Finite Element Analysis of Leaf and Coil Spring Used in Automotive Suspension Systems
Seong, Duckhyun (2026)
2026
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2026051712786
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2026051712786
Tiivistelmä
The purpose of this thesis was to analyze the structural characteristics of coil and leaf springs and to investigate why they are used in passenger and commercial vehicles. In practice, springs are usually designed with different spring constant, materials, and extra components, making it difficult to determine the effects caused only by the structure under the same conditions.
To focus on the differences caused solely by structural differences, all other conditions were kept identical. Using 3D modeling and finite element analysis (FEA) in ANSYS, both springs were designed to meet the target spring constant. The resulting deformations were within 2 % of the target, and the difference between the two springs was only 0.622 %, indicating nearly identical spring constants.
Deformation, equivalent stress, damage, life, safety factor, and weight were evaluated under loads of 1000 N and 3500 N, and the results were compared. Leaf springs demonstrated superior performance in load capacity, stress distribution, accident prevention, maintenance, and economic efficiency. In contrast, coil springs showed advantages in linear behavior, unsprung mass, noise reduction, and interior space.
This analysis enables an understanding of the standalone operating behavior of springs and provides a mechanical basis for selecting vehicle springs. It explains the underlying reasons through a comparison that considers only structural differences under identical conditions.
To focus on the differences caused solely by structural differences, all other conditions were kept identical. Using 3D modeling and finite element analysis (FEA) in ANSYS, both springs were designed to meet the target spring constant. The resulting deformations were within 2 % of the target, and the difference between the two springs was only 0.622 %, indicating nearly identical spring constants.
Deformation, equivalent stress, damage, life, safety factor, and weight were evaluated under loads of 1000 N and 3500 N, and the results were compared. Leaf springs demonstrated superior performance in load capacity, stress distribution, accident prevention, maintenance, and economic efficiency. In contrast, coil springs showed advantages in linear behavior, unsprung mass, noise reduction, and interior space.
This analysis enables an understanding of the standalone operating behavior of springs and provides a mechanical basis for selecting vehicle springs. It explains the underlying reasons through a comparison that considers only structural differences under identical conditions.