Reverse Engineering Based Coil Spring Design Method

Shinichi NISHIZAWA and Tadashi SAKAI

NHK International Corp., 50706 Varsity Court, Wixom, MI 48393, USA
TEL:+ 1-248-926-0111 FAX:+1-248-926-2022 e-mail:shane.nishizawa@nhk-intl.com

This paper describes a new coil spring design method for automated, optimized and designer-independent
design. In conventional coil spring design, a spring profile at free state is usually designed first and it is then
compressed in FEA (Finite Element Analysis) to check if the spring characteristics satisfy the required
specifications. However, the spring requirements such as rate, load, FLP (Force Line Position), deformed
profile, etc. are usually given at the compressed state of the spring. Therefore, if the result does not meet the
requirements, a designer must modify the free state profile while predicting how it refelcts to the spring
characteristics at deformed state. In the new method, the ideal deformed spring profile is designed first and its
corresponded unique free profile is then reversely determined by automated FEA iterations in order to satisfy
the requirements. By scanning the total number of turns in a certain range for the deformed spring profile
designed at the first stage, the optimal spring design can be selected in terms of weight, stress and
manufacturability. The method is currently international patent pending.

Keywords : Reverse Engineering, Coil Spring Design, Automated Design

1. INTRODUCTION requirements such as rate, load, FLP, stresses, deformed

Traditionally, a coil spring was designed based on profile, etc. If the FEA results do not satisfy the
simple statics with Wahl’s correction factor to requirements, the free profile needs to be modified by
compensate stress for the effect of curvature. However, predicting the effect of the modification on the spring
the theory was derived with an assumption of zero pitch charactristics at the deformed state, as shown in Fig.1.
angle throughout the spring.1) As high strength
Free Profile Design
materials were developed, coil springs were Rate, Load,
H R Stress, FLP,
intentionaly designed with fewer turns to efficiently Compress Coil-to-Coil Clearance,
in FEA Bowing, Interference,
utilize the material capability. As a result, the pitch etc.
Number of Turns
angle of the coil spring increased and the statics based
simple calculation no longer provided design results Designer

with enough accuracy. In 1990, FEA based coil spring No Meet all the
Requirements?
design became popular to meet the increasing demand
Yes
for higher design accuracy, including an estimation of Modify the free profile by predicting
the spring FLP, and also with the backing of computer the effect on FEA results End

speed increases. Since FEA is a non-reversable Fig.1 Conventional FEA Based Coil Spring Design
computation, an FEA model of the spring consisting of
It requires extensive skill and experience for rapid and
height and radius distribution must be created under the
optimized design. Because of this, the resultant free
unloaded (free) condition. It is then compressed in FEA
profile depends on the individual designer and it is
to check if the spring characteristics satisfy all design
difficult to duplicate the same design every time, even

49
 by the same designer with the same requirements,
unless the design flow is perfectly standardized for all
designers. While the FEA based coil spring design
method provides more ability for problem assessment at
design stage, it exacerbates design difficulties and
promotes designer-dependent design. Therefore, a
designer-independent, rapid and robust FEA based coil
spring design method must be developed. Note that the
spring’s FEA model in this paper is created by 3D beam
elements with 20 nodes per turn.
2. NEW FEA BASED SPRING DESIGN
2.1 Concept of New Method
The followings are typical requirements for automobile
coil springs;
1) Spring rate around 1G height
2) Load at 1G height
3) FLP at 1G height
4) No coil-to-coil contact throughout spring travel,
especially at Jounce height
5) No interference with other components around the
spring, especially at Jounce height
As can be noticed from the above items, all of the
requirements are specified under compressed conditions
of the spring and not at the free condition. Therefore, it
should be much easier for designers to first design the
ideal jounce profile and then determine the free profile
corresponding to the designed jounce profile as well as
satisfying any other requirements. In theory, if the
jounce profile and spring force line position are fixed, a
unique corresponding free profile exists. The new
method proposed in this paper is to reversely determine
the only free profile realizing the designed ideal jounce
profile with a unique algorithm for FLP adjustment
based on automated FEA iteration.
2.2 Overall Design Flow
Fig.2 shows the overall design flow of the proposed
method. Initial total number of turns and wire diameter
are determined by statics based simple calculation with
the Wahl’s stress correction factor to meet the target
spring requirements (block-1~3). The ideal jounce
profile is designed based on the dimensional
information and spring packaging space requirements
while maximizing the coil-to-coil clearance (block-4).
50
Meanwhile, an arbitrary initial free profile is
automatically created without spring characteristics
concerns based on the basic dimensional information
obtained in the blocks 1~3 (block-5). This free profile
will be corrected during optimization in the design loop.
In the next step, the initial free profile is compressed to
the jounce condition in FEA and is then corrected by
comparing the deformed jounce profile to the designed
ideal jounce profile with 1G load adjustment (block-7).
After the free profile corresponding to the ideal jounce
profile is determined, the process is switched to the FLP
adjustment block (block-8). Due to profile
modifications in this block, the jounce profile may be
altered from the ideal. Therefore, blocks 7 and 8 need to
be repeated alternatively until both satisfy the
requirements.
1) Spring Requirements
2) Statics Based Simple Calculation
3) Set Total Number of Turns and Wire Diameter
5) Start from Simple Free Profile
4) Ideal Jounce
Profile Creation 6) Compress in FEA
7)
Find Free Profile Corresponding 8) FLP Adjustment
to the Designed Jounce Profile
with 1G Load Adjustment
Inner Loop
Expert System to Change Total Number of Turns
9)
and Wire Diameter for Stress/Weight Optimization
End
Fig.2 Overall Design Flow
Blocks 3~8 are included in an inner loop which is
carried out under fixed number of turns and wire
diameter. In order to optimize the stress and weight, the
expert system changes the total number of turns and
wire diameter depending on the FEA result (block-9).
2.3 Jounce Profile and 1G Load Adjustment (Block-7)
1G State 1G State
Detailed flow in this block is shown in Fig.3. Since the
initial free profile is created automatically and
arbitrarily, the compressed profile at jounce will be Force
Strong Contact
Force Line Movement
Line
different from the designed ideal jounce profile for the
first iteration. Their difference in height and radius
distribution can individually be determined by
subtracting the FEA result from the ideal. The free Fig.4 FLP Movement Test by Specific Seat Inclinations
at 1G Height
profile is updated by superimposing this difference on it.
At the same time, the free profile height is also scaled
FLP is expressed as a four element vector in this paper,
in order to adjust the resulting 1G load to the
namely Upper-X, Upper-Y, Lower-X and Lower-Y.
requirement. The amount of the scaling can be
calculated based on the spring rate obtained from the Pi = [u xi u yi l xi l yi ]
FEA result. After modifying the free profile, it is again Where, the subscript i represents the condition of FLP
compressed in FEA. This process is iterated until both as shown in Table 1.
the differences at jounce and 1G load satisfy the Table 1 Representation of Subscript i
predetermined tolerance. i Condition (1G Height)
0 Original FLP (without additional seat inclination)
5) Start from Simple Free Profile 1 Tested FLP with unit upper seat inclination about X-axis
2 Tested FLP with unit upper seat inclination about Y-axis
+
Overwrite + 3 Tested FLP with unit lower seat inclination about X-axis
4 Tested FLP with unit lower seat inclination about Y-axis
Free Height Scaling t Target FLP
4)
Ideal Jounce 6) Compress to Jounce in FEA
Profile Creation In order to check the relationship between the seat
-
inclination and FLP movement, a pre-test is carried out
+
7)
with 5 degree rotation increments applied to the upper
No
and the lower seat separately as shown in Table 2. From
Max. Diff in H and R
< Tolerance? Difference in H and R the results, it can be concluded that the relationship can
Yes be approximated as linear.
Diff in 1G Load No
< Tolerance? Table 2 Relationship between Seat Inclination and FLP
Yes About X-Axis About Y-Axis
40 Y 40 Y 20 Y
U-FLP L-FLP U-FLP

Fig.3 Detail Flow for Jounce Profile Adjustment

Upper Seat Rotation

30 -20o 30 10

-15o -20o -15o -10o -5o 5o 10o 15o 20o

20 20 20o 0 X
-10o 15o -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
10 o -10
10 10
-5o 5o

2.4 FLP Adjustment (Block-8) -20 -10

0
0 10
X
20 -20 -10
0
0
-5o
10
X
20
-20
20
Y
L-FLP
-10o

Suppose the FLP requirement is given at 1G height.

-10 5 o -10 10
o o
-15 20 15o 10o 5o
-5o -10o -15o -20o
10o -20o
-20 -20 0 X

Since the FLP is approximately summerized as the -30

15o
-30
-40 -30 -20 -10
-10
0 10 20 30 40

o
20

center of pressure of the contact force between seat and -40 -40 -20

40 Y 40 Y
20 Y
coil, it can be adjusted by inclining the upper and the U-FLP
20o
L-FLP
U-FLP
Lower Seat Rotation

30 30 10

lower seat to change the contact force distribution at 1G 20

-20o
20
15o

10o
-20 -15 -10 -5
o o o o

0
o o
5o 10 15 20
o

X
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

height, as shown in Fig.4.

-15o -10
10 10 5o
-10o
-5o -20
0 0 X Y
X 20
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
5o -5o L-FLP
-10 -10
10o 10
-10o 20o 15o 10
o
5o -5o -10o -15o -20o
15o
-20 -20
20o 0 X
-15o
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
-30 -30 -10
-20o

-40 -40 -20

51
 That means that an amount of FLP movement can be 5) Start From Simple Free Profile
estimated by scaling the results of the unit seat +
Overwrite -
inclination. By testing how much the FLP moves with
unit seat inclinations about X and Y axis, applied to the
6) Compress to 1G Height in FEA
upper and the lower seat separately, the necessary seat 8)
inclination and its direction to move the current FLP to
Yes
P0 − Pt < Tolerance?
meet the target can be estimated by a linear
combination of each unit seat inclination test result with No

weight θ i . Unit Seat Inclination Test at 1G Height

4
Pt = P0 + ∑ θ i ⋅ ΔPi (1) Estimation of the Best Seat Inclination
( θi ) to Move the FLP onto the Target.
i =1

Where, ΔPi is the amount of FLP movement due to
each unit seat inclination from the original FLP
( ΔPi = Pi − Po ) and θ i is the necessary seat
inclination for the i’th condition.
Once the necessary seat inclinations are estimated by
solving the system of linear eqns.(1), the displacement
of each node on the spring due to the estimated seat
inclination can be estimated by applying the same linear
combination to the node movement as the each unit seat
inclination test. Each determined node displacement is
then subtracted from the free profile so that it will
deform oppositely from the seat inclination at 1G height.
This means that the strong contact locations produced
by the inclined seat shown in Fig.4 remain in the same
location with the original seats. In other words, the
contact force distribution produced by the seat
inclination at 1G height should be partially realized by
modifying the free profile without the need to incline
the seats, as shown in Fig.5.
Free State 1G State
Compressed
Strong Contact
Estimation of Each Node Displacement
Due to the Best Seat Inclination
Fig.6 FLP Adjsutment Flow Diagram
2.5 Stress/Weight Optimization (Block-9)
Although it is possible to embed an expert system to
modify the total number of turns and wire diameter
effectively based on FEA results, the current system
simply scans the total number of coils while changing
wire diameter accordingly in a certain range. The best
profile for each number of turns is determined in the
design loop and one of them will be selected from the
standpoint of stress and weight.
3. SPRING DESIGN WITH NEW METHOD
As an example of spring design with this method, the
profile adjustment process will be demonstrated in this
chapter. The initial free profile and designed jounce
profile are shown in Fig.6. Since this example is for a
strut application having an inclined and offset lower
seat, the jounce profile was designed to follow the
lower seat shape as well as maximizing the coil-to-coil
clearance. That is the reason for the “wavy” profile
shown in Fig.6(b).
160 85
450 85

140 80
400 80

350 75 75
120

300 70 70
100

Fig.5 Free Profile Modification Based on Estimated

Radius [mm]
Height [mm]
Radius [mm]
Height [mm]

250 65 65
80

Seat Inclination Obtained in FLP Movement Test at 1G

200 60 60
60
150 55 55

Height 100
Height
50
40
Target H
Target R
50

50 Radius 45 20 45

0 40 0 40
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

By iterating this FLP adjustment process, the FLP can Number of Turns
Number of Turns

satisfy the predetermined tolerance. The FLP (a) Initial Free Profile (b) Designed Jounce Profile
adjustment flow is summarized as Fig.6. Fig.6 Prepared Profiles at Start of Design Iteration

52
Fig.7 is monitoring how the free profile is changed (unit) seat inclination.
based on the difference in jounce profiles during 20
U-Original θ uy = 3 deg
iteration. It can be observed that the large difference L-Target
from the jounce profile in the first iteration is gradually
10
converging as the iterations increase. U-Target

Y [mm]
Free Profile Jounce Profile Error at Jounce
Free Height 0 Jounce Profile 0 Error @ Jounce 0
0
θ lx 40
= 3 deg
Height Target H N-R

0 10 20 30
450 85 160 100 40
Radius N-H N-H
400 80 140 Target R N-R Tolerance
N-R 90 30
N-H Tolerance
350 75
120
300 70 80 20

Radius [mm
Radius [mm

Height [mm

100
Height [mm

(1)

Error [mm
250 65
80 70 10
200 60

-10
60 0
150 55 60
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
40
100 50 -10
50
50 45 20
-20
0 40 0 40
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
-30

θ ux = 3 deg
Number of Turns Number of Turns
Number of Turns

Free Height 1 Jounce Profile 1 Error @ Jounce 1

Height Target H N-R

400 100 160 90 10
Radius N-H N-H

-20
Target R 85 N-R Tolerance
350 140
90 N-R 80
5
N-H Tolerance

X [mm]
300 120
75
80
Radius [mm

Radius [mm
Height [mm

Height [mm

250 100
70

(2)
Error [mm

θly = 3 deg
200 70 80 65

L-Original
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
60
150 60
60 -5
55
100 40
50
50
50 20 -10
45

0 40 0 40
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
-15

Fig.8 Seat Inclination Test Result at 1G height

Number of Turns Number of Turns
Number of Turns

Free Height 2 Jounce Profile 2 Error @ Jounce 2

Height Target H N-R
300 90 160 90 10
Radius N-H N-H
85 Target R 85 8 N-R Tolerance
140
250 N-R
80 80
6
N-H Tolerance
120
75 75
200 4
Radius [mm

Radius [mm

100
Height [mm

Height [mm

70 70
Error [mm

(3)
150 65 80 65
0

The linear combination of the above results produces

60 60
60 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
100 -2
55 55
40
50 50
-4
50
20 -6
45 45

0 40 0 40 -8

the necessary seat inclinations to move the origianl FLP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
-10
Number of Turns Number of Turns
Number of Turns

Free Height 3 Jounce Profile 3 Error @ Jounce 3

N-R

to the target. In this example, the seat inclinations are

Height Target H
300 85 160 85 6
Radius N-H N-H
80 140 Target R 80 N-R Tolerance
250 N-R
75 75
4 N-H Tolerance
120
200 70 70
Radius [mm

Radius [mm

2
Height [mm

Height [mm

100

determined as follow;
65 65
Error [mm

150 80

(4) 100
60

55
60
60

55
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

40 -2
50 50
50
45 20 45

θ i (i = 1 ~ 4) = −8.5, − 1.2, 18.4, − 3.1 [deg]

-4
0 40 0 40
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
-6
Number of Turns Number of Turns
Number of Turns

Fig.7 Example of Jounce Profile Convergence Free profile modification based on node displacement
due to the seat inclination from the first iteration of FLP
Once the free profile to realize the designed jounce adjustment is shown in Fig.9. The modified free profile
profile is determined, the process moves to the FLP is then compressed to 1G height by following the flow
adjusment process. Fig.8 shows the seat inclination test shown in Fig.6. Fig.10 shows how the FLP moves
results. In order to enhance the FLP movement due to during iterating.
seat inclination, 3deg seat rotations about the X and Y
axes were applied in this case rather than a one degree
4
N-R
3 N-H
2
Difference [mm]

θ1 0

-1
0.0 2.0 4.0
X (-8.5 / 3.0)
-2

-3

-4

4
N-R
3

Initial Free Profile 2

N-H
Modified Free Profile for FLP Adjustment
Difference [mm]

400 100 1 450 110

350
90
θ2 0
0.0 2.0 4.0 X (-1.2 / 3.0)
400 Free N-H
Free N-R 100
-1 350
300
80 -2 300
250 90
N-H [mm]

N-R [mm]

-3 250
N-H [mm]

N-R [mm]

=
200 70 -4 200 80
150 4
60 N-R 150
Free N-H 3 N-H 70
100 100
Free N-R 50 2
50 50
Difference [mm]

1 60
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Number of Turns
5.0
40
θ3 0

-1
0.0 2.0 4.0 X (18.4 / 3.0)
0
-500.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 50
Number of Turns
-2

-3

-4

5
N-R
4
N-H
3
Node displacement in 2
Difference [mm]

height and radius due

θ4
1

to each seat inclination

0
0.0 2.0 4.0
X (-3.1 / 3.0)
-1

-2

-3

-4

Fig.9 Free Profile Modification Based on Node Displacement Due to Seat Inclination

53
 three adjacent nodes on the spring. As can be seen, the
free profile determined by the new design method does
not have any notable geometrical features such as
parameterizable curvature of coil center line, periodic
radius and height distribution, unlike any of the
references.2-6)
400 80

Height
350 75
Radius

300
70

250
65

Height [mm]
200
60
150

55
100

50
50

Fig.10 FLP Locus during Iteration 0 45

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
-50 40

Fig.11 shows the history of convergence of the entire Number of Turns from Lower End [turns]

system with the following criterias; (a) Resultant Height and Radius Distribution

Jounce Height Tolerance : Target +/- 1mm

Jounce Radius Tolerance : Target +/- 2mm
1G Load Tolerance : Target +/- 100N
FLP Tolerance : Target +/- 5mm
Because the process adjusts the jounce profile and FLP
separately, FLP might become worse during the jounce
profile adjustment and vice versa. However, both of
them are converging to the certain target as the
iterations increase. The entire design loop converged in (c) Free Profile with Coil Center
Line (Top-View)
three minitues computation time in this case.
40 3500
Max. Difference from Target for H,R and FLP

Max. Difference from Target 1G Load [N]

Max. Difference in Height

35 3000
Max. Difference in Radius
Max. Difference in FLP
30
Difference in 1G Load 2500
25
2000
[mm]

20
1500
15
1000
10

5 500 (b) Free Profile with Coil Center Line (d) Jounce Condition
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Iteration Number
Fig.12 Coil Spring Shape Designed with the New Method
J&L FLP J&L FLP

J&L : Jounce Profile and 1G Load Adjustment Iteration However, it is a unique and optimal profile to realize
FLP : FLP Adjustment Iteration
the optimally designed jounce profile while satisfying
Fig.11 Entire History for Convergence
all other spring requirements. While the spring end is
created by inclining the spring seat at 1G height, it does
4. DISCUSSION
not require that the spring end plane is mathematically
The resultant height/radius distribution and 3D free
angled from the seat plane at the free condition. It will
profile with center line are shown in Fig.12. The center
depend on how the spring end deforms on the seat
line was determind by connecting the center points of
during the unit seat inclination test. Therefore, the corresponding free profile for manufacturing. A new
spring shape must always be given as a series of node automated and designer independent design system has
position data points for radius and height distribution, been coded and its validity has been proven in this
rather than parameterized geometrical values. In this paper. The proposed design method is currently
sense, the spring designed by the proposed method international patent pending.
differs from any other existing spring shapes.
Fig.12(d) shows the jounce profile compressed from the REFERENCES
resultant free profile in FEA. Turns 0.75 to 1.25 from 1) A.M.Wahl, Mechanical Springs, 2nd Edition, (SMI)
the lower end were intentionally designed with high 2) H.Toshio, T.Nakamura, H.Enomoto, N.Sato,
pitch while the rest of the coil was designed to S.Nishizawa, M.Ikeda, SAE 2001-01-0497, in Proc.
maximize coil-to-coil clearance, which matches of SAE 2001 World Congress, 2001, (SAE, Detroit,
exactly to the shape designed at the start of the design 2001)
loop. 3) T.Gotoh, T.Imaizumi, SAE 2000-01-0101, in Proc.
The advantages of the new method can be summarized of SAE 2000 World Congress, 2000, (SAE, Detroit,
as follows. It is possible to; 2000).
• eliminate a designer’s subjectiveness. 4) T.Imaizumi, Patent No.:US6,543,757 B2, Date of
• achive the optimal spring design from the Patent : Apr.8.2003
standpoints of stress and weight. 5) T.Imaizumi, Patent No.:US6,328,290 B1, Date of
• establish an automated design system with ease. Patent : Dec.11,2001
If an FLP is not specified in the requirements, 6) Brandt, Pub.No.:US2002/0175488 A1, Pub.
coil-on-arm applications for example, the target FLP Date : Nov.28,2002
can tentitively be set to the center of the spring for the
sake of even stress distribution. The system can be
extended to support more spring requirements in the
design loop on demand, namely different packaging
space requirement at different spring heights,
manufacturability limitations, etc. This method can be
applied to the spring design for hot-coiling by
eliminating the radius distribution feedback loop in the
block 7 if the radius does not need to exactly follow the
ideal jounce profile. Furthermore, since designing for
the Jounce profile is the key point, development of an
algorithm to design the Jounce profile that keeps the
most uniform distance distribution from the spring
force line to each node within the allowable spring
packaging space, as well as maximizing the coil-to-coil
clearance, might be necessary for more rapid design
system in the future.

5. CONCLUSION
A new concept for FEA based coil spring design was
proposed. It is a reverse engineering based concept in
terms of first designing the desired jounce profile,
which is typically an output in the convensional FEA
based design, and then reversely determining the

55