Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications

ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)

Volume 4, Issue 3
www.stmjournals.com

Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System with the

Combination of Helical Springs
Sachin Gayakwad*, Pushpendra Kumar Mishra, Ishan Patel
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Malwa Institute of Technology, Indore, Madhya Pradesh,
India

Abstract
This research article deals with a modified version of leaf spring suspension system
introduced for the optimization of existing leaf spring suspension system design, by the
combination of two helical springs with the master leaf. To furnish this end, a semi-elliptical
type mono leaf spring of light weighted mini truck is considered for design and modeling
work. On both the sides of this mono leaf, a helical spring is designed and modeled at equal
distances from the center of leaf. All the modeling and analysis work is performed in CATIA-
V5R20. Stress analysis results at various loading conditions are obtained by both theoretical
and FEA methods, separately for typical mono leaf spring model and proposed model with
helical springs. Results show an average 8.3% stress reduction for any of the loading
conditions, by the utilization of helical springs with the combination of master leaf. The
proposed work have some certain benefits which could definitely transform the existing leaf
spring design into a more optimized, stable and flexible one for the overall better
performance and comfort to passengers.

Keywords: Leaf spring, helical spring, FEA, stresses, CATIA

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: sgayakwad377@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION So, a leaf spring can be used in conjunction

Springs are key elements of any suspension
system and first line of its defense. Leaf
springs and helical springs both are two basic
types of suspension springs. Leaf springs,
especially the longitudinal laminated type are
reliable and persistent element in automotive
suspension system [1], and helical springs are
also one of the mechanical elements used in
several industrial applications and automobile
vehicles to satisfy the desired functions [2].
Generally, helical springs are made of an
elastic material formed into the coil shape
which returns to its initial length when
unloaded [3]. Leaf springs are commonly
formed by stacking leafs or plates of steel in
progressively longer lengths on top of each
other, so that the spring is thick in the middle
portion to resist bending and thin at the ends
where it attaches to the body [4]. Increasing
the energy storage capability of a leaf spring
ensures a more compliant suspension system
[5].
Both the springs as a suspension element have
their specific benefits and some limitations.
with helical spring to enhance the spring rate
adjustability function for chassis set up
balance and for overall better performance of
the suspension system. The first automotive
helical spring was on the model-T (Ford) in
1910, where the suspension system was a
combination of leaf spring and helical spring
[6]. The design of this leaf and helical spring
suspension was totally different from the
model presented in this work. Taking
consideration of these above mentioned
approaches, in this presented work, a
conventional steel leaf spring (master leaf) is
combined with two helical springs, each at
both the sides of leaf spring. Modeling and
analysis results showed very significant
overall stress reduction in combined design
compared to typical leaf spring model without
helical spring.
Several research articles were devoted on
researches related to suspension springs.
Research works which have been done by
researchers in the past are very useful for
efficient designing of the proposed model,

JoAEA (2017) 6-17 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 6
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)
specially the papers on helical springs;
because the overall better performance of the
existing model will mainly depend upon the
design of employed helical springs. Jiang and
Henshall [7] presented a general and correct
finite element model (FEM) for helical springs
subjected to axial loads. Vebil Yildirim and
ErolSancaktar [8] presented a detailed analysis
of free vibration frequencies of a composite
helical spring.
Del Llano-Vizcaya et al. [9] in their research,
they provided very useful relationships
between stress relief effects and fatigue life of
helical compression springs. It was proved that
smaller the residual stresses greater the fatigue
life of spring. The results of their work are
very useful in design and manufacturing of
helical spring.
Fuentes et al. [10] in their work, they
presented the basic reason of premature
fracture in leaf springs employed in
Venezuelan buses. Aimin Yu and Changjin
Yang [11] performed free vibration analysis of
cylindrical helical springs by means of an
analytical study. Kaiser et al. [12] presented
VHCF-behavior (very high cycle fatigue) of
helical compression springs made of different
materials. The objective of Shishay Amare
Gebremeskel [13] in his contribution was
associated with designing, simulating and
prototyping of a single leaf spring for light
weight 3-Wheeler vehicles from composite
material.
Jamil M. Renno and Brian R. Mace [14] in
their research, modeling and vibration analysis
of helical springs with non-uniform ends were
taken into consideration. The approach
bestowed in their paper provides many
benefits in designing and modeling of helical
springs.
Research work done by Dipendra Kumar Roy
and Kashi Nath Saha [15] corresponds to non-
linear analysis of leaf springs made of various
types functionally graded materials (FGM).
Youli Zhu et al. [16], their work dealt with
case study of failure analysis of a helical
compression spring for a heavy vehicle’s
suspension system and the recommendations
were conjointly made for improving the
JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved
fatigue performance of the suspension helical
springs. Tsubasa Tsubouchi et al. [17] their
research work presented a new and cheap
forming technique of helical springs with
rectangle cross section and high rectangular
ratio. In the research work done by Basaran
Ozmen et al. [18], a newly developed testing
and simulation methodology for the durability
of leaf springs was presented so as to direct
designers in the product development phase.
Ladislav Kosec et al. [19] provided a useful
failure analysis of a motor car helical spring.
Sushanta Ghuku and Kashi Nath Saha [20] in
their work, large deflection behavior of an
initially curved cantilever beam (master leaf of
a leaf spring) subjected to varied loading
conditions had been studied both theoretically
and by experimentation using MATLAB
computational simulation.
DESIGN AND MODELING
Following sections describe the designing and
modeling procedures carried out for typical
(conventional) and proposed mono leaf spring
models:
Modeling of Typical Mono Leaf Spring:
A typical single leaf spring is designed and
modeled in CATIA-V5R20. The designed and
modeled mono leaf in fact is a master leaf of
any semi-elliptical leaf spring suspension
system, employed in light vehicle mini trucks
and buses. Modeling in CATIA-V5R20 is
done considering the dimensions and
properties as mentioned in Table 1 and
selecting isotropic structural steel as design
material [4]. Figure 1 is showing the design of
this mono leaf spring model.
Table 1: Dimensions and Physical Properties
of Mono Leaf Spring Model.
S. Description Specification
N.
1. No. of leaf (N) 01
2. Width of leaf (b) 60 mm
3. Thickness of leaf(t) 16 mm
4. Eye-to-eye length of leaf 1025 mm
(L)
5. Camber 90.8 mm
6. Poisson’s ratio (μ) 0.266
7. Density of material(ρ) 7860 kg/m3
8. Coefficient of thermal 1.17×10-5 K-1Deg.
expansion
Page 7
Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System Gayakwad et
al.

9. Young’s modulus (E) 2×105 N/mm2

10. Yield strength 250 N/mm2
11. Material type Isotropic, structural
steel
12. Weight 21.23 kg

Fig. 2: Proposed Leaf Spring Model with

Combination of Helical Springs.
Table 2: Dimensions and Physical Properties
of Helical Springs.
S. Description Specification
N.
Fig. 1: Typical Mono Leaf Spring Model. 1. No. of helical springs 02
2. Height of each helical 136 mm
DESIGNING THE MONO LEAF spring (h)
3. Wire diameter (d) 10 mm
SPRING WITH COMBINATION OF
4. Inner diameter of coil (D) 70 mm
HELICAL SPRINGS
Taking the same design parameters, 5. Pitch (p) 22.6 mm
dimensions and physical properties as 6. Number of coils (n) 6
mentioned in Table 1 of mono leaf spring, the 7. Poisson’s Ratio (μ) 0.266
model of leaf spring with combination of 8. Density of material (ρ) 7860 kg/m3
helical springs is designed in same software 9. Coefficient of thermal 1.17×10-5 K-1Deg.
CATIA-V5R20. First of all, previously expansion
designed mono leaf spring part is inserted in 10. Young’s modulus (E) 2×105 N/mm2
CATIA-V5R20 and then at both the sides of 11. Yield strength 250 N/mm2
mono leaf spring surfaces which are selected 12. Material Isotropic, structural
as a best location to mount the helical springs, Steel
a small rectangular platform of 60 mm ×100 13. Weight of each helical 4.3 kg
mm is made with a little height. On this spring
platform through the accurate axis helical
spring is designed and modeled using the Total weight of combined model is 34.23 kg.
wireframe feature of CATIA-V5R20. Number Total vertical height of each helical spring is
of coil turns in each helical spring is taken six. 136 mm. The dimensions and properties of
Both the helical springs are located at equal both the identical helical springs are covered
distance from the center hole on leaf spring in Table 2. And, the designed model with
surface. Center to center distance between combination of leaf and helical springs is
both the helical springs is 960 mm. To fix the shown in Figure 2.
helical springs from upper side, a square
shaped platform of 150 mm ×150 mm ×10 mm STRESS CALCULATIONS AND
is created, which is firmly attached with the ANALYSIS
top most coil of each helical spring. The theoretical maximum stresses and FEA
stresses produced in typical mono leaf spring
model and proposed modified model, at
various loading conditions are calculated and
analyzed as described in following sections.

Theoretical Stress Calculation of Typical

Mono Leaf Spring Model

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 8
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)

The design of mono leaf spring modeled in 5. 3000 300.29

CATIA-V5R20 is a uniform width master leaf 6. 3500 350.34
of a semi elliptical leaf spring. It is like a 7. 4000 400.39
simply supported beam of uniform width, 8. 5000 500.48
clamped at both the ends during the loading 9. 7000 700.68
conditions. Therefore, the theoretical 10. 10000 1000.97
maximum bending stresses produced in this 11. 15000 1501.46
mono leaf spring model will be calculated by STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
the following equation [21]: OF TYPICAL MONO LEAF SPRING
pWL MODEL
Maximum Bending Stress, σ max= 2 (1)
Nbt The static structural analysis of the mono leaf
Where, p=3 (a constant for simply supported spring model is carried out using the finite
beam of uniform width) element analysis (FEA) in CATIA-V5R20.
L=eyetoeyedistance=1025 mm , The load is applied at the center point of leaf
N=numberofleafs=1, spring (as shown in Figures 3–6) in upward
b=width=60 mm, direction. Meshing of the model is done with
t=thickness=16 mm octree tetrahedron mesh elements. For all the
Case (1): At load W =1000 N model analysis in this work it is kept the same.
σ Figures 5 and 6 are showing the mesh
Maximum Stress (Bending), 3 × 1000 ×512.5
max=¿ ¿ generation in models with stress analysis
1× 60× 16 2
σ max=100.09 MPa. results. By applying the load and performing
Case (2): At load W=1500 N analysis and simulation, we get the stress
distribution over the whole span of leaf, in the
Maximum stress,
σ 3 × 1500×512.5
max=¿ ¿ numeric as well as in the form of color
1× 60× 16 2
σ max=150.14 MPa scheme. By varying the load in constant but
incremental order, and keeping all the
Similarly, other calculations can also be done parameters and conditions unchanged, stress
at various incremental loads to find out the analysis is carried out, and various result
maximum stresses produced in the mono leaf oriented informational images are captured.
spring model by Eq. (1). Table 3 shows these Figures 3–6 are showing the distribution of
theoretical stresses at various loading Von-Mises stresses produced in mono leaf
conditions. spring model at varied loads by FEA in
Table 3: Theoretical Maximum Stresses in CATIA-V5R20. From Figures 3–6, it can be
Mono Leaf Spring Model. observed that the maximum stress level is near
S. Applied load Theoretical stresses
N. (Newton) (MPa) the center position of leaf where load was
1. 1000 100.09 applied and near the eye ends. All the
2. 1500 150.14 performed stress analysis results at various
3. 2000 200.19 incremental loads are shown in Table 4 and
4. 2500 250.24 are described in Figure 7 with a plot between
loads versus stress diagram.

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 9
Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System Gayakwad et
al.

Fig. 3: Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring Model at Load 1000 N.

Fig. 4: Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring Model at Load 1500 N.

Fig. 5: Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring Model at Load 3000 N.

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 10
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)

Fig. 6: Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring Model at Load 5000 N.

STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
OF COMBINED LEAF AND
HELICAL SPRING MODEL
The static structural analysis of proposed
combined leaf and helical spring model is
carried out similarly as discussed above.
Figures 8–11 are showing the finite element
analysis results pertaining to stresses produced
in this model at varied loads by CATIA-
V5R20. From Figures 8–11, it is clear that the
maximum stress level is still near the center
point of leaf where load is applied and near the
eye ends, but now stress level is reduced here
significantly (i.e. more than 8–10 MPa based
on load), compared to typical mono leaf spring
model as shown in Figures 3–6. Stress levels
on helical springs are very low. Therefore,
helical springs could be imagined in safe
condition from the severe effects of stresses.
All the stress analysis results of this model are
shown in Table 4 and described in Figure 12
with a plot between loads versus stress
diagram.

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 11
Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System Gayakwad et
al.

FEA Stresses in Typical Mono Leaf Spring

Model
16000 15000

14000

12000
10000
Load (Newton)

10000

8000 7000

6000 5000
4000
3500
4000 3000
2500
2000
1500 1490
2000 1000
99.28 148.92 199 248.2 298 347.5 397.1 496.4 695
0 993
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Stresses (MPa)

Applied Load (Newton) Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring by FEA

Fig. 7: FEA Stresses in Typical Mono Leaf Spring Model.

Fig. 8: Stresses in Combined Model at Load 1000 N.

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 12
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)

Fig. 9: Stresses in Combined Model at Load 1500 N.

Fig. 10: Stresses in Combined Modal at Load 3000 N.

Fig. 11: Stresses in Combined Model at Load 5000 N.

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 13
Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System Gayakwad et
al.

FEA stresses in Combined Leaf and

Helical Springs Model
16000 15000

14000

12000
10000
10000
Load (Newton)

8000 7000

6000 5000
4000
3500
4000 3000
2500
2000
1500 1375.9
2000 1000 642 917
183.4 275.18 367 459
0
91.72 137.6 229.32 321
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Stresses (MPa)

Applied Load (Newton) Stresses in Proposed Model by FEA

Fig. 12: FEA Stresses in Combined Leaf with Helical Springs Model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The outcomes of the whole study and
accomplished work are described under the
following sub sections.
Results
All the stress analysis results are tabulated in
the form of Table 4, and their correlations are
shown in Figures 13 and 14. From the
mentioned Table, Figures and stress analysis
colored images, it is clear that the maximum
stresses produced in proposed combined leaf
and helical springs model are significantly less
than the theoretical bending stresses (by
mathematical calculations)and FEA Von-Mises
stresses by CATIA-V5R20, induced in typical
mono leaf spring model of same dimensions and
parameters. Therefore, the design of introduced
combined leaf and helical spring’s model can be
said safe and considerable. The average %
reduction in overall maximum stresses at
different loading conditions is achieved by 8.3%,
by the utilization of proposed combined model
in comparison to typical mono leaf spring model
(Table 5).

Table 4: Comparison of Stress Analysis Results (M Pa).

S. Applied Theoretical stresses in mono leaf spring (M Stresses in mono Stresses in proposed
N. load Pa) leaf spring by FEA model by FEA (M
(Newton) (MPa) Pa)
1. 1000 100.09 99.28 91.72
2. 1500 150.14 148.92 137.60
3. 2000 200.19 199.00 183.40
4. 2500 250.24 248.20 229.32
5. 3000 300.29 298.00 275.18
6. 3500 350.34 347.50 321.00
7. 4000 400.39 397.10 367.00
8. 5000 500.48 496.40 459.00
9. 7000 700.68 695.00 642.00

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 14
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)

10. 10000 1000.97 993.00 917.00

11. 15000 1501.46 1490.00 1375.90

Comparison of Stress Analysis Results

16000

14000

12000

10000
Load (Newton)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Stresses (MPa)

Applied Load (Newton) Theoretical Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring

Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring by FEA Stresses in Proposed Model by FEA
Fig. 13: Comparison of Stress Analysis Results (Using Line Graph).

Comparison of Stress Analysis Results

16000

14000

12000

10000
Load (Newton)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Stresses (MPa)

Applied Load (Newton) Theoretical Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring

Stresses in Mono Leaf Spring by FEA Stresses in Proposed Model by FEA

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 15
Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System Gayakwad et
al.

Fig. 14: Comparison of Stress Analysis Results (Using Column Graph).

Table 5: % Reduction of Stresses by Combined Model.
S. Load Theoretical maximum stresses in mono FEA stresses in combined model with Stress
N. (Newton) leaf spring model (MPa) helical springs (MPa) reduction
in %
1. 1000 100.09 91.72 8.36
2. 1500 150.14 137.60 8.35
3. 2000 200.19 183.40 8.38
4. 2500 250.24 229.32 8.35
5. 3000 300.29 275.18 8.36
6. 3500 350.34 321.00 8.37
7. 4000 400.39 367.00 8.34
8. 5000 500.48 459.00 8.30
9. 7000 700.68 642.00 8.37
10. 10000 1000.97 917.00 8.38
11. 15000 1501.46 1375.90 8.36

Benefits and Scope of the Proposed Model
Following points describe the advantages of
the proposed model:-
I. By incorporating such suspension springs
model overall stresses can be reduced
significantly.
II. By applying properly designed helical
springs, deflection characteristics of leaf
spring suspension can be controlled and
maintained, so as to achieve optimized
comfort during the vehicle ride [22].
III. Number of graduated leafs in existing
conventional leaf spring system could be
reduced by employing proposed model.
So, a new compact design of existing leaf
spring system could be possible.
IV. A good balance between stiffness and
rigidity of the typical leaf spring
suspension could be maintained, so energy
storage capacity can be increased by using
such model to optimize the overall
performance of the suspension.
V. It seems, no necessity of heavy changes in
any accessory part or design of existing
leaf spring suspension to incorporate
proposed model.
SCOPE
From the above mentioned expected and
possible benefits by utilization of such model,
it can be surely stated that, the proposed
combined leaf and helical spring suspension
could have a great scope in future work related
to suspension system design for light weighted
trucks and buses. Proposed model and work in
this study can lead researchers in the field of
conventional leaf spring system to work on
more optimized typical leaf spring suspension
system design. Therefore, further more
scientific researches and work can be done in
order to make proposed model more beneficial
and efficient.
CONCLUSIONS
The improved efficiency and optimized
performance of the presented combined leaf
and helical spring’s suspension system model
will majorly depend upon the best
combination of design parameters of helical
springs (i.e. wire diameter, pitch, number of
coils) in proportion to leaf spring’s design.
Therefore by maintaining the best combination
of these suspension spring’s design
parameters, we can take advantages of benefits
of each type suspension spring. And, this is to
achieve a more optimized, flexible, stable and
efficient typical leaf spring suspension system
by incorporating the proposed designed model.
NOMENCLATURE
σ max Maximum bending stress
L Eye-to-eye length of leaf spring
b Width of leaf spring
t Thickness of leaf spring
p A constant for simply supported beam
p Pitch of helical spring
W Applied load
N Number of leafs

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 16
Journal of Automobile Engineering and Applications
Volume 4, Issue 3
ISSN: 2455-3360 (Online)
FEA Finite element analysis
μ Poisson’s ratio
ρ Density of material
E Young’s modulus
h Height of helical spring
d Wire diameter of helical spring
D Inner coil diameter of helical spring
n Number of coils in helical spring
REFERENCES
1. Mahmood MS, Rezaei D. Analysis and Op-
timization of a Composite Leaf Spring.
Compos Struct. 2003; 60: 317–25p.
2. Fakhreddine D, Mohamed T, Said A et al.
Finite Element Method for the Stress Anal-
ysis of Isotropic Cylindrical Helical Spring.
Eur J Mech A Solids. 2005; 24: 1068–78p.
3. Mohd. Izaham Zainal Abidin, Jamaluddin
Mahmud, Mohd Juzaila Abd Latif, et al.
Experimental and Numerical Investigation
of SUP12 Steel Coil Spring. The
Malaysian International Tribology Confer-
ence (MITC2013). Procedia Eng. 2013; 68:
251–57p.
4. Sorathiya M, Dhaval SB, Vipul BM. Vari-
ous Numerical Analysis of Composite Leaf
Spring for Light Vehicle Mini Truck. Se-
lected Papers of Mechanical, Civil and
Chemical Engineering Tracks of the 4th
Nirma University International Conference
on Engineering (NUICONE 2013). Proce-
dia Eng. 2014.
5. Senthil Kumar M, Vijayarangan S. Analyti-
cal and Experimental Studies on Fatigue
Life Prediction of Steel and Composite
Multi-Leaf Spring for Light Passenger Ve-
hicles Using Life Data Analysis. Mater Sci.
2007; 13(2): 141–46p.
6. Prawoto Y, Ikeda M, Manville SK, et al.
Design and Failure Modes of Automotive
Suspension Springs. Eng Fail Anal. 2008;
15: 1155–74p.
7. Jiang WG, Henshall JL. A Novel Finite El-
ement Model for Helical Springs. Finite
Elem Anal Des. 2000; 35:363–77p.
8. Yildirim V, Sancaktar E. Linear Free Vi-
bration Analysis of Cross-Ply Laminated
Cylindrical Helical Spring. Int J Mech Sci.
2000; 42: 1153–69p.
9. Del Llano-Vizcaya L, Rubio-Gonzalez C,
Mesmacque G, et al. Stress Relief Effect on
Fatigue and Relaxation of Compression
Springs. Mater Des. 2007; 28: 1130–34p.
JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved
10. Fuentes JJ, Aguilar HJ, Rodriguez JA, et
al. Premature Fracture in Automobile Leaf
Springs. Eng Fail Anal. 2009; 16: 648–55p.
11. Aimin Yu, Changjin Yang. Formulation
and Evaluation of an Analytical Study for
cylindrical Helical Springs. Acta Mech Sol-
ida Sinica. 2010; 23(1): 85–94p.
12. Kaiser B, Pyttel B, Berger C. VHCF-Be-
havior of Helical Compression Springs
Made of Different Materials. Int J Fatigue.
2011; 33: 23–32p.
13. Gebremeskel SA. Design, Simulation and
Prototyping of Single Composite Leaf
Spring for Light Weight Vehicle. Global
Journal of Researches in Engineering
(GJRE). Mech Mech Eng. 2012; 12(7): 21–
30p.
14. Jamil RM, Brian MR. Vibration Modeling
of Helical Springs with Non-Uniform Ends.
J Sound Vibration. 2012; 331: 2809–23p.
15. Roy DK, Saha KN. Nonlinear Analysis of
Leaf Springs of Functionally Graded Mate-
rials. Chemical, Civil and Mechanical En-
gineering Tracks of 3rd Nirma University
International Conference (NUICONE
2012). Procedia Eng. 2013; 51: 538–43p.
16. Zhu Y, Wang Y, Huang Y. Failure Analy-
sis of a Helical Compression Spring for a
Heavy Vehicle’s Suspension System. Case
Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis.
2014; 2:169–73p.
17. Tsubouchi T, Takahashi K, Kuboki T. De-
velopment of Coiled Springs with High
Rectangular Ratio in Cross-Section. 11th
International Conference on Technology of
Plasticity, ICTP2014, 19–24 Oct 2014,
Nagoya, Japan. Procedia Eng. 2014; 81:
574–79p.
18. Ozmen B, Altiok B, Guzel A et al. A Novel
Methodology with Testing and Simulation
for the Durability of Leaf Springs Based on
Measured Load Collectives. 3rd
International Conference on Material and
Component Performance under Variable
Amplitude Loading, VAL2015. Procedia
Eng. 2015;101: 363–71p.
19. Kosec L, Nagode A, Kosec G et al. Failure
Analysis of a Motor-Car Coil Spring. Case
Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis.
2015; 4:100–5p.
20. Ghuku S, Saha KN. A Theoretical and Ex-
perimental Study on Geometric Nonlinear-
ity of Initially Curved Cantilever Beams.
Page 17
Stress Analysis of Leaf Spring Suspension System Gayakwad et
al.

Engineering Science and Technology. of Helical Springs. Journal of Automobile

2016; 19: 135–46p. Engineering and Application. 2016; 3(3):
21. Design of Leaf Springs, Lesson 3, Version 21–30p.
2 ME, IIT Kharagpur, (4/08/2016)
Cite this Article
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcoursecontent Sachin Gayakwad, Pushpendra Kumar
s/IIT%20Kharagpur/Machine Mishra, Ishan Patel. Stress Analysis of
%20design1/pdf/mod7les3.pdf Leaf Spring Suspension System with the
Combination of Helical Springs. Journal
22. Gayakwad S, Patel I, Mishra PK. of Automobile Engineering and
Deflection Analysis of the Leaf Spring Applications. 2017; 4(3): 6–18p.
Suspension System with the Combination

JoAEA (2017) 6-18 © STM Journals 2017. All Rights Reserved Page 18