1

Evaluation of composite leaf spring with different orientations

stacking sequence and reinforcements

Kiran . K. Jadhao Rajendra . S. Dalu

Mechanical Engineering Department, BNCOE, Pusad 445215, India

Professor and Head, Mechanical Engineering Department, GCOE, Amravati 444604, India
Correspondence should be addressed to Kiran K Jadhao; kkjadhao@gmail.com

This paper investigated the static behavior of steel and composite leaf springs using experimental and FEA
approach. The objective is to design, fabricate, and analyze leaf springs for static loading condition. The
design constraints were deflection and stress. The main consideration was given to fiber orientations and
stacking sequence of composite leaf springs on static performance. Three composite leaf spring with different
fiber orientation and stacking sequence was fabricated (hand lay-up) and tested. The steel and composite leaf
springs was modeled and analyzed for stress, deflection, and stiffness using FEA. The results demonstrate that
compared to steel leaf spring composite leaf spring has less weight, stress and higher stiffness. Better
agreement between experimental results and FEA has been observed.
Key Words: Steel leaf spring, E-glass fiber/epoxy, Static analysis, Finite element analysis

1. Introduction leaf spring. An influence of unidirectional laminates

Leaf springs play a vital role to provide occupant
comfort and vehicle stability. There are three main
types of metallic leaf springs and these are
conventional, multi-parabolic and parabolic leaf
springs [1]. Parabolic leaf springs are used commonly
due to their advantages of low weight, low cost and
high fatigue strength. Leaf spring may carry lateral
loads, brake torque, driving torque, in addition to the
shocks. However, the problem of heavy weight of
spring is still persistent. However, it is observed that
the failure of steel leaf springs is usually catastrophic
then in order to reduce accidents, which comes
through such failures conventional steel leaf spring can
be replaced with gradually failing composite leaf
springs. By doing this, the weight of the vehicle and
fuel consumption may also be reduced while
maintaining the strength of the leaf spring. Composite
materials offer significant opportunities for
enhancement of product performance in terms of
strength, stiffness, life span and energy absorption,
combined with weight reduction. On the other hand, it
is possible to provide strength for leaf spring by laying
fiber in one direction. A lot of studies and researches
were carried out on the applications of the composite
materials in mono leaf springs[2-3]. utilized composite
material in the application of leaf springs for
automotive industries. Because of high strain energy,
high strength to weight ratio compared with those of
steel are being replace by composite leaf spring [4-5].
Unidirectional glass fiber was used for fabricating
composite leaf springs and stressed the importance of
enhanced ultimate and fatigue strength[6]. However,
unidirectional fiber makes weak joint at the eye end of
leaf spring so decreases the performance of composite
on behavior of leaf spring reported by [7].
Nevertheless, in actual practice, leaf springs are
subjected to secondary forces and moments at different
axes in addition to the vertical load. According to [8]
failure of the spring of 00 E-glass fiber orientation
layers was occurring due to fiber fracture (ultimate
failure). On the other hand, failure of springs having
900 fiber orientations was caused by matrix failure
(Initial failure).Besides, composite made up of
unidirectional fiber have lower strength in transverse
direction. For this reason, desired strength values are
obtained by fiber reinforcement laid in different angles
specially 450 degree. According to them, leaf spring
when made with unidirectional. Mono composite leaf
spring was fabricated and tested made from traditional
E-glass/epoxy composite material for the static load
conditions; these authors to ensure a reliable number
of life cycles of that spring also did fatigue life
prediction [9]. New concept to adjust the spring rate of
a lightweight spring system was presented for glass
fiber reinforced polypropylene (GF/PP) leaf spring
elements [10] Hybrid mono composite leaf spring
composed of E-glass /epoxy; Carbon/epoxy was
designed and analyzed using ANSYS [11]. Beside to
strengthen the leaf spring in all directions lay-up
selected were (450/00/900/450/00/900/450). The safe
stress and corresponding payload of leaf spring for
typical leaf spring of TATA - 407 light commercial
vehicles was examined and observed maximum stress
on the inner side of the eye sections of leaf
spring[12].This paper is mainly focused on the
implementation of composite materials by replacing
steel in conventional leaf springs of a suspension
system. Therefore, analysis of composite material leaf
springs has become essential in showing the
2

comparative results with conventional leaf springs. So, TABLE 1: Mechanical properties of conventional Steel leaf
Tata Ace (two-tone) commercial vehicle multi steel spring.
leaf spring has been selected. E-glass fiber
Parameters Value
reinforcement with different angles and stacking layup
Material of leaf spring 65Si7
composite leaf spring are developed (Hand lay-up
Young‟s Modulus 2.1 x 105 MPa
method) and analyzed under static loading.
Poissons „ ratio 0.266
Characterization of selected steel and composite leaf
Tensile strength Ultimate 1272 MPa
spring is obtained. Finally proposed the one having
Tensile Yield strength 1158 MPa
higher strength to weight ratio. Two materials used for
Density 7.86x10-6 kg/mm3
comparison are; conventional steel and composite E-
Allowable stress 540MPa
Glass /Epoxy material.
TABLE 2: Material Properties of E-glass /Epoxy Composite [10]
2. Specification of the problem
Sr. Properties Value
The objective of the present work is to design, analyze, 1 Tensile modulus along X- direction , Mpa 34000
fabricate, and testing of three E- glass fiber/epoxy using 2 Tensile modulus along Y- direction , Mpa 6530
different fiber orientations and stacking sequence using 3 Tensile modulus along Z- direction , Mpa 6530
hand lay-up method.
4 Shear modulus along XY-direction , Mpa 2433
3. Material and Methods 5 Shear modulus along YZ-direction , Mpa 1698
The leaf spring behaves like a simply supported beam and 6 Shear modulus along ZX-direction , Mpa 2433
the analysis was done considering it as a simply supported 7 Mass density of material (ρ), kg/mm3 2.6x10-6
beam. Generally, various design method are being used 8 Tensile strength of the material, MPa 900
given as constant thickness and varying width, constant
9 Compressive strength of the material, MPa 450
width, varying thickness and constant thickness and width
method. In the present work constant cross sectional 10 Flexural modulus of the material,MPa 40000
design(constant thickness and width design) was selected 11 Poisson ratio along XY-direction 0.366
for composite leaf spring because of its capability for 12 Poisson ratio along YZ-direction 0.217
mass production and moreover to accommodate 13 Poisson ratio along ZX-direction 0.217
continuous reinforcement of fibers. All together, it is quite
suitable for Hand lay-up technique. TABLE 3: Mechanical properties of Kevlar/Epoxy

3.1 Specification of steel leaf spring. Design parameters of
existing multi steel leaf spring used in this work has taken
as:
Material of leaf spring 65Si7; Total length (eye to
eye) 860 mm; Arc height of axle seat (camber) 90 mm;
spring rate 23.1 N/mm; number of full-length leaves 01;
number of graduated leaves 02; width of leaves 60mm;
thickness of each leaves 08 mm; full bump loading
4169N; spring weight 10.5 kg; Young's modulus
2.1x105(N/mm2); Available space for spring width 40-45
mm. The material properties of existing leaf spring are
displayed in Table.1.
3.2 Selection of Material. Different kinds of fibers such as
carbon fiber, C-glass, S-glass were used by many
researchers in numerous applications. As carbon fiber is
found to be too expensive, it has limited applications.
Therefore, promising relations between cost and
properties of a material can be attained with E-glass
fiber/epoxy. The advantages of epoxies are high strength
and modulus, excellent adhesion, low shrinkage, good
chemical resistance, and ease of processing. Hence, epoxy
is found to be the best resin for leaf spring fabrication.
The selected epoxy resin for present work was Dobeckot
520F with Hardener 758 grade. The material properties of
selected E-glass fiber/epoxy, Kevlar/epoxy and Carbon
fiber/epoxy composites, [9, 10 and 13] are given in the
Table 1 to 3.
Sr. Properties Value
1 Tensile modulus along X- direction, Mpa 80000
2 Tensile modulus along Y- direction , Mpa 5550
3 Tensile modulus along Z- direction , Mpa 5550
4 Shear modulus along XY-direction, Mpa 2222
5 Shear modulus along YZ-direction , Mpa 1800
6 Shear modulus along ZX-direction, Mpa 2222
7 Mass density of material (ρ), kg/mm3 1.4 x 10 -6
8 Poisson ratio along XY-direction 0.34
0.34
9 Poisson ratio along YZ & ZX direction
0.34
3.3 Design Calculation The dimensions of composite leaf
spring are calculated from the basic equations of leaf
spring from strength and deflection point of view
Figure.1.In order to determine thickness and width of
composite leaf spring assume permissible deflection of
leaf spring is 50 mm., spring rate = 47 N/mm, Factor of
safety = 2, Allowable stress = 225 MPa, Material selected
= E-glass/epoxy and Compressive strength of E-
glass/fiber =450MPa
FIGURE 1 Cantilever beam type leaf spring for uniform
width
3

Let, composite leaf springs were designated as CLS 1, CLS 2

Total weight on wheel = 16677 N, and CLS 3, respectively illustrated in Figure2.
Since the vehicle is 4-wheeler, a single leaf spring, F=
2084 N, Span length, 2L= 860 mm, L= 430 mm. From the
equation of strength of material
Section modulus for rectangular cross section area
𝑏ℎ 2
Z=
6
From the basic equations of bending stress and deflection,
the maximum stress, and tip deflection, can be derived.
6FL
σb = 2 (1)
𝑏ℎ
4F𝐿3
𝛿= (2)
Eb h 3
Where, E is the Elastic modulus of the spring material.
Now the design of leaf spring depends solely on the
thickness, h. The thickness (h) determines the maximum
stress and maximum deflection in the leaf for the given
load. After solving equation, 1 and 2 simultaneously for h
(thickness of leaf spring), final computed thickness and
width of mono composite leaf spring are 24 mm and
60mm respectively.

3.4 Fabrication. Commonly manufacturing techniques

being used are Filament winding, Compression molding
and vacuum bag process. Hand lay-up is mostly used at
international and national level. Amongst all available
techniques hand lay-up process is very simple,
economical, and easy so, hand lay-up method has been
FIGURE 2: Final prepared three mono Composite leaf springs
selected for fabrication of composite leaf spring to be used
in this work. During process, first mold was prepared.
3.5 Testing. The main purpose of the static testing is to get
Mainly, this preparation consists of cleaning the mold and
an idea about the influence of loading on the behavior of
applying a release agent on the surface of mold to avoid leaf springs in order to obtain assurance of performance of
the resin to stick. The resin and hardener were mixed in leaf spring. For estimating, stress and stiffness the total
the ratio of 10:1 by weight. The volume fraction of E- number of four sample, i.e. one steel and three composite
glass fiber and epoxy was taken as 60:40 by rule of leaf springs samples were taken and tested under static
mixture. The ratio of the resin to the laminate can be
loads. The steel and composite leaf springs are tested by
determined through experience. It may be based on the
using Hydraulic INSTRON (429) test rig. The
volume ratio or weight ratio. Then for this study 60% experimental set –up is shown in Figure 2. This test rig
volume fraction of fiber and 40% volume fraction of has an ability to apply maximum static load of 25 kN. The
matrix is selected. The selection is done by considering setup consists of a plunger which applies the load in
the following factors: To minimize the cost of the fiber, vertical direction. The specifications of the hydraulic
to make strong bond between fiber and matrix also, to
power pack are Velocity = 2500 mm / min, Oil Servo
minimize the overall weight of the leaf spring.
Hydraulic oil, Maximum pressure = 160 bar, Discharge =
For fabricating CLS1, Glass fiber was first sliced to 9.08 gallons / min, Pump power = 11.2 kW
sought in required lengths so that they can be easily and Speed = 600-2000 rpm. The applied load was
deposited on a mold layer by layer according to selected increased by a step with hydraulic actuator and was
stacking sequences as [0/45/0/45], [0/90/0/90] s and measured by a load cell. The load was applied at center of
[0/±45/90+Kevlar]S respectively. Afterwards, an adequate
leaf springs and corresponding deflection and stress were
quantity of mixed resin and hardener was applied on the
recorded as shown in the Table.4
mold. A brush or roller was used to spread it around all
surfaces. The first layer of reinforcement E-Glass fiber
having 00 orientations was then laid. After this second
layer of E- glass fiber having 450 orientations were laid.
This procedure was repeated until the desired thickness o
24 mm of leaf spring was achieved. The eye of composite
leaf spring was manufactured simultaneously from the
same material. Next mold was allowed to cure about 1-2
days at room temperature. Soon after, same procedure was
adopted for fabrication of additional two composite mono
leaf springs having stacking sequences of [0/90/0/90] s and
[0/±45/90+Kevlar]S respectively. The final fabricated
FIGURE3: Hydraulic INSTRON (429) test rig for static test.
4

TABLE 4: Performance parameters comparison of leaf spring.

Load (N) Stress (Mpa) Deflection (mm) Stiffness (N/mm)

Sr.No. Leaf Springs EXPT FEA EXPT FEA EXPT FEA EXPT FEA

1 SLS 480.34 478.89 43.85 43.574 95.1 95.676

2 CLS 1 211.4 219.08 40.01 41.554 104.2 100.32
4169
3 CLS 2 204.5 221.63 24.5 26.16 170.2 159.36
4 CLS 3 246.87 224.56 37 33.66 112.7 123.85

4. Finite Element Analysis increased from 500 N to 4169 N and corresponding stress
A stress analysis was performed using FEA. The axle and deformation were recorded for leaf springs displayed
seat is assumed to be fixed and loading is applied at both in Table.1. The contour plots of stress and deflection of
eye end of leaf spring shown in Figure 4. Both eye ends multi steel and composite leaf spring no.1 at different
of leaf spring have a flexibility to slide along „X‟ direction loading are displayed in Figure 5 to 6.
and it can rotate about a pin in „Z‟ direction. The link
oscillates when load was applied and removed. Therefore,
the displacement at both eye ends is constrained along „X‟
and „Z‟ direction. In FEA, for steel and composite leaf
spring, firstly, CAD model was prepared in the CATIAV5
R18. For modeling the steel spring, the dimensions of a
conventional leaf spring of a light weight commercial
vehicle were chosen. The element selected for this
analysis was solid 46, which behaves as spring, interface
element is CONTACT 174, and TARGET 170 is used. An
average coefficient of friction 0.03 is taken between the
surfaces. Composite mono leaf springs having 24 mm
thickness was designed and modeled in CATIAV5R18
then this was finally imported into ANSYS. An element
selected was solid 46 and the layer selection was done in
ANSYS composite prepost (ACP) using the stacking
sequence arrangement of [0/45/0/45] s [0/90/0/90]s and
[0/±45/90+Kevlar]S ].
A number of elements and nodes generated were
3468 and 3689 respectively. The composite leaf spring
model was meshed considering the tetrahedral mesh with
refinement element factor as three. A layer by layer
arrangement was adopted to create models. Composite
leaf spring models with a different lay-up were considered
which include total 24 layers of E-glass/epoxy
respectively with ply thickness of 6 mm each. In static
analysis, load of magnitude 500N was applied at both eye
ends of leaf spring in vertical direction. Later on load was
FIGURE 4: Meshing and Boundary and Loading condition of steel
leaf spring

Composite leaf spring

Steel leaf spring
FIGURE 5: Stress pattern for leaf springs
5

comparison with steel leaf spring, stress reduction about

53-54 % was observed in composite leaf spring no.1.
Alternatively, compressive strength of fiber E-glass/epoxy
is 450 MPa and yield stress of steel material is 1175 MPa.
Hence, factor of safety for steel and the composite leaf
spring with [0/45/0/45]S was observed in between 2.44
and 2.13. This ensures that the composite leaf spring with
[0/45/0/45]S is stiff, strong, and stable enough in service
throughout its design life. It is has been observed from
stress plot that, at the axle seat where leaf spring is
clamped, stress is maximum, because this region is
stressed heavily at one specific location while it decreases
Steel leaf spring gradually towards the both eye ends of leaf spring because
this region are stressed lightly.
The difference in experimental and FEA result values
of (stress) of steel and three composite leaf springs were
found to be less than 10 %. Hence, better agreement
between experimental and FEA results has been observed.
On the other hand the composite leaf spring with
[0/90/0/90]S and [0/±45/90 +Kevlar]s has different stress
trend under the same static loading condition compared
with composite leaf spring no.1. shown in Figure7.
However, the stress in composite leaf spring no.2 is found
to be lower than design stress. Consequently, this shows,
Composite leaf spring no.1 composite leaf spring no.2 is also found to be safe as on
stress viewpoint compared to existing steel leaf spring.
FIGURE 6 Deflection pattern for leaf spring
The maximum stress, which was produced in composite
leaf spring no.1 and 2, is less than ultimate tensile and
5. Result and Discussion
compressive strength of the composite material, so the
An experimental test was conducted on steel and design is safe.
composite leaf springs. The characterization of various
performance of leaf spring with load were done and (ii) Stiffness. Figure 8 presents the variation of stiffness of
represented as follows. (i) Stress Figs. 7 shows, variation steel and composite leaf springs with load. It is observed
of stress with load for steel and three composite leaf that initially, stiffness of steel leaf spring increase with
springs with different fiber orientation and stacking lay- load, but for further increase in load, stiffness are reduced,
up. It is observed that, the stress of steel and composite this is due to higher deformation of steel leaf spring.
leaf spring with [0/45/0/45]S is increased linearly with The composite leaf springs with [0/45/0/45]s,
load shown in Figure 7. [0/90/0/90]s and [0/±45/90+Kevlar]s such as CLS1,CLS2
and CLS3 has spring constant in the range of 103-170
600 N/mm higher than the design value of 46.32 N/mm.
Steel leaf spring Nonetheless, stiffness of composite leaf spring no. 1 is
500 Composite leaf spring no.1 increased by 8.73 % compared to steel leaf spring. It is
Composite leaf spring no.2
observed that initially, stiffness of steel leaf spring
400 Composite leaf spring no.3
decrease with load, but for further increase in load,
Stress MPa

stiffness are increased , this is due to higher deformation

300
at light load and less deformation at high load of steel leaf
200 spring. However, stiffness of composite leaf spring no.1
with [0/45/0/45]S, shows considerable influence caused by
100 change of fiber orientations and stacking lay-up in
comparison to composite leaf springs no.2 and 3 under the
0 study. In addition, the composite leaf springs with
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 [0/45/0/45]s, [0/90/0/90]s and [0/±45/90+Kevlar]s has
Load N spring constant in the range of 84-160 N/mm higher
than the design value of 46.32 N/mm which is nearer to
FIGURE 7: Stress distribution for steel and composite leaf springs experimental stiffness result of composite leaf springs.
Using FEA stiffness of composite leaf spring no. 1 is
When E- glass fibers are orientated in [0/45/0/45]S increased by 4.63 % compared to steel leaf spring.
direction of load results in low stress, which is less than Nevertheless, stiffness of composite leaf spring no.2 and 3
allowable stress, thus, design is found to be safe as stress is increased by 38% and with 7.54 % compared to
viewpoint. It is believed that the reason for the difference composite leaf spring no.1. This implies that stiffness of
in stresses is due to behavior of leaf springs (steel and composite leaf spring no.2 has a significant influence of
composite) materials and its characteristics. Further, in position of lay-up. However, leaf spring with increased
6

stiffness is required because this is an ideal requirement of
leaf spring in light commercial vehicle. In addition, using
FEA, stiffness of composite leaf spring no.3 is also
increased and this also satisfied the condition of increased
stiffness. Better agreement between experimental and
FEA results shown in Table4.
180
160
140
Stifness N/mm
exhibited deformation of 37mm at which first damage was
initiated because high stresses were developed in the
composite leaf spring no.3. Hence, cracking sound was
heard in the composite leaf spring no.3. Therefore, failure
of composite leaf spring no.3 has occurred and hence it is
not suitable for leaf spring application. However, better
agreement for deflection was found in experimental and
FEA results of steel and composite leaf springs.
50
Steel leaf spring

120 45
100 40

Deflection ,mm
35 Composite leaf
80 Steel leaf spring 30 spring 1
60 Composite leaf spring no.1 25
40 20
Composite leafs pring no.2 15
20 10
Composite leaf spring no.3
0 5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Load N Load N

FIGURE 8: Load Vs Stiffness Variation for SLS and CLS 1,2 & 3 FIGURE 9: Load Vs Deflection for SLS and CLS 1, 2 & 3
(iii) Deflection. A typical load-deflection curve for steel
(iv) Comparison of Weight
and composite leaf spring no.1 is presented in Figure 9.
It is evident from Figure 10 comparison of
As indicated, the curve is linear for both steel and
weight of both steel and composite leaf spring. From this
composite leaf spring. It seems that, increasing load
comparison of bar chart, it is observed that for steel leaf
results in increased deflection. From load-deflection curve
spring weight has 10.5 kg and for composite leaf spring it
for a static load of 4169 N, deflections of steel and
was 3.125 kg. Such behavior is occurring due to E- Glass
composite leaf spring were found to be 44 mm and 40
fiber has high strength to weight ratio. Hence it is
mm. FEA contour shown in Figure 9 shows deflection
observed that, a weight reduction of about 70 % was
contour of steel and composite leaf springs which
achieved by using the composite leaf spring in place of
gradually increases from fixed end of leaf spring to both
conventional steel leaf spring.
eye ends. It can be seen that 15-40 % reduction
in deflection of composite leaf spring no.3 and 2 was 12
observed than composite leaf spring no.1, which is an
10
indication of higher stiffness of leaf spring. Steel leaf spring
Weight kg

Yet again linear behavior is as well recorded in case 8

Composite leaf…
of steel and the composite leaf springs. However, for 6
composite leaf spring with [0/90/0/90]S and [0/±45/90 4
+Kevlar]s so there is a drop in displacement with
2
increasing load, which is found to be lower than the
maximum value of camber height of 90 mm. This is due 0
to the influences of different fiber orientations and Types of Leaf Spring
stacking lay-up. Hence, fiber orientation and stacking lay-
up were found as dominating factor in altering the FIGURE 10: Weight Comparison of Steel and Composite Leaf
performance of composite leaf spring. As it can be seen, Spring no. 1
composite leaf spring made of [0/±45/90 +Kevlar]s

6. Conclusion commercial vehicle. Composite leaf spring with

In the present work, composite mono leaf springs was
designed, fabricated and tested. It has been observed that,
when a multi steel leaf spring is replaced by mono
composite leaf spring, around 70% weight has been saved
so this accounts for fuel economy. Moreover, composite
leaf spring has less stress than that of steel leaf spring.
Hence composite leaf spring no.1 is safe from a stress
point of view. Results show that stiffness of composite
leaf spring no.1 was increased by 7.69% compared to steel
leaf spring, which is an ideal requirement of light
[0/45/0/45]s and [0/90/0/90] exhibited better static
performance to that of steel. Nevertheless, composite leaf
spring with [0/±45/90+Kevlar]s exhibited fracture failure
at tensile surface. Therefore, composite leaf spring with
[0/45/0/45] and are found to be better orientation and
stacking sequence for leaf spring application at static
loading condition. However, better agreement was
observed in experimental and FEA result of performance
parameters of both leaf springs. Therefore, it is identified
that the E-glass fiber is susbstitutional material for steel
leaf spring for light commercial vehicle with additional
7

benefits such as, weight, saving of fuel and comfort ride.

However, it has certain limitations; leaf spring has studied
for low load carrying capacity of light commercial
vehicle.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests

regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] Soner, Murathan, Nilay Guven, Ahmet Kanbolat, Tolga

Erdogus, and Mustafa Karaagac.. “Parabolic Leaf Spring
Design Optimization Considering FEA & Rig Test
Correlation.” Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress,
2011
[2] Dharam CK, “Composite Materials Design and Processes for
Automotive Applications”, The ASME Winter Annual
Meeting, San Francisco, 1978, pp. 19-30.
[3] Daugherty RL, “Composite Leaf Springs in Heavy Truck
Applications”,. Composite Materials, Proceedings of Japan-
US Conference Tokyo, 1981, pp. 529–538.
[4] Tanabe K, Seino T, Kajio Y, “Characteristics of
Carbon/Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Leaf Spring,
SAE820403, 1982, pp. 1628–1634.
[5] Yu WJ, Kim HC, “Double tapered FRP beam for automotive
Suspension leaf spring,” Composite Structure, Vol. 9, Issue 2,
1988, pp 279–300.
[6] Beardmore Johnson CF, “The potential for composites in
structural automotive applications,” Comp Science and
Technology, Vol. 26, 1986, pp 251–81.
[7] Paolo Conti, “Influence of Geometric Parameters on the
stress Distribution Around a pin-loaded hole in a Composite
laminate” Composite Material Technology, 1986, pp 83-101.
[8] B.S.N. Azzam & M.OA. Mokhtar, “Theoretical and
Numerical Analysis of Fibrous Composite C-Springs”, Cairo
university SAE.2001-01-271
[9] Shankar GSS, Vijayarangan S, “Mono composite leaf spring
for light weight vehicle – Design, ends joint analysis and
testing, Journal of Material Science, Vol. 12, No. 3., 2006, pp
220-225
[10] W. Hufenbach, F. Adam, M. Pohl, S. Sptizer, D. Weck.,
“Conception and Manufacturing of a Light Weight Spring
[11] with Adjustable spring rate,” 18th International conference
on composite Material, Germany, 2012, pp. 1-3.
[12] Keshavmurthy YC, Chetan HS, “Design and finite element
analysis of hybrid composite mono leaf spring”, International
Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research
and Development, Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2013, pp 72-82.
[13] Hareesh K and Thillikkani S, “Design and analysis of leaf
springs using the FEA approach: -Journal of Research, Vol.
3, 2014
[14] B. Raghu Kumar, R. Vijaya, “Static analysis of mono
composite leaf spring with different composite material,”
Vol. 5, Issue 2, 2013, pp 32-37.
[15] Rai vivek , Saxena Gaurav,”Development of a Composite
Leaf Spring for a Light Commercial Vehicle (Tata Magic)”,
Journal of Engineering Research and Application, Vol. 3,
Issue 5, 2013, pp.110-114