Professional Documents
Culture Documents
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028
ISBN 0-7680-1319-4
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
2004-01-0782
INTRODUCTION
Spring Rate
where,
If load is written in terms of the function of deflection,
P = f(δ) then the slope of the curve defines the spring Eeq = Equivalent Modulus
rate: E = Elastic Modulus
t = Thickness
P
Ks = (2.0)
δ The proposed finite element model consists of one steel
primary leaf and one composite epoxy-glass tapered
leaf. The following solution demonstrates the significance
where, of an equivalent modulus. Since the finite element
model will have the same width, then equation (5.0)
Ks = Spring Rate applies for this example. The geometric and material
P = Load properties for each leaf are as follows:
δ = Deflection
Material Modulus:
ELASTIC MODULUS COMPARISON
Steel Modulus = 203000 MPa
In a finite element analysis, combining different materials Composite Epoxy-Glass Modulus = 43000 MPa
becomes transparent within the stiffness matrix of the
solution. Typically, the elastic modulus of a leaf spring Geometry:
system will be constant. However, for designs with
dissimilar elastic properties, an equivalent elastic Steel Primary Leaf Thickness = 7.5 mm
modulus can be derived. This equivalent modulus can Epoxy-Glass Tapered Leaf Average Thickness = 9.144
be used to approximate the displacement and load of a mm
hybrid design. Therefore, to understand material
combinations, the following discussion looks at general Solution:
cases:
Eeq =
∑ Et 3
=
((203000(7.5) ) + (43000(9.144) ))
3 3
Equivalent Modulus
∑t 3
(7.5 3
+ 9.144 3 )
For the axial load case, the equivalent modulus is [1],
resulting in an equivalent modulus of Eeq = 99893 MPa.
Eeq =
∑ EA (3.0)
∑A HYBRID MULTI-LEAF SYSTEM
∑I
modeling, two approaches will be presented:
where,
Figure 2.0 Transverse Multi-Leaf Spring Assembly Figure 3.0 Transverse Multi-Leaf Finite Element Model
Nonlinear Nonlinear
Static FEM Contact FEM
Units Results Figure Results Figure
Spring Rate N/mm 31.25 14.0 21.74 15.0
Max Strain microstrain 2213 10.0 4029 12.0
Min Strain microstrain -5790 11.0 -4070 13.0
Normal Stress
(Compression) MPa -211 7.0 -260 9.0
Figure 13.0 Nonlinear Contact FEM – Support Leaf Normal Stress
(Composite) Min Microstrain (Tension) MPa 395 7.0 314 9.0
VM Stress MPa 403 6.0 321 8.0
CONCLUSION Method 2. More importantly, the results in Table 1.0
show a uniform distribution of stresses and strains for
Comparing the results of Method 1 to Method 2, the Method 2 when compared to Method 1. This difference
spring rate shown in Table 1.0 (calculated from the load- shown in Table 1.0 amplifies the importance of contact
displacement curves using equation 2.0) reveals modeling over idealizing a multi-leaf system. The
significantly different rates. This difference points modeling technique significantly affects the expected
directly to the effect of including the contact behavior. spring performance.
The finite element model described in Method 1 acts
more like a solid beam as opposed to the finite element REFERENCES
model described in Method 2. As a result, the same
displacement applied to each model results in different 1. Hearn, EJ. Mechanics of Materials 1. Third Edition.
spring loads as shown in the load displacement curves Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 1997.
Figure 14.0 and Figure 15.0, affecting the overall spring
rate. 2. ABAQUS User's manual, Version 5.8, H.K.S. Inc,
1999.
Furthermore, the difference in spring rate affects the
stress/strain results described in Table 1.0. In particular,
the steel primary leaf experiences higher stresses in
Method 1 than Method 2. Likewise, the composite
support leaf results in higher strains in Method 1 than