Leaf Spring Modelling for Real Time Applications

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Georg Rill, FH Regensburg, Germany

Dr.-Ing. Norbert Kessing and Dipl.-Ing. Olav Lange, Ford Werke AG, Koln, Germany
Dipl.-Ing. Jan Meier, Ford Motor Company, Detroit, USA
presented at the 18th IAVSD-Symposium in Atsugi, Japan 2003

1 Introduction
Even though it is the oldest type of automotive suspension, leaf springs continue to be a popular choice for
solid axles. Though simple in appearance, a leaf spring suspension causes many problems in modelling.
For dynamic simulation the vehicles are usually modelled by multi-body-systems (MBS), [5]. Most
wheel/axle suspension systems can be modelled by typical multi-body-systems elements like rigid bodies, links, joints and force elements, [4]. Poor leaf spring models approximate guidance and suspension
properties of the leaf spring by rigid links and separate force elements, [3]. For realistic ride and handling
simulations the deformation of the leaf springs must be taken into account.

2 Modelling Aspects
2.1 Beam Model
Within ADAMS leaf springs can be modelled with sophisticated beam-element models, [1]. But, according to [2] it is not easy to take the spring pretension into account. To model the effects of a beam,
ADAMS/Solver uses a linear 6-dimensional action-reaction force (3 translational and 3 rotational) between two markers. To provide adequate representation for the nonlinear cross section usually 20 elements are used to model one leaf spring. A subsystem consisting of a solid axle and two beam-element
leaf spring models would have f = 6 + 2 (20 6) = 246 degrees of freedom. In addition, the beamelement leaf spring model results in extremely stiff differential equations. This and the large number of
degrees of freedom slow down the computing time significantly.

2.2 Discrete Model

For real time applications the leaf springs must be modelled by a simpler but still accurate model. Fig. 1
shows a model of a solid axle with leaf spring suspension which is typical for light truck rear axle
suspension systems. There are no additional links. Hence, only the forces and torques generated by leaf
spring deflections guide and suspend the axle.
X1

3
1
yL

zL

sh

ac

kle

4
S

xL

front
leaf eye
bushing

yA zA
C1

Z1

CA
, ,
, ,

Y1

zB

yB

xB

Z2
Y2

Figure 1: Axle Model with Leaf Spring Suspension

X2
xA
C2

The position of the axle center A and the orientation of an axle fixed reference frame xA , yA , zA are
described relative to a chassis fixed frame xB , yB , zB by the displacements , , and the rotation angles
, , which are collected in the 61 axle position vector
yA = [ , , , , , ]T .

(1)

Similar to [2] each leaf spring is modelled by five rigid bodies which are connected to each other by
spherical joints, Fig. 1.
Each leaf spring is connected to the frame via the front leaf eye X. Furthermore each leaf spring is
attached to the shackle at Y , and again to the frame at Z. In C the center part of each leaf spring is
rigidly connected to the axle. The front eye bushings are modelled by spring/damper elements in x-, y-,
and z-direction. The shackles are modelled by radial and a lateral spring/damper elements. Within each
leaf spring the angles 1 , 1 , and 2 , 2 describe the motions of part P -Q and part R-S relative to the
center part. The outer parts Q-X and P -Y perform their rotations, 3 , 3 , and 4 , 4 , relative to part
P -Q and part R-S. As each leaf spring element is considered as a rigid rod, the roll motions can be
neglected. The angles are collected in 4 1position vectors
h

(1)

(1)

(1)

i
(1) T

(2)

(2)

(2)

i
(2) T

y1F = 1 , 1 , 3 , 3
y2F = 1 , 1 , 3 , 3

(1)

(1)

(1)

i
(1) T

(2)

(2)

(2)

i
(2) T

y1R = 2 , 2 , 4 , 4

y2R = 2 , 2 , 4 , 4

(2)

(3)

where y1F , y2F and y1R , y2R describe the momentary shape of the the front and the rear part of the left
(1) and the right (2) leaf spring.
A fully dynamic description of a solid axle with two five link leaf spring models would result in
f = 6 + 2 8 = 22 degrees of freedom. Compared to the beam-element model this is a really significant
reduction.
But a dynamic description of the five link leaf spring model still includes some high frequent modes
which will cause problems in the numerical solution of the equations of motion. As mass and inertia
properties of the leaf spring model parts are small compared to the solid axle, a quasi static solution of
the internal leaf spring deflection should be accurate enough within the overall vehicle model.
A quasi static solution provides the position vectors of the leaf spring parts as functions of the axle
position vector, y1F = y1F (yA ), y1R = y1R (yA ), y2F = y2F (yA ), y2R = y2R (yA ). Hence, the sub
system solid axle with two leaf springs has only f = 6 degrees of freedom.

3 Five Link Leaf Spring Model

3.1 Initial Shape
At first it is assumed that the leaf spring is located in the xz-plane of the leaf spring fixed frame xL , yL ,
zL and its shape in the design position can be approximated by a circle which is fixed by the points X,
C and Y . By dividing the arc X-Y into 5 parts of equal length the position of the links P , R, S, Q and
the initial values of the angles 01 , 01 , 02 , 02 , 03 , 03 , 04 , 04 can be calculated very easily.

3.2 Pretension
In design position each leaf spring is only preloaded by a vertical load which results in zero pretension
y
y
z = 0,
forces in the yL -direction, F0B
= 0, F0S
= 0 and zero pretension torques around the zl -axis, T0P
z = 0, T z = 0, T z = 0. In addition the torques around the x -axis vanish, T x = 0, T x = 0,
T0Q
l
0R
0S
0P
0Q
x
x = 0.
T0R = 0, T0S
To transfer the vertical preload F0 to the front eye bushing and the shackle, the joints P , Q, R, S must
x , F z and
provide torques around the yL -axis, Fig. 2. The pretension forces in the front eye bushing F0B
0B

F0Bx

F0Bz

F0Bz

F0Bx

zL
X
yL
F0S

uYZ

F0S
Z

R
S

T0Sy

xL

Z
Y

F0Bx

T0Py

T0Ry

X
Q

F0S

F0

X
F0Bz

yL

Z
Y

xL

T0Qy

zL

Figure 2: Pretension Forces and Torques

in the shackle F0S , can easily be calculated from the equilibrium conditions of the fivelink leaf spring
model,
x +F
x
F0B
0S uY Z = 0 ,
z +F +F
z
(4)
F0B
0
0S uY Z = 0 ,
x F + rz
x
x
z
rXC
0
XY F0S uY Z rXY F0S uY Z

= 0,

x , rz
where uY Z is the unit vector in the direction of the shackle, and rXY
XY are the x and z components
of the vector from pointing from X to Y . The pretension torques in the leaf spring joints around the
y
y
y
y
yl -axis, T0P
, T0Q
, T0R
, T0S
follow from
y
x r x F z
T0P
+ rPz X F0B
P X 0B = 0 ,
y
z F
x
x
z
T0R
+ rRY
0S uY Z rRY F0S uY Z

y
z
x r x F
T0Q
+ rQX
F0B
QX 0Bz = 0 ,
y
z F
x
x
z
T0S
+ rSY
0S uY Z rSY F0S uY Z

= 0,

= 0,

(5)

were rij , i = P, Q, R, S, j = X, Y are vectors pointing from i to j.

3.3 Compliance
The leaf spring compliance is defined in the design position by the vertical and the lateral stiffness, cV
and cL . In Fig. 3 a the leaf spring is approximated by a beam which is supported on both ends and is
loaded in the center by the force F . The deflection w and the force F are related to each other by the
stiffness c
F = cw .
(6)
If we transfer the beam model to the five link leaf spring model and look at the front half, Fig. 3b, then
zL

a) beam model
w
F
b) link model

a/2 P

a
Q
a
1
1+3

F/2
w

X
xL

Figure 3: Leaf Spring Stiffness

one gets
w = a 1 + a (1 + 3 ) ,

(7)

where a is the length of one link, and small deflections in the xL , zL plane were assumed. The torques
around the yL -axis in the joints P and Q would be proportional to the deflection angles 1 and 3
TPy = c1 1

and TQy = c3 3 .

(8)

The equilibrium condition results in

TPy = 2 a

F
2

and TQy = a

F
:.
2

(9)

The leaf spring bending mode due to a single force can be approximated very well by a circular arc.
Hence, the relative angle between connected links is equal, 1 = 3 = and (7) can be simplified to
w = 3 a or = 3wa From (8) and (9) it follows
c1

F
w
= 2a
3a
2

and c3

w
F
= a
:.
3a
2

(10)

Using (6) one finally gets

3 2
a c,
(11)
2
where the beam stiffness c was replaced by the vertical leaf spring stiffness cV .
Assuming symmetry, the stiffnesses in the rear joints are given by c2 = c1 and c4 = c3 . The
stiffnesses around the vertical axis c1 , c2 , c3 and c4 can be calculated in a similar way. In this
approach the torsional stiffness of the leaf spring is neglected.
c1 = 3 a2 cV

and c3 =

3.4 Actual Shape

In an equilibrium position the energy of a flexible system achieves a minimum value, E M in. The
energy of the five link leaf spring model is given by
E =
+

1 T
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2 wX cB wX + 2 c1 1 + 2 c1 1 + 2 c3 3 + 2 c3 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 c2 2 + 2 c2 2 + 2 c4 4 + 2 c4 4 + 2 cSR wSR + 2 cSL wSL

(12)

where wX is the 31 displacement vector and cB is the 33 stiffness matrix of the front eye bushing, wSR ,
wSL are the radial and lateral shackle displacements, and cSR , cSL denote the corresponding stiffnesses.
According to (2) and (3), the actual shape of the leaf spring is determined by the position vectors
y1 = [ 1 , 1 , 3 , 3 ]T and y2 = [ 2 , 2 , 4 , 4 ]T . If the leaf spring energy becomes a minimum,
then the following equations hold
E
= 0,
1

E
= 0,
1

E
= 0,
4

E
=0.
4

(13)

As the shackle displacements wSR , wSL do not depend on y1 and the front bushing displacement vector wX does not depend on y2 the conditions in (13) form to independent sets of nonlinear equations
f1 (y1 , yA ) = 0 and f2 (y2 , yA ) = 0, where yA denotes the dependency of the actual position and orientation of the solid axle. These equations are solved iteratively by the Newton-Algorithm. Starting with
initial guesses y10 , y20 one gets an improvement by solving the linear equations

f1  k+1
y1 y1k = f1 (y1 yA )
y1

f2  k+1
y2 y2k = f2 (y2 yA )
y2

Here, the Jacobians

f1 f2
y1 y2

k = 0, 1, 2, ...

(14)

can be calculated analytically.

3.5 Leaf Spring Reaction Forces

The actual forces in the front leaf eye bushing is given by
FB = F0B + cB wX + dB u X ,

(15)

where F0B is the pretension force and cB , dB are 33 matrices, characterizing the stiffness and damping
properties of the front leaf eye bushing. The displacement vector wX in the front leaf eye bushing depend
on the generalized coordinates y1 and yA which describe the actual shape of the front leaf spring part and
the actual position and orientation of the solid axle. By solving (14) y1 is given as a function of (yA ).
Hence, wx only depends on yA and its derivative can be calculated by
u X =

wX
y A ,
yA

(16)

where y A describes the velocity state of the solid axle.

The radial and lateral components of the shackle forces can be calculated from
FSR = uTSR F0S + cSR wSR + dSR w SR

and

FSL = uTSL F0S + cSL wSL + dSL w SL , (17)

where F0S is the pretension force, uSR , uSL are unit vectors in the radial and lateral shackle direction,
and cSR , cSL , dSR , dSL are constants, characterizing the stiffness and damping properties of the shackle.
The shackle displacements wSR and wSL depend on the generalized coordinates y2R and yA which
describe the actual shape of the rear leaf spring part and the actual position and orientation of the solid
axle. Similar to (16) the displacement velocities are given by
u SR =

uSR
y A
yA

and

u SL =

uSL
y A .
yA

(18)

Finally the shackle force read as

FS = FSR uSR + FSL uSL .

(19)

3.6 Forces Applied to the Axle

In this approach the leaf springs act like generalized force elements, Fig. 4. Guidance and suspension of
FB1
y 1F

FS1

fo
ey rces
e b in
us fro
hin nt
gs

FB2

y 2F
y 1R

sh
for ack
ce le
s

yA

FS2
y 2R

Figure 4: Forces Applied to Axle

the solid axle is done by the resulting force
F = FB1 + FB2 + FS1 + FS2

(20)

T = rAB1 FB1 + rAB2 FB2 + rAS1 FS1 + rAS2 FS2

(21)

and the resulting torque

where rAB1 = rAB1 (yA ), ... rAS2 (yA ) describe the momentary position of the the front eye bushings
and the shackles relative to the axle center.

As the forces in the front eye bushings FB1 , FB2 and the shackle forces FS1 , FS2 depend on the axle
state yA , y A only
FB1 = FB1 (ya , y A ) , FB2 = FB2 (ya , y A ) , FS1 = FB1 (ya , y A ) , FS2 = FB2 (ya , y A ) ,

(22)

the resulting force F and the resulting torque T are also mere functions of the axle state.

4 Results
The quasi-static approach reproduces all significant bending modes of the leaf spring, Fig.5. A leaf
spring is stiffer in the lateral direction than in the vertical direction. Hence, a displacement in the front
eye bushing is noticeable only on lateral leaf spring deflections.
zL

wind up

0.2

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

zL

Y
-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.6 xL

0.4

yL

vertical deflection

0.2

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

0.1

Y
-0.6

lateral deflection

0.2

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6 xL

-0.1
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6 xL

Figure 5: Bending Modes

The five link leaf spring model was integrated into a ve-DYNA Ford Transit vehicle model. Using the
five link leaf spring model at the rear axle instead of a poor kinematic approach means only 85% more
computer run time. Hence, real time applications are still possible.
Axle Kinematics
Five Link Model
Measurements

40

16

0
-20
-40

10
8
6
4

-80

2
-2

0
2
4
6
8
Horizontal Displacement [mm]

10

Five Link Model

Measurements

12

-60

-100
-4

Overall Force Characteristics

14

20

Force [kN]

Vertical Displacement [mm]

60

18

12

0
-100

-80

-60 -40 -20

0
20
Vertical Displacement [mm]

40

60

Figure 6: Comparison to Measurements

The simulation results are in good conformity to measurements, Fig. 6. The nonlinearity in the spring
characteristics is caused by an additional bump stop and by the change of the shackle position during
jounce and rebound. Obviously the five link model is accurate enough.

5 Conclusion
Within the quasi-static five link leaf spring model each leaf spring acts as a generalized force element.
Hence, it can easily be integrated into overall vehicle models. By suppressing high frequent leaf spring
eigen-modes it is perfectly adopted to real-time application. The model quality is proofed by a comparison to measurements. The results show a very good conformity in kinematic and compliance performance.

References
[1] ADAMS/Chassis 12.0 Reference Guide.
[2] Fickers, P.; Richter, B.: Incorporating FEA-Techniques into MSA illustrated by several Rear Suspension Concepts. In: 9th European ADAMS User Conference, Frankfurt, November 21st/22nd,
1994.
[3] Matschinsky, W.: Radfuhrungen der Straenfahrzeuge. Springer, Berlin 1998.
[4] Rill, G.: Simulation von Kraftfahrzeugen. Vieweg, Braunschweig 1994.
[5] Schiehlen, W.: Multibody Systems Handbook, Springer, Berlin 1990.