of graduated leaves
n = Total number of leaves (Full length leaves + Graduated leaves)
Effective length of the spring 2L = 2L
l
-
Length of n
th
smallest leaf = [effective length / (N
t
1)] * n + [Ineffective length
]
Length of 1
st
smallest leaf = [effective length / (N
t
1)] * 1 + [Ineffective
length]

18

Length of 2
nd
smallest leaf =[effective length / (N
t
1) ] * 2 + [Ineffective
length ]
& so on.
Spring no 1 here corresponds to smallest leaf, 2 to next bigger and so on.
So for both upper and lower springs length of each leaf is calculated and found
out to be:
4.1.1 UPPER SPRING
Table 4.5: calculation of upper spring
Spring Length(mm)
1 105
2 136
3 166
4 196
5 218
6 228

4.1.2 LOWER SPRING:
Table 4.6: calculation of lower spring
Spring Length(mm)
1 118
2 156
3 194
4 232
5 269
6 307
7 345

19

8 8&9 leaf are extra full length leaf to support master leaf
9

4.2 CAMBER LENGTH CALCULATION:
Since the leaf spring is fixed with the axle at its centre, only half of it is
considered for analysis purpose. Since analyzing half of the leaf spring is
enough, half of the applied force would have been taken. But here we took as
it is to account over loadings of the vehicle and flexures of the leaf spring.
Calculating for h and b dimensions which are capable of withstanding the
loading behaviour of the composite (E-glass/ Epoxy) leaf spring is the result of
this design.
Based on previous work we found that
()
max
=13.62mm
()
max
=577.5 N/mm
2
Half length=380mm
Therefore 2L=760mm
Using:
Camber length=0.089(2L-15)
4.2.1 FOR UPPER SPRING CAMBER:
Table 4.7
Length Camber
105 17.36
136 22.88
166 28.21
196 33.55

20

218 37.47
228 39.25

4.2.2 FOR LOWER LEAFS:
Table 4.8
Length Camber
380 66.30
345 60.075
307 53.311
269 46.547
232 39.961
194 33.197
156 26.433
118 19.669

Length of 1
st
, 2
nd
& 3
rd
leaves are same i.e. 380








21

CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION TO ANSYS

ANSYS is a general purpose software, used to simulate interactions of all
disciplines of physics, structural, vibration, fluid dynamics, heat transfer and
electromagnetic for engineers. So ANSYS, which enables to simulate tests or
working conditions, enables to test in virtual environment before
manufacturing prototypes of products. Furthermore, determining and
improving weak points, computing life and foreseeing probable problems are
possible by 3D simulations in virtual environment. ANSYS software with its
modular structure gives an opportunity for taking only needed features.
ANSYS can work integrated with other used engineering software on desktop
by adding CAD and FEA connection modules. ANSYS can import CAD data
and also enables to build a geometry with its "preprocessing" abilities.
Similarly in the same preprocessor, finite element model (a.k.a. mesh) which is
required for computation is generated. After defining loadings and carrying out
analyses, results can be viewed as numerical and graphical. ANSYS can carry
out advanced engineering analyses quickly, safely and practically by its variety
of contact algorithms, time based loading features and nonlinear material
models.ANSYS Workbench is a platform which integrate simulation
technologies and parametric CAD systems with unique automation and
performance. The power of ANSYS Workbench comes from ANSYS solver
algorithms with years of experience. Furthermore, the object of ANSYS
Workbench is verification and improving of the product in virtual
environment.


22











23




24

5.1 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD:
In mathematics, finite element method (FEM) is a numerical technique for
finding approximate solutions to boundary value problems. It uses variational
methods (the Calculus of variations) to minimize an error function and
produce a stable solution. Analogous to the idea that connecting many tiny
straight lines can approximate a larger circle, FEM encompasses all the
methods for connecting many simple element equations over many small
subdomains, named finite elements, to approximate a more complex equation
over a larger domain.
5.2 HISTORY:
While it is difficult to quote a date of the invention of the finite element
method, the method originated from the need to solve
complex elasticity and structural analysis problems in civil and aeronautical
engineering. Its development can be traced back to the work by A.
Hrennikoff and R. Courant. Although the approaches used by these pioneers
are different, they share one essential characteristic: mesh discretization of a
continuous domain into a set of discrete sub-domains, usually called elements.
Hrennikoff's work discretizes the domain by using a lattice analogy, while
Courant's approach divides the domain into finite triangular subregions to
solve second order elliptic partial differential equations (PDEs) that arise from
the problem of torsion of a cylinder. Courant's contribution was evolutionary,
drawing on a large body of earlier results for PDEs developed
by Rayleigh, Ritz, and Galerkin. The finite element method obtained its real
impetus in the 1960s and 70s by the developments of J.H. Argyris and co-
workers at the University of Stuttgart, R.W. Clough and co-workers at UC
Berkeley, O.C. Zienkiewiczand co-workers at the University of Swansea, and
Richard Gallagher
[1]
and co-workers at Cornell University. Further impetus

25

was provided in these years by available open source finite element software
programs. NASA sponsored the original version of NASTRAN, and UC
Berkeley made the finite element program SAP IV
[2]
widely available. A
rigorous mathematical basis to the finite element method was provided in 1973
with the publication by Strang and Fix.
[3]
The method has since been
generalized for the numerical modeling of physical systems in a wide variety
of engineering disciplines, e.g., electromagnetism, heat transfer, and fluid
dynamics; see O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L.Taylor, and J.Z. Zhu,
[4]
and K.J. Bathe.
[5]

5.3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
The subdivision of a whole domain into simpler parts has several advantages:
5.3.1 Accurate representation of complex geometry
5.3.2 Inclusion of dissimilar material properties
5.3.3 Easy representation of the total solution
5.3.4 Capture of local effects.
A typical work out of the method involves (1) dividing the domain of the
problem into a collection of subdomains, with each subdomain represented by
a set of element equations to the original problem, followed by (2)
systematically recombining all sets of element equations into a global system
of equations for the final calculation. The global system of equations has
known solution techniques, and can be calculated from the initial values of the
original problem to obtain a numerical answer. A feature of FEM is that it
is numerically stable, meaning that errors in the input and intermediate
calculations do not accumulate and cause the resulting output to be
meaningless. In the first step above, the element equations are simple
equations that locally approximates the original complex equations to be
studied, where the original equations are often partial differential
equations (PDE). To explain the approximation in this process, FEM is

26

commonly introduced as a special case of Galerkin method. The process, in
mathematics language, is to construct an integral of the inner product of the
residual and the weight functions and set the integral to zero. In simple terms,
it is a procedure that minimizes the error of approximation by fitting trial
functions into the PDE. The residual is the error caused by the trial functions,
and the weight functions are polynomial approximation functions that project
the residual. The process eliminates all the spatial derivatives from the PDE,
thus approximating the PDE locally with
a set of algebraic equations for steady state problems,
a set of ordinary differential equations for transient problems.
These equation sets are the element equations. They are linear if the
underlying PDE is linear, and vice versa. Algebraic equation sets that arise in
the steady state problems are solved using numerical linear algebra methods,
while ordinary differential equation sets that arise in the transient problems are
solved by numerically integration using standard techniques such as Euler's
method or the Runge-Kutta method. In the second step above, a global system
of equations is generated from the element equations through a transformation
of coordinates from the subdomains' local nodes to the domain's global nodes.
This spatial transformation includes appropriate orientation adjustments as
applied in relation to the reference coordinate system. The process is often
carried out by FEM software using coordinates data generated from the
subdomains. FEM is best understood from its practical application, known
as finite element analysis (FEA). FEA as applied in engineering is a
computational tool for performing engineering analysis. It includes the use
of mesh generation techniques for dividing a complex problem into small
elements, as well as the use of software program coded with FEM algorithm.
In applying FEA, the complex problem is usually a physical system with the

27

underlying physics such as the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation, the heat
equation, or the Navier-Stokes equations expressed in either PDE or integral
equations, while the divided small elements of the complex problem represent
different areas in the physical system. FEA is a good choice for analyzing
problems over complicated domains (like cars and oil pipelines), when the
domain changes (as during a solid state reaction with a moving boundary),
when the desired precision varies over the entire domain, or when the solution
lacks smoothness. For instance, in a frontal crash simulation it is possible to
increase prediction accuracy in "important" areas like the front of the car and
reduce it in its rear (thus reducing cost of the simulation). Another example
would be in numerical weather prediction, where it is more important to have
accurate predictions over developing highly nonlinear phenomena (such
as tropical cyclones in the atmosphere, or eddies in the ocean) rather than
relatively calm areas.
APPLICATION:
A variety of specializations under the umbrella of the mechanical engineering
discipline (such as aeronautical, biomechanical, and automotive industries)
commonly use integrated FEM in design and development of their products.
Several modern FEM packages include specific components such as thermal,
electromagnetic, fluid, and structural working environments. In a structural
simulation, FEM helps tremendously in producing stiffness and strength
visualizations and also in minimizing weight, materials, and costs. FEM allows
detailed visualization of where structures bend or twist, and indicates the
distribution of stresses and displacements. FEM software provides a wide
range of simulation options for controlling the complexity of both modeling
and analysis of a system. Similarly, the desired level of accuracy required and
associated computational time requirements can be managed simultaneously to
address most engineering applications. FEM allows entire designs to be

28

constructed, refined, and optimized before the design is manufactured. This
powerful design tool has significantly improved both the standard of
engineering designs and the methodology of the design process in many
industrial applications. The introduction of FEM has substantially decreased
the time to take products from concept to the production line. It is primarily
through improved initial prototype designs using FEM that testing and
development have been accelerated. In summary, benefits of FEM include
increased accuracy, enhanced design and better insight into critical design
parameters, virtual prototyping, fewer hardware prototypes, a faster and less
expensive design cycle, increased productivity, and increased revenue.



















29

















30