User:Daniel J. Leivick/Transverse leaf spring

The C5 Corvette's rear suspension.

Transverse leaf spring is a type of automobile suspension arrangement which uses a leaf springs (either as a set or with a single spring per axle) running parallel with the axle to absorb impact. This arrangement has been used on a variety of vehicles, but most notably on GMs Chevrolet Corvette, where it has become an important part of the vehicles engineering heritage.

Overview

A traditional leaf spring arrangement.

A leaf spring is a long, flat, thin, and flexible piece of spring steel or composite material that resists bending. The basic principles of leaf spring design and assembly are relatively simple, and leaves have been used in various capacities since medieval times. Most heavy duty vehicles today use two sets of leaf springs per solid axle, mounted perpendicularly to the axle and supporting the vehicle's weight. This system requires that each leaf set act as both a spring and a horizontally stable link. Because leaf sets lack rigidity, such a dual-role is only suited for applications where load-bearing capability is more important than precision in suspension response. Older transverse leaf spring arrangements mounted the a single leaf set running parallel to a live axle, but used it both as a suspension link and a spring element in a similar manner to the traditional arrangement. In vehicles with independent suspension and a transverse leaf spring arrangement the leaf is not used to control the wheel's location and acts only as a spring element. In this arrangement double wishbones act to locate the wheel, while a single leaf or leaf set connected to the front or rear sub-frame in the middle of the vehicle and the lower wishbone on each side provides the spring element. In some applications two transverse leaf springs are used on a single axle with each providing separate springing action to each wheel. In the past most transverse leaf springs arrangements used multiple steel elements in a set similar to their traditional longitudinal counterparts, but most modern applications use a composite (generally fiberglass) mono leaf element.

History

Many early vehicles such as the Ford Model T used transverse leaf springs on both the front and rear suspension in conjunction with a live axle. In the early 1930s, Dante Giacosa developed the Fiat Topolino which used transverse steel leaf springs and double wishbones in an independent front suspension. The Triumph Motorcar Company also developed a independent rear suspension with a transverse leaf spring arrangement for their line of small cars in the 1950s. The Triumph arrangement, first seen on the 1959 Heraldwas developed in an effort to introduce a inexpensive independent rear suspension. Results were mixed with considerable safety issues surrounding the vehicles tendency to snap into oversteer.

Leaf springs on the Corvette

Over six generations the Corvette has used several different suspension arrangements all of which have used leaf springs in some capacity.

The basic arrangement for each generation is listed below:

• C1 (1953-1962):

Front: Independent unequal length double wishbones with coil springs

Rear: Rigid Axle supported by and located by leaf spring and longitudinal control link

• C2 (1963-1967), C3 (1968-1982):

Front: Independent unequal length independent double wishbones with coil springs

Rear: Independent with trailing and lateral links supported by a centrally mounted leaf spring

• C4 (1984-1996):

Front: Independent unequal length double wishbones with transverse fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.

Rear: Independent with trailing and lateral links supported by a centrally mounted fiberglass mono-leaf spring

• C5 (1997-2004) C6 (2005- ):

Front: Independent unequal length double wishbones with transverse fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.

Rear: Independent unequal length double wishbones with transverse fiberglass mono-leaf spring mounted to allow for anti-roll effect.

Front the C2 forward the leaf spring has been mounted transversely in the chassis and used in conjunction with several independent suspension designs. The commonality in the application of the leaf spring for all generations starting with the C2 in 1963 is the leaf spring acts only as a spring and does not act as a suspension arm or link as is common practice when using leaf springs on automotive suspension. Because both coils and leafs in these configurations act only as simple springs and are not required to stabilize the wheels, their function is almost identical. When used as a spring only the leaf also doesn't suffer from many of the common drawbacks associated with traditional leaf spring suspensions.

Motion of a transverse leaf spring

The following images show the movements of an independent suspension using a transverse leaf spring. For all images:

• The suspension arms are green
• The chassis is blue
• The uprights are gray
• Leaf springs are dark gray
• Pivot links connecting the ends of the springs to the suspension arms are red

• 
  1 - A transverse leaf spring suspension at rest, with separate right and left springs.
• 
  2 - The same split-spring configuration with the left wheel in compression.

Illustrations #1 and #2 show independent left and right leaf springs mounted rigidly to a chassis. In the first illustration, the suspension is at rest. As a left wheel moves up in the second illustration, the left spring flexes upward, but the right spring remains unaffected. Because the two springs are not connected, the movement of one wheel has no effect on the spring rate of the opposite wheel. While the C2, C3, and C4 Corvettes used a continuous spring instead of the split spring of the illustration, left and right spring rates remained independent because the spring was rigidly mounted at its center to the chassis.

• 
  3 - A single transverse leaf spring suspension similar to that used on the C5 and C6 Corvette.
• 
  4 - The same single-leaf suspension with both wheels compressed upward.

Illustrations #3 and #4 show an independent suspension with a single transverse leaf spring, an arrangement similar to that used on the C5 and C6 Corvettes, and the front of the C4 Corvette. While at rest in illustration #3, the leaf forms a symmetric arc between the left and right sides of the suspension. Under the compression of both wheels in illustration #4, the widely-spaced chassis mounts allow the spring to pivot; the ends of the spring flex upward and the center moves down.

The leaf spring as an anti-roll bar

The extent to which a leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar bar is determined by the way it is mounted. A single, loose center mount would cause the spring to pivot about the center axis, and push one wheel down as the other was compressed upward. This is exactly opposite an anti-roll bar, and has not been used on any generation of the Corvette.

A single, perfectly rigid center mount that held a small center section of the spring flat against the frame would isolate one side of the spring from the other. No roll or anti-roll effect would appear. The rear spring of the C2, C3, and C4 has this type of mount, which effectively divides the spring in two. It becomes a quarter-elliptic spring.

While the C2 and C3 Corvettes from 1963 until 1983 also used a transverse leaf spring with two mounts, it was constructed of multiple steel leafs with plastic anti-friction liners and closely-spaced mounts. These traits prevented it from acting as an anti-roll bar.

• 
  5 - The single-leaf suspension with the left side in compression.
• 
  5a - The same suspension in rear profile.

Since the C4, the Corvette has had widely-spaced double mounts on the front. The rear spring has had double mounts since the C5. The spring is allowed to pivot about these two points. When only one wheel is compressed as in illustration #5, the portion of the spring between the mounts assumes an "S" shape, bending in two directions. As a result, the spring force applied to the right suspension arm is reduced as the left side compresses, like an anti-roll bar. The caster, camber, toe-in, and general orientation of the left wheel remain unchanged.

This anti-roll effect is the result of the compound bend, the "S-bend", the spring must make when the wheels are not level. A compound bend requires the spring to assume a tighter bend radius. The tighter bend radius requires more force than a larger one thus greater force must be applied to the spring.

• 
  This multi exposure image shows an exaggerated view of the leaf spring flex when the wheels are compressed, in droop and in roll. The S-bent spring is shown in blue

When both wheels are level the force applied by the spring to the suspension is even between the sides.

• 
  At static ride height the leaf spring applies the same 300lb to each side of the suspension.
• 
  In compression the spring force has increased to 500lb but is still even between both sides

When only one side of the suspension is compressed the leaf spring is forced into an "S-bend" shape. This results in a compound bend in the spring as opposed to the single bend in the case when the wheels are even. The compound bend has the effect of increasing the stiffness of the spring on the side which is being compressed. At the same time it reduces the force on the side which is not compressed.

• 
  Left side shown in compression, right side shown at static height. The left side spring force has increased from 500lbs to 600lbs while the right side has decreased from 300lb to 200lb.

This transfer of force from one side to the other is exactly the same way an traditional anti-roll bar functions. In the case of the Corvette the effects of the anti-roll bar and leaf spring are additive. The operation of the leaf spring and anti-roll bar do not affect each other but their forces add together at the wheel. This additive property allows the Corvette engineers to use a smaller, lighter anti-roll bar as compared to using a separate left and right spring (coil or leaf).

When this system was initially in design for the C4 Corvette the engineers had hoped that the resulting anti-roll rate would be sufficient to eliminate the need for a conventional front anti-roll bar. In the end a supplemental anti-roll bar was needed because sufficient roll rates could not be obtained with the anti-roll forces of the leaf spring alone. [See Michael Lamm reference]

Transverse leaf springs within independent suspensions

Advantages

• Less unsprung weight. Coil springs contribute to unsprung weight; the less there is, the more quickly the wheel can respond at a given spring rate.
• Less weight. The C4 Corvette's composite front leaf weighed 1/3 as much as the pair of conventional coil springs it would replace. Volvo reported that the single composite leaf spring used in the rear suspension of the 960 Wagon had the same mass as just one of the two springs it replaced.
• Weight is positioned lower. Coil springs and the associated chassis hard mounts raise the center of gravity of the car.
• Superior wear characteristics. The Corvette's composite leaf springs last longer than coils, though in a car as light as the Corvette, the difference is not especially significant. No composite Corvette leaf has ever been replaced due to fatigue failure, though steel leafs from 1963 to 1983 have been. As of 1980, the composite spring was an option on the C3.
• As used on the Corvette, ride height can be adjusted by changing the length of the end links connecting the leaf to the suspension arms. This allows small changes in ride height with minimal effects on the spring rate.
• Also as used on the late model Corvette, the leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar, allowing for smaller and lighter bars than if the car were equipped with coil springs. As implemented on the C3 and C4 rearend with a rigid central mount, the anti-roll effect does not occur.

Disadvantages

• Packaging can be problematic; the leaf must span from one side of the car to the other. This can limit applications where the drivetrain, or another part, is in the way.
• Materials expense. Steel coils are commodity items; a single composite leaf spring costs more than two of them.
• Design complexity. Composite monoleafs allow for considerable variety in shape, thickness, and materials. They are inherently more expensive to design, particularly in performance applications.
• Cost of modification. Due to the specialized design and packaging, changing spring rates would require a custom unit. Coil springs in various sizes and rates are available very inexpensively.
• Susceptibility to damage. Engine fluids and exhaust modifications like cat-back removal might weaken or destroy composite springs over time. The leaf spring is more susceptible to heat related damage than conventional steel springs.
• Perception. Like pushrod engines, the leaf spring has a stigma that overshadows its advantages.

Racing concerns

• Running stiffer springs left-to-right would require either asymmetrical spring mounts or an asymmetric spring. However, a few companies such as VBP offer kits that allow independent adjustment of spring rate and ride height at all four corners of the car.
• Regulations often prohibit the use of leaf springs; NASCAR does not allow them.
• The more compact shape of a coil spring can allow for variation in more suspension design and spring placement. Because a transverse leaf spring must span the width of the car, open-wheel cars are too low to use them. The leaf spring would have to pass through the gearbox or the driver's legs.
• Coil springs are not car-specific. A Porsche, an LMP, and a Ferrari can all use a spring custom wound on the same generic equipment. Custom composite leaf springs require expensive retooling and cannot be used across car models.
• The characteristics of coil springs in a performance environment are known, and racers will use what they know. Most race teams do not have adequate experience with leaf springs to use them in this capacity.

Carroll Smith is quoted in his book, Engineer to Win

If I were involved in the design of a new passenger vehicle, however, I would give serious consideration to the use of a transverse composite single leaf spring of unidirectional glass or carbon filament in an epoxy matrix. This would be the lightest practical spring configuration and, although space constraints would seem to limit its use in racing, it should be perfectly feasible on road-going vehicles, from large trucks to small commuter cars. (Since I wrote this paragraph the new-generation Corvette has come out with just such a spring to control its independent suspension systems-at both end of the car.)

Transverse leaf springs in other vehicles

In addition to the Corvette, a composite transverse leaf spring has been used on other GM and non-GM vehicles.

• Volvo 960 (Wagon only)
• Volvo S90
• Mercedes Sprinter vans (transverse in front only)
• VW 1-Litre-Car prototype car
• GM W-platform cars.
• Mercedes Smart ForTwo (used with MacPherson Struts)
• Indigo, a Swedish made, low volume roadster. Due to the anti-roll properties of the transverse leaf spring setup the car does not use a seporate front anti-roll bar.
• Peugeot 208

Many small European cars such as the Fiat 128, the Opel Kadett A & B and original Opel GT used transverse steel springs in similar fashion.

Recent research on the design concept has been performed. In 2006 Ford Global Technologies was granted patent #7029017 for Wheel suspension for a motor vehicle with a transverse leaf spring

References

• http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html
• http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/suspension/tech_suspension1.htm
• http://www.circletrack.com/techarticles/ctrp_0602_leaf_springs/
• http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1918713

GM Patent #5425829 desribing a method for creating variable rate composite leaf springs. Includes background information on benefits to transverse leaf springs used with conventional suspension designs [2]