9

Leaf Springs

9.1 INTRODUCTION
The spring is a machine part used to absorb sudden loads and to accumulate elastic energy. There are different mechanical designs and forms of springs. The spring under consideration is called a leaf spring. This type of spring has an advantage over other kinds of springs because of its compact design and essential structural role. Its importance, rst and foremost, comes from the parts unique role, utilized in motor vehicles to provide the absorption of irregular loads caused by uneven roads. The leaf spring is also used in other machines such as heavy presses that operate under loads at large displacements. Since the displacements undergo intermittent absorptions and releases, a sturdy design of the part must be providedthe design that combines optimum strength with a needed elasticity. This is achieved by an assembly of narrow leaves acting in unison as bending beams. A typical leaf spring is shown in Figure 9.1. Figure 9.1a shows the leaves hold together by a center bolt and clamp. Figure 9.1b and c show different spring ends used in practice. The top leaf is designated as the main leaf. The leaves are bent with the ends facing upward. When a spring is designed to be used in a reversed

FIGURE 9.1 Leaf spring: (a) spring (1, center bolt; 2, clamp), (b) eye spring end, and (c) plain spring end.

265

266

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

position, the main leaf is at the bottom. The load is applied simultaneously at each end of the main leaf, while the reaction forces concentrate in the center of the spring, or vice versa. All leaves are subjected to signicant deections and change in curvature. The normal working load is a vertical load that engages the leaves, bending them in a direction that relieves the curvature. The change in geometry causes them to slide while the interleaf friction hinders the motion. This phenomenon causes a part of applied energy to be transformed into irreversible work and to dissipate. The magnitude of dissipated work depends on several factors such as the condition of leaf surfaces, applied load, and speed of sliding. The exposure to varying loads subjects leaf springs to hazardous stresses that result in fatigue. The best known deterrent against fatigue is the surface treatment of the metal, namely shot peening, done prior to assembly. Processing with shot peening produces residual compressive stresses in the surface layer. Consequently, the tensile stresses at the surface provide protection against fatigue.1,2 The following design analysis of a leaf spring presents two approaches. One uses a simplied theory, and the other, for more complex problems, uses the nite element method.

9.2 DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS 9.2.1 THEORETICAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION

Originally, the leaf spring was conceived as a beam of uniform strength.3 Our discussion begins with this concept to help lay down the basic theoretical principles. Consider Figure 9.2. Due to symmetry, only one-half of the leaf spring is analyzed, representing a cantilever beam. The beam has the form of a at triangle loaded at its apex, where the maximum bending stresses are identical throughout. Dividing the triangle into parallel leaves and stacking them on top of each other, an ideal leaf spring is achieved (see Figure 9.2b). The maximum bending stress at the xed end of the spring is determined from the correlation of a beam of a rectangular cross-section, Pl S = --------mW (9.1)

where m is the number of leaves, and W is the section modulus of a single leaf. The deection of the free end of the spring is assumed to be the same as the deection of a beam of the constant cross-section of a width that equals two-thirds of the base of the triangle. The deection equals 1 Pl Pl f = -- ------------------- = ------------32 2EmI -- EmI 3
3 3

(9.2)

where I is the moment of inertia of a single leaf. A different equation, presented by Wahl,3 considers a trapezoidal beam (Figure 9.3). Here, the deection becomes

Leaf Springs

267

FIGURE 9.2 Triangular beam theory: (a) bending triangle and (b) leaf spring.

FIGURE 9.3 Trapezoidal beam.

Pl f = K ------------3EmI

(9.3)

K is a correction factor that is a function of the number of leaves m (Figure 9.4). Equations (9.1) to (9.3), in their simplied form, are presented here to help understand the more accurate derivatives included in the standard design formulae used in practice today.

268

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.4 Correction factor for deection of leaf spring.

SAE Design Formulae The formulae that form standards for practical application are based on widely accumulated professional experience. The published source for designing leaf springs is the SAE Spring Design Manual, issued by the Spring Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.1 Introducing the varying leaf thickness, the simplied formulae above become as follows. The expression for bending stresses, derived from Equation (9.1), is lt S = ----------- P 2 I The deection, derived from Equation (9.2), equals Pl 1 f = ---------------- -----2E I SF
3

(9.4)

(9.5)

SF denotes a stiffening factor, which is a function of leaf engagement as explained below. Derived from Equation (9.5) is the load rate, 2E I P k = -- = ---------------- SF 3 f l Leaf Engagement The above triangular beam conjecture implies that the leaves are engaged throughout their lengths and are bearing on each other. This, however, is contrary to reality.

(9.6)

Leaf Springs

269

Only a small area near the tip is engaged, while the rest of the leaf is free.1 To prove it analytically, consider two adjoining leaves of a leaf spring under load (Figure 9.5a). The leaves are subject to bending as follows: Face 1 of the upper leaf is compressed, while face 2 of the lower leaf is subject to tension. The curvatures of both faces are expressed by the differential equation of a beam. d y ------2 2 d y dx M 1 ----- = -- = -------------------------- ------2 EI dy 2 d x ----- 1+ dx
2

(9.7)

Equation (9.7) is of a curve that has no turning points, i.e., curvature d2y/dx2 nowhere equals zero. Two curves of this kind with different radii will cross at two points (see Figure 9.5b). Therefore, according to behavior of one-half of the leaf spring, any pair of leaves whose patterns are dened by bending moment M can have one bearing point onlypoint A in Figure 9.5. In practice, as stated above, the leaves are engaged in a small area near the tip. The size of the area depends on the form of leaf ends, which may be square, tapered, or trimmed. The area affects spring deection f through the stiffening factor SF. For leaves with square ends, SF = 1.15 while, for tapered ends, SF = 1.10. 1 Example Let us derive more accurate stress distribution using the following example.4 Consider the three-leaf spring shown in Figure 9.6. For simplicity, assume the three

FIGURE 9.5 Concerning leaf engagement: (a) leaf separation under load and (b) engagement of two adjoining leaves.

FIGURE 9.6 Three-leaf spring.

270

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

leaves to be of the same thickness. The contact between the leaves takes place at bearing points A and B, while the rest become disengaged. The stress distribution is based on the assumption that the deections of adjoining leaves at the bearing points are equal, i.e., y A1 = y A2 ; y B2 = y B3 (9.8)

The deections are expressed as functions of contact forces P1 and P2 as follows (see Figure 9.7). The deection of the main leaf 1 at point A is l y A1 = -------- ( 14P 8P 1 ) 3EI The deection of the middle leaf 2 at the same point is l 5 y A2 = -------- 8P 1 -- P 2 3EI 2 The deection of the middle leaf 2 at point B is l 5 - y B2 = -------- -- P 1 P 2 3EI 2
3 3 3

(9.9)

(9.10)

(9.11)

FIGURE 9.7 Load distribution in a three-leaf spring: (a) forces and (b) bending moments.

Leaf Springs

271

The deection of the bottom leaf 3 equals l -P y B3 = -------- 2 3EI It follows from Equations (9.8) that 32P 1 5P 2 = 28P 5P 1 4P 2 = 0 from which one gets P 1 = 1.087P ; P 2 = 1.359P (9.15) (9.13) (9.14)
3

(9.12)

The bending moments produced by forces P1, P2, and P are shown in Figure 9.7b. One nds the critical bending stresses to be at points A, B, and C. (Point C represents the support of the bottom leaf, as shown in Figure 9.6.) Comparing the resulting stresses, we get S 2, max = 1.087S 1,max ; S 3,max = 1.359S 1,max (9.16)

where indices 1, 2, and 3 refer to the respective leaves. One notes that the smallest bending stress occurs in the main leaf, while the greatest is in the bottom leaf.

9.2.2

CURVED LEAVES

In practice, the leaves are designed in form of arcs, with each leaf having a different radius, scaled down accordingly.1 As a result of this geometry, there are spaces between the leaves. See Figure 9.8. At assembly, the center bolt and clamp act to pull the leaves together, changing the curvatures and causing mechanical prestress. Let us consider prestressing of leaves in the spring as shown in Figure 9.8. The leaves are of equal thickness, and stresses and deection can be determined from Equations (9.1) and (9.2). Tying the leaves together is explained schematically in Figure 9.9. For simplicity, assume that the tying is accomplished by tightening the center bolt, while ignoring the center clamp. Figure 9.9a presents the condition prior to bolt tightening, and Figure 9.9b shows the local leaf deformation due to the tying. The local compression of the leaves affects only the vicinity of the center bolt and have negligible inuence on the bending stresses in them. As the tightening force P rises, the leaves draw closer together. The distribution of forces between the leaves is shown in Figure 9.10. The forces necessary to bring the leaves together, ignoring the leaf curvatures, may be expressed as follows

272

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.8 Curved leaves in a leaf spring.

FIGURE 9.9 Tightening of leaves by a center bolt: (a) condition before tightening and (b) deformation caused by tightening.

FIGURE 9.10 Forces acting on the leaves during bolt tightening.

Leaf Springs
3

273

2 Pa 2 Pl 2 2 s 12 = ----------- ( 3l 2 4a 2 ) ----------48EI 48EI 3

(9.17)

Pl 3 Pa 2 2 2 s 23 = ----------- + ------------ ( 3l 2 4a 2 ) 48EI 48EI

(9.18)

To bring leaves 1 and 2 together, the tightening force must equal P = P ; for leaves 2 and 3, it must be P = P . The compressive stresses induced in the main leaf through tightening equal Eh Pl S = --------- = s 12 -----2 mW l (9.19)

See Equations (9.1) and (9.2). The external load applied upon the leaf spring induces bending stresses that are superimposed on the preliminary ones (i.e., created at assembly). In consequence, the maximum tensile stresses in the main leaf decrease, and those in the bottom leaf increase. Meanwhile, in the intermediate leaves, the stresses vary proportionally to the leaf location. Because the bottom leaves are subjected to a greater stresses, the spaces between stay small, thus lessening the inuence of the preliminary stresses.

9.3 FE ANALYSIS OF LEAF SPRINGS

The nite element method of analyzing displacements and stresses is known to give better results than any other approach. Furthermore, it allows analysis of frictional effects that cannot be considered by standard machine design equations. In the following analysis, the leaves are represented by a two-dimensional FE model, and the contact between them is simulated by contact elements using the penalty method. The friction factor is assumed to be = 0.45.

9.3.1

PROBLEM DEFINITION

The leaf spring under consideration is adapted from an example given by the SAE Manual on Leaf Springs.1 The spring has ve leaves, the same as in the example. However, contrary to the SAE example, here the spring is assumed to be symmetric. The leaves are made from alloy steel SAE 9260 with the following properties:
Brinell hardness Tensile strength Yield point BHN = 400 Su = 1560 MPa Syp = 1350 MPa

Two kinds of leaves are analyzed: leaves that were not processed by shot peening, and leaves that were. The relevant information is summarized in tables and gures. Figure 9.11 shows the leaves tied by a center clamp and the springs end supports. The load is applied

274

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.11 Design details of a leaf spring: (a) center clamp and (b) end support.

at the bottom of the center clamp and is directed upward. At assembly, the bolts are tightened, prestressing the leaves and affecting the form of arcs. The design data are as follows:
Design load Maximum load Length of center clamp Bolts Tightening force 4150 N 6432 N 100 mm M 8 1.25, class 4.8 10 kN

Table 9.1 presents the dimensions of free leaves, before tying. Table 9.2 shows their position in relation to each other. The nomenclature used in the tables is explained in Figure 9.12. TABLE 9.1 Spring LeavesMain Dimensions
Leaf no. 1 2 3 4 5 Half Length l (mm) 570.0 454.6 352.4 245.4 135.7 Thickness t (mm) 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.0 Width w (mm) 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 Radius r (mm) 1603.0 1481.0 1399.0 1359.0 1300.0

Equations used to derive the dimensions, listed in Table 9.2, are as follows: li 180 - i = -------------------- -------r i + 0.5 t i

(9.20)

Leaf Springs

275

FIGURE 9.12 Leaf geometry nomenclature.

TABLE 9.2 Spring LeavesDerived Dimensions

Leaf No. 1 2 3 4 5 (degrees) 20.330933 19.549885 14.400052 10.337378 5.9670278 h (mm) 99.864506 68.933472 43.952472 22.026573 9.0435508 x (mm) 556.949945 446.57488 349.91838 243.50555 135.14296 134.447283 90.9863898 49.0688909 63.6287013 c (mm)

x i = r i sin i h i = r i ( 1 cos i ) ci = ( r i = 1 + t i 1 ) xi + hi r i
2 2

(9.21) (9.22) (9.23)

9.3.2

FE SOLUTION

Let us analyze the deformation of the spring and the stress distribution. Two FE models are developed: a coarse model for spring deformation and a precise model for the stress distribution. The stress distribution is derived rst for leaves that were not processed by shot peening, and then for the processed leaves.

276

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

Coarse Model The leaf spring is represented by a plane model, using plane strain relations of elasticity. Because of symmetry, only half of the spring is being modeled. The leaves are made of quadrilateral elements with height that equals the leafs thickness. The contact between the leaves is simulated by contact elements. The center clamp is simulated by link (rod) elements. Figure 9.13 shows the leaves in the loose condition. The spring ends are supported by contacts with two quadrilateral elements representing a mounted body (see Figure 9.14). The upper quadrilateral restricts the upward displacement of the spring, while the lower one restricts the downward displacement. To achieve a tightening force of 10 kN in each of four bolts in the center clamp, it is necessary to specify an initial strain as part of the input data of the link elements. An initial strain of 0.2791 was derived by a preliminary FE solution (see below).

FIGURE 9.13 Finite element model of a leaf spring.

FIGURE 9.14 Finite element representation of spring end support.

Leaf Springs

277

The FE model is created and solved using the ANSYS program. Two nonlinearities are present: varying contact surfaces between the leaves and large displacements. A solution process based on the NewtonRaphson method is used, proceeding with small incremental loading steps. Preliminary Step: Tightening of Leaves The rst computational step pertains to deformation of leaves before loading, due to tying. It is performed to evaluate the initial strain in the link element. The result conrms a tightening force of 10 kN in each of the clamp bolts. By trial and error, the initial strain is found to be 0.22791. The deformation of the model due to tightening is illustrated in Figure 9.15 and shows the leaves before and after tying. Because of tightening, the center clamp moves up 1.433 mm. Final Solution: Incremental Loading. The maximum normal load is 6432 N. A two-dimensional plane-strain model is used, 1 mm thick. The load per millimeter of spring width, applied to half-spring, is 6432 F/w = 0.5 ----------- = 51.048 N/mm 63.0 The load acting at the bottom of the center clamp is applied as a pressure on two bottom elements, with a length equal to the length of half the clamp. The length of the two corresponding elements is 50 mm. The pressure upon the elements equals

FIGURE 9.15 Deformation of leaves due to tightening, computed by the ANSYS program.

278

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

51.048 p = --------------- = 1.021 MPa 50.0 The loading process is divided into 40 equal increments of p = 0.0255 MPa each. The computational results are shown in Figure 9.16. It follows that the spring deection at maximum load equals 142.70 mm. In a similar way, we nd the deection with design load equaling 94.228 mm. The net deection under the applied load is smaller by 1.433 mm, due to the shrinkage caused by initial tightening (see Figure 9.15). The load rate, based on the maximum load, equals 6432 k = ----------------------------------- = 45.531 N/mm 142.70 1.433 while the load rate that is based on the design load equals 4150 k = ----------------------------------- = 44.722 N/mm 94.228 1.433 The difference in rates is explained by nonlinearity due to friction and large displacements. Neglecting friction and bolt tightening, the load rate equals, respectively,

FIGURE 9.16 Deection of the leaf spring computed using the ANSYS program: (a) at design load, F = 4150 N, and (b) at maximum load, F = 6432 N.

Leaf Springs

279

6432 k = --------------- = 40.08 N/mm 160.47 4150 k = --------------- = 39.06 N/mm 160.26 Comparing SAE design results, we note lower values, due to considering nonlinear effects, neglected by SAE formulae. For computation of the load rate, we use Equation (9.6) multiplied by a factor of two (the equation presented above is for a cantilever spring). The result is 63 6.3 63 6.7 63.60 2 20700 --------------------- + 3 --------------------- + ------------- 12 12 12 k = 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.15 = 34.19 N/mm 3 570.0
3 3 3

Hysteresis The loading history of the spring under consideration is presented in Figure 9.17. To determine the energy dissipation due to friction, the load is plotted against spring deection, Figure 9.18. Energy dissipated during a loading cycle is expressed by the area within the hysteresis loop.

FIGURE 9.17 Loading history of the leaf spring.

280

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.18 Hysteresis loop of a leaf spring computed using the ANSYS program.

Precise Model The most common failures in leaf springs are fatigue failures. To derive the life expectancy of a leaf spring by means of a fatigue analysis, an accurate stress distribution must be determined. For this purpose, a precise FE model of the leaf spring is prepared. The model comprises small plane-strain quadrilateral elements created by subdividing the elements of the coarse model (see Figure 9.19). To

FIGURE 9.19 Precise FE model of a leaf spring.

Leaf Springs

281

facilitate the stress analysis, elements bordering with the leaf surface are considered to be thinner than those inside the leaf. (They are made 0.8 mm thick, corresponding to the depth of the layer of residual stresses discussed below.) The applied load in our computation equals the designed load, 4150 N. The precise model of the leaf-spring is created and solved using the MSC.NASTRAN program. For contact simulation, it uses the penalty method. As before, the solution proceeds in steps applying incremental loading. The resulting bending stress distribution is presented in Figure 9.20. Figure 9.20a shows preliminary stresses created at assembly due to bolt tightening, while Figure 9.20b presents the nal stresses caused by loading. One notes that maximum bending stresses differ from one leaf to another. The bottom leaf has the highest stresses, similar to the example discussed above, Equation (9.16). It is interesting to note how the FE results compare with those based on the SAE formula, Equation (9.4). According to SAE, the highest stress appears in the main leaf, where it equals 570.0 67 4150 S = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- = 595.71 MPa 3 3 3 2 63 6.3 63 6.0 63 6.7 --------------------- + --------------------2 --------------------- + 3 12 12 12 Table 9.3 presents a comparison of stresses in all leaves computed by the FE method with those resulting from Equation (9.4). TABLE 9.3 Maximum Bending Stresses in Leaves
Leaf no. 1 2 3 4 5 Max. bending stress, MPa FE method 334.56 383.62 421.21 448.84 615.07 Max, bending stress, MPa Eq. (9.4) 595.71 560.15 560.15 560.15 533.47

One notes the large difference of stress values in leaf no. 1. Part of the difference stems from preliminary stresses due to tying of the leaves, a factor disregarded in the SAE formula. Shot Peening and Stress Peening There is a special surface process, prior to assembly, used to increase the fatigue life of leaf springs. In its simpler application, it is referred to as shot peening. Shot peening induces compressive residual stresses near a surface of the leaf. Upon superposition with working stresses, the maximum bending stresses at the surface decrease, increasing the fatigue life.2,5 (See Chapter 7.) When shot peening is done while the leaf is subject to tensile stresses, the process is called the stress peening

282

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.20 Bending stresses in a leaf spring computed using MSC.NASTRAN program: (a) after assembly and bolt tightening and (b) nal stresses after loading.

process. The magnitude of the residual stresses is then considerably larger. Stress peening is usually done on one side of the leaf, while shot peening is applied to both sides. Figure 9.21 shows residual stresses in a leaf caused by both processes. The depth of the compressed layer is assumed to be 0.8 mm. The residual stresses caused by stress peening reach 550 MPa, while those caused by shot peening equal 400 MPa.

Leaf Springs

283

FIGURE 9.21 Distribution of residual stresses in leaf no. 5 computed using MSC.NASTRAN program: (a) caused by stress peening on one side of the leaf and (b) caused by shot peening on both sides of the leaf.

To insert residual stresses into the FE model, we compute thermal stresses induced by an imaginary thermal loading of the leaves; the thermal stresses produce the same effect as shot peening. The distribution of stresses due to loading of a leaf spring processed by stress peening and shot peening is shown in Figure 9.22. The gure presents a superposition of working stresses upon the residual stresses in leaf no. 5, illustrating the benecial effects of both processes. One notes a substantial decrease of tensile stresses on the surface of the leaf, which renders the desired prolongation of fatigue life. The introduction of residual stresses changes stress equilibrium in leaves. The stress peening process causes a nonsymmetrical deformation, resulting in a decreased curvature (see Figure 9.23a). The shot peening, when done on both sides of the leaf, causes a symmetrical deformation without any change in curvature (see Figure 9.23b). Table 9.4 lists new and old curvature radii in leaves processed by stress peening. Windup Torque and Longitudinal Load Leaf springs in vehicles are occasionally loaded by horizontal forces and torques in addition to standard vertical loading. Leaf springs designed for this purpose must

284

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.22 Superposition of working stresses upon residual stresses in leaf no. 5, computed using the MSC.NASTRAN program: (a) in a leaf with stress peening on one side of the leaf and (b) in a leaf with stress shot peening on both sides of the leaf.

be provided with eye ends, shown in Figure 9.1b, to accommodate the horizontal loading. Consider the deformation and stress distribution of a leaf spring subject to loading as follows:
Vertical load Horizontal load Windup torque Fn = 4150 N Ft = 3780 N T = 2,765,700 mmN

Leaf Springs

285

FIGURE 9.23 Deformation of a leaf caused by residual stresses computed using MSC.NASTRAN program: (a) in a leaf with stress peening on one side of the leaf and (b) in a leaf with stress shot peening on both sides of the leaf.

TABLE 9.4 Leaf Deformation Due to Stress Peening on One Side

Leaf no. 1 2 3 4 5 Radius before Stress Peening (mm) 1603.0 1481.0 1399.0 1359.0 1300.0 Radius after Stress Peening (mm) 1830.5 1782.5 1659.0 1571.5 1471.5

The FE model is shown in Figure 9.24a. For the purpose of analysis, since there is no symmetry, the half-spring model is extended to cover the whole spring. The location of the left-end support is xed, while the right-end support is sliding. (The FE model is without the eye-end since deformation, and stresses in the eye end were not computed.) The horizontal load and windup torque are applied at the center clamp. The resulting spring deformation is shown in Figure 9.24b. The computed stress distribution is presented in Figure 9.25.

9.4 CONCLUSIONS
The design of a leaf spring includes consideration of geometric and frictional phenomena that present a nonlinear numerical problem. The problems are solved twice in the text, rst using the nite element method, followed by the simplied design

286

Nonlinear Problems in Machine Design

FIGURE 9.24 Leaf spring subjected to vertical load, windup torque, and longitudinal load computed using MSC.NASTRAN program: (a) loading of leaf spring and (b) deformation of leaf spring.

FIGURE 9.25 Stress distribution in the leaves due to vertical load, windup torque, and longitudinal load computed using the MSC.NASTRAN program.

formulae. The comparison of the two distinctly different solutions conrms the anticipated discrepancies, explained by the inaccuracies of the linear equations. The FE method is therefore more reliable. The FE solution illuminated the following properties of spring leaf: The stress distribution depends on the leafs location, as the bending stresses at the bottom leaves are higher than at the top leaves. The FE

Leaf Springs

287

analysis shows a very large difference between the stresses in the rst and last leaves (about 100 percent). See Table 9.3. Interleaf friction and tying of leaves, due to increased resistance, causes higher spring rates, contrary to the simplied formula, which provided a constant spring rate. Shot peening produces lower tensile stresses at the surface, enhancing fatigue life. Stress peening (shot peening, while the leaf is subject to tensile stresses) produces better results; however, it causes a change of curvature of the leaf, since it is done on one side only. A comparison of results obtained by simplied equations and FE analysis shows a difference of about 30% of spring deection. The advantage of FE computation over that of simplied equations, such as SAE design formulae, is due to the ability to consider the effects of the following phenomena: 1. 2. 3. 4. The leaves are engaged at the tips only. The friction between the leaves causes resistance to springs deection. The applied load causes considerable geometric changes. Tying the leaves by center bolt and clamp makes the spring less exible.

In addition, the FE method is able to analyze what, until recent developments, could have been evaluated only through tests, namely: (1) the energy dissipation and hysteresis caused by friction, and (2) the positive inuence of shot peening and stress peening. However, the solutions to complex problems that deal with receding contact and sliding friction are not infallible. The accuracy of FE solutions must be critically examined with regard to the following considerations: 1. precision of the FE model 2. exactness of the iterative process 3. awareness of penalty parameters and the resulting numerical errors (as discussed in Chapter 6.) Topic 3, above, was discussed in Chapter 6, explaining that evading the errors may produce an unstable solution that, by failing to converge, renders the problem insoluble.

REFERENCES
1. Design and Application of Leaf Springs, Spring Design Manual, SAE AE-11, Part 1, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1990. 2. Almen, J.O., and Black, P.H., Residual Stresses and Fatigue in Metals, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963. 3. Wahl, A. M., Mechanical Springs, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.