European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol. 29 No.4 (2009), pp. 557-571

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite

Element Analysis Data for the Automotive Lower
Suspension Arm
Nawar A. Al-Asady
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
UKM,43600 UKM Bangi
Selangor,Malaysia
S. Abdullah
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
UKM,43600 UKM Bangi
Selangor,Malaysia
A. K. Ariffin
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
UKM,43600 UKM Bangi
Selangor,Malaysia
S.M. Beden
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
UKM,43600 UKM Bangi
Selangor,Malaysia
M.M. Rahman
Department of Mechanical Engineering
UMP,Locked Bag 12,25000 Kuantan
Pahang,Malaysia
Abstract
In recent years, the reduction of development time has been a major challenge faced
by auto manufacturers to stay competitive in their industry. Durability evaluation is one of
the most time consuming elements in the development process. A modern computational
approach based on finite element analysis (FEA) for integrated durability assessment in an
automotive lower suspension arm component is presented. Linear FEA of the lower
suspension arm is conducted to determine critical locations and strain distributions of the
component. Fatigue local strain approaches, in conjunction with FEA stress distribution
results, have been used for life prediction. Loading history from the Society of Automotive
Engineering data (SAESUS) has been used for the analysis, in addition to data obtained
from actual lower suspension arm. Strain distribution location in the component test agreed
with FEA. The differences between road strain data and FEA predicted strains obtained for
the component was found to be reasonable for the complex geometry considered; while

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

558

there is a big difference in strain range when using SAESUS data still provided acceptable
damage estimations.
Keywords: Fatigue life assessment, finite element analysis, lower suspension arm, strainlife analysis, variable amplitude loading

1. Introduction
Exact closed-form solutions are rarely available for most engineering problems, and approximate
numerical analysis techniques are often warranted. The finite element analysis (FEA) is the most
popular numerical tool available to engineers today. This method is versatile and can be used to solve a
wide variety of engineering problems [1]. The FEA is an analytical engineering tool developed in the
1960's by the aerospace and nuclear power industries to find usable, approximate solutions to problems
with many complex variables. In addition, it is an extension of derivative and integral calculus, and
uses very large matrix arrays and mesh diagrams to calculate stress points, movement of loads and
forces, and other basic physical behaviours [2]. In recent years, new methodologies have been
developed, such as those presented in [3-5], that combine aspects of two analytic approaches, FEA and
failure due fatigue phenomena, for different components.
A vehicle can be considered as a compound structure, made with many mechanical components
that are subjected to complex cyclic loading as a consequence of normal use [6]. Active vehicle
suspensions have attracted a large number of researchers in the last few decades. For example,
Devlukia and Bargmann [7] conducted fatigue assessment of a suspension arm using deterministic and
probabilistic approaches. Research by Haiba et al. [8] on the lower suspension arm introduced a new
structural optimization algorithm based on fatigue life. Kim et al. [9] analyzed the hydroforming
process of an automobile lower arm using the finite element program HydroFORM-3D for proper
design and process control. In the study by Fourlaris et al. [4], several tests were carried out to
determine the effects that gauge and material strength have on the fatigue performance of a fusion
welded automotive suspension arm. FE modelling and fatigue prediction techniques have been
evaluated to determine their reliability when used for thin strip steel. Heyes et al. [10] focused on the
determination of the load-strain relationship, i.e., on the stress and strain analysis that precedes the life
prediction. Research has been conducted on the application of the FE method to durability calculations
in vehicle applications. Other comprehensive surveys can be found in the published papers of Karnopp
[11], Hrovat [12] and Hrishikesh and Nam [14].
The purpose of this study is to achieve acceptable levels of accuracy for automotive lower
suspension arm fatigue linear analysis, employing a local strain approach to assess the durability of the
component. This can be performed by verification of the FE calculated strains through comparison
with strain gauge road data, which an essential requirement for FEA accuracy. This step represents the
first step for component fatigue assessment in order to perform modification and enhancement to
improve component reliability and user confidence. The strain distribution for the component shows
the first maximum strain due to the FEA lies near the tyre, in the ball joint area, which represents the
most damaged area. The second maximum strain appears to be in the connection area between the ball
joint and the pivot of the lower suspension arm.

2. Literature Background
2.1. Finite Element Modeling
The incorporation of fatigue life calculations into FEA has brought significant advantages to
automobile designers, including the ability to perform up-front fatigue calculations prior to prototype
construction. However, combining the two technologies also poses challenges. Some famous works in

559

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

the field have proposed that the FE step should be considered as the pre-processing stage to the fatigue
life prediction and not the converse, i.e., fatigue life prediction is the post processing stage to FE
analysis. This focuses on the need to ensure careful FE modelling [14].
FEA has been conducted both on individual components and on assemblies of connected
components. The objective of the stress/strain analysis is to obtain the complete three dimensional
stress and strain distributions at a potential failure site, facilitating fatigue life predictions. Linear
elastic analysis is the most common type of stress analysis pursued in automotive design and analysis.
The Functional Assignment applications assign element properties, material properties, loads
and boundary conditions, and load cases. They include all the actions that are necessary to turn a
collection of finite elements into a complete, ready-for-analysis model. Fig.1 describes the flow of
FEA and its relationship to the application of Functional Assignments.
Figure 1: Flow of finite element analysis and its relationship to the application of Functional Assignments
[15].

Geometry

FEM Model

Element Properties
Material Properties

Analysis

Load Cases

Results

Functional
Assignment area

Load and boundary conditions

FEA may be carried out for a number of different purposes, and modelling requirements
depend on the intended use of each component. For fatigue analysis, the results are very sensitive to
the accuracy of the calculated stresses and strains in localized regions of a component. To achieve
acceptable levels of accuracy, the following are essential requirements [14]:
a) The component must be represented accurately, both in terms of its physical behaviour
and material characteristics.
b) Externally applied loads and constraints must also be represented accurately. Insignificant
changes to the way the loads and constraints are applied to the FE model can result in
surprisingly large changes to the deformation and associated strains.
c) It is important that elements are chosen to generate accurate grid point stresses and
strains, as fatigue cracking usually starts at free surfaces and edges. In general, better
results are likely to be achieved by using higher order elements. In stress concentration
areas, the mesh quality should be high.
d) Ideally, the mesh should be refined to a point where further refinement produces little
change. The criterion used must be local stress and strain and not global stiffness. There is
little to be gained by excessive refinement in non-critical areas. The sole requirement in
these parts is that they transfer loads correctly to the critical areas.
e) Wherever possible, FE calculated strains should be verified by comparison with strain
gauge measurements, or alternatively, predicted static deflections should be compared
with measured ones.
2.2. Fatigue Life Assessment
Fatigue life prediction techniques play an ever-expanding role in the design of components in the
ground vehicle industry [16]. Automotive industries increasingly seek to reduce development times
while simultaneously achieving higher quality levels for their vehicles [17]. One of the essential
elements in achieving these targets is durability analysis. By definition, durability is the capacity of an
item to survive its intended use for a suitably long period of time. Therefore, good durability minimises

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

560

the cost of maintaining and replacing the item, prevention of failures, and optimises the automobile or
component design [18-19]. Procedures used by the automotive industry to perform fatigue design are
continually evolving [20]. The main task performed during durability analysis is the fatigue life
assessment of components, such as engine parts, suspension parts, and body structures [21].
Automotive manufacturers have made large investments in this area so as to achieve products which
meet a specified fatigue life target [22]. In the applications where defects are avoided by careful
selection of materials and quality fabrication, coupled with quality control, a crack growth analysis
may underestimate actual service lives significantly. Crack initiation analysis is best suited for these
cases. The crack initiation approach involves two operations which convert the load history,
component geometry, and material input into predicted life. These operations must be performed
sequentially [23], as shown in Fig.2.
Figure 2: Information path in a crack initiation life prediction [23].
Material
Properties

Component
Geometry

Loading
History

Stress-Strain
Analysis
Damage
Analysis
Fatigue
life

The Coffin-Manson relationship, which is the foundation of the strain-life approach, arose from
work by Coffin [24] and Manson [25]. In this study, first, strains at the critical site are estimated. Then,
the critical location or local strains are used to compute damage that is algebraically summed
throughout the history, until a critical damage sum (failure criterion) is reached. The point in the
history at which the failure criterion is met is the predicted life. In the strain-life approach, local values
of stress and strain at the critical location were used to find fatigue life, according to the Morrow
equation [26]:
e p f

(2 N f )b + f (2 N f )c
= a =
+
=
(1)
2
2
2
E
where /2 = a = total strain amplitude, e/2 = /2E = a/E= elastic strain amplitude, p/2 = /2
e/2= plastic strain amplitude, f' = fatigue ductility coefficient, c = fatigue ductility exponent, f' =
fatigue strength coefficient, b = fatigue strength exponent, E = modulus of elasticity, /2 = stress
amplitude = a. One method, often referred to as Morrows mean stress method, replaces ' with '
m in Eq. (1), where m is the mean stress, such that:
f ' m

(2 N f )b + f ' (2 N f )c
= a =
(2)
2
E
When the stress state is uniaxial, the notch stress and strain estimation procedures due to
Neuber [27] provide a reasonable fit to the experimental data for a variety of notched geometries. This
method provides approximate upper and lower bounds for the experimental data, where the Neuber
method yields more conservative fatigue terms (i.e., predicting large strains) and is therefore more
widely used. The elastic stresses and strains are extracted from the elastic line and then corrected, such
that it falls onto the cyclic stress strain curve, to determine the elastic-plastic stresses and strains. This

561

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

elastic-plastic strain is used to look up damage on the strain-life damage curve. Fatigue damage for
each cycle has been calculated using:
(3)
D= 1/Nf

3. Methodology
3.1. Material
The purpose of analyzing the chemical composition of a steel sample is to enable classification. Based
on Table 1, the steel sample can be classified as medium carbon steel since both AISI and SAE
classifications for medium carbon steel specifies a carbon content range 0.32-0.38% and a manganese
content range 0.60-0.9% [28]. This represents the fabricated material for the 2000 cc Sedan lower
suspension arm and was the material used in simulations. The measured values were acquired using an
INCA Energy system. Three samples were cut from the lower suspension arm using a cutter. The
samples were subsequently ground with successive SiC papers (grit 200-1200) and then polished with
polishing cloth and Alomina solution of grain size 6m, and finally 1m. The material properties and
their definitions are given in Table 2.
Table 1:
Element
Measured
value wt%

Table 2:

Chemical composition of the steel

C

Mg

Si

Cr

Ni

Mn

Fe

0.33

0.13

0.29

0.04

0.14

0.49

0.9

Bal.

Mechanical properties of the SAE 1045 Steel [28]

Mechanical properties
Modulus of elasticity
Tensile yield stress (0.2% offset
Cyclic yield stress (0.2% offset)
Ultimate tensile stress
True fracture stress
Area reduction

206000 MPa
761 MPa
580 MPa
781 MPa\
647 MPa
40 %

3.2. Collected Load History

The strain-based approach to fatigue problems has been widely used. Strain can be measured and has
been shown to be well correlated to low-cycle fatigue [29].
The three load histories, transmission, suspension, and bracket, were selected by the SAE
Committee for use in their research evaluation. For this study, the suspension load history (SAESUS),
obtained by the SAE Committee from the bending moment on a vehicle suspension driven over a
proving ground [30-31], was used as one of the loading histories in this study. Another load history
was obtained from the real automotive lower suspension arm of this study, which was driven over a
country road. The frequency sample, fs, for this case was 500 Hz. This fs value was chosen in order to
improve the accuracy of the data [30-32]. The data was measured using a fatigue data acquisition
system called SoMat eDAQ (Fig. 3) at a car velocity of 25 km/h, and recorded as strain time histories.

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

562

Figure 3: The setup of fatigue data acquisition SoMat eDAQ used for data collection.

Four strain gauges were fixed at different locations, as shown in Fig 4. Finite elements analysis
was performed to classify the critical areas in order to choose the locations for fixing strain gauges
during strain history collection. After collecting the data for four strain gauges at different locations
(Fig 5) and for the confirmation purposes of the current FEA reliability, the damage was determined
for all the collected load histories (Table 3) after multiplying it by 200. This value was chosen to scale
up the service load data in order to keep the damage values less than one. In this approach, automobile
manufacturers tend to increase load levels by scaling up the service load by a constant value. Using this
approach, the fatigue limit of the edited loading is shorter, compared to the original loading fatigue
limit [33]. Therefore, the FEA of the lower suspension arm calculated in this paper can be accelerated
using the edited loading with the shorter fatigue life.
Figure 4: Strain gauge locations on the lower suspension arm

563

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

Figure 5: Strain time history plot for: L1- strain gauge4, L2- strain gauge3, L3- strain gauge2, L4- strain
gauge1

Table 3:

Damage values for different strain gauge signals

Strain gauge signal

L1
L2
L3
L4

Damage
0.0888
0.0033
4.8E-6
0.734

According to the damage values from this study, strain gauge 1 data was used as the most
critical area in the component. Fig. 5 shows the collected time history plot for the strain gauge data,
which represents the second critical point of the lower suspension arm for the country road type FEA.
The strain gauge could not be physically fixed at the most critical point.
3.3. Finite Element Analysis
A lower suspension arm is a vital component in the automobile suspension system. The objective of
FEA was to investigate critical locations for the automotive lower suspension arm. The local strain, or
crack initiation approach, to fatigue life estimation requires accurate values of local elastic-plastic
stresses and strains, especially at free surfaces. In principal, these values can be obtained through nonlinear FE analysis, but this approach is usually impractical for lengthy and complex load histories.
According to this, elastic-plastic stresses and strains are commonly estimated using a combination of
linear elastic FE analysis and a notch correction procedure (elastic-plastic correction) [12].
The FEA results have been used in determining the fixing positions of strain gauges on the
lower suspension arm for collecting experimental road data. A geometric model of a lower suspension
arm for a 2000 cc Sedan car was used for this study, and was subjected to strain variable amplitude
fatigue loading. Three-dimensional lower suspension arm model geometry, drawn using the CATIA
software, is shown in Fig 6.

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

564

Figure 6: 2000 cc Sedan finite element lower suspension arm model.

Within the various disciplines of engineering and science, FEA is becoming more widely used
[14]. A 10 node tetrahedral element was used for the solid lower suspension arm mesh. The auto
tetrahedral meshing approach is a highly automated technique for meshing solid regions of the
geometry. It creates a mesh of tetrahedral elements for any closed solid, including boundary
representation solids. Tetrahedral meshing produces high quality meshing for boundary representation
solid models imported from most CAD systems. The TET10 mesh can give a more accurate solution
since the 10 nodes tetrahedral (TET10) element is used for the analysis. This analysis adopts a
quadratic order interpolation function for 20 global edge lengths, with a finer mesh in the connected
area between Pivot1 and ball joint, in addition to the 57575 nodes tetrahedral elements (TET10) with
171610 degrees of freedom of a part of the ball joint surrounding area. In order to avoid a complex
meshed model that increases the FEA run-time, a finer mesh was applied to the ball-joint area, as the
maximum damaged area, and the connection area between the ball-joint and pivot1, as the second most
damaged area, where the strain values were recorded experimentally. This procedure increased the
computational efficiency of the model significantly [3].
The load input into the suspension depends on the roughness of the surface, and the vehicular
weight and speed over the surface [32]. Load inputs to the front suspension are: acceleration and
braking applied in the longitudinal direction, cornering in the lateral direction and vertical travel due to
bumps, etc [4]. There are three main parts to the lower suspension arm considered in the FE boundary
conditions, the ball joint, pivot 1, and pivot 2.
It was necessary to simplify the analysis, by applying the boundary conditions for the FE model
of the lower suspension arm, as follows:
Distributed load was applied on the inner surface of pivot 1. Pivot 2 is considered a rigid
section with a rotation around the x-axis from the side of the vehicle body. At the same time, the ball
joint was considered rigid with translations in x and y directions and rotation around the x, y, and zaxes, representing braking and cornering loads. There was no acceleration loads used as inputs since
the car was driven at a constant velocity.
The SAESUS and collected experimental loading histories, shown in Fig 7(a) and 7(b), have
been applied in different analyses on Pivot 1 of the finite element lower suspension arm model. The
data from strain gauge 1 was chosen for analysis in this study due to damage determination using the
Glypher fatigue analysis software, and was found to cause higher damage than the other strain gauges.
For FEA calculation purposes, the strain load history was converted to a force.

565

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

Figure 7: (a) SAESUS loading history. (b) Experimental loading history

(a)

(b)

The local strain approach, in conjunction with the FEA strain distribution, was applied to the
lower suspension arm. Before damage could be determined and summed for each cycle, certain
corrections had to take place, the main correction being the conversion of purely elastic stresses and
strains to elastic-plastic stresses and strains. Plasticity is accounted for in the crack initiation method in
the Neuber method.

4. Results and Discussion

Fatigue life assessment of the lower suspension arm was carried out using CATIA software for model
generation, MSC Patran for pre-processing, MSC Nastran for strain analysis, and MSC Fatigue for
fatigue analysis. The strain distribution for the component is shown in Fig. 8. The value of the first
maximum strain due to this analysis was 1.6x10-3, which lies within the ball joint area, while the
second maximum strain appears to be in the connection area for node 49941, between the ball joint and
pivot1, with a value of 6.3x10-4. The values obtained from the FEA were validated by using a strain
gauge to investigate an actual component, through the comparison between the FEA strain value and
collected road data value

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

566

Figure 8: Strain distribution of the lower suspension arm

Fatigue life prediction was carried out on the complete component using the Morrow strain life
model for the experimental variable amplitude loading conditions, which was represented in Fig. 9.
However, maximum damage appeared in node 53739, which lies within the ball joint area and has a
value of 5.28x10-4, also shown in the same figure, while in the case of applied SAESUS, the value of
damage was 8.28x10-2.
Figure 9: FEA-based fatigue life distribution of the lower suspension arm

Life(Cycles)

1.00+020

9.33+019
8.67+019
Node53739

8.00+019
7.33+019
6.67+019
6.00+019
5.33+019
4.67+019
4.00+019

Node49941

3.33+019
2.67+019
2.00+019

1.33+019
6.67+018
2.20+013

The FEA output strain time history for node 53739, which represents the maximum damage
node, is shown in Fig.10 for SAESUS and experimental loading, respectively. It seems that the original
strain time history (Figure 7), which was applied on the inner surface of pivot 1, caused a compression

567

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

load in the inner surface of the ball joint. This can be observed through the opposite direction for the
FEA output strain time history for node 53739. For the most part, this is due to the effect of the signal
road data direction, which has been applied on the inner surface of pivot1.
Figure 10: FEA output strain time history of the maximum damaged node (53739) after using the following
loadings: (a) SAESUS load history, (b) experimental load history.

(a)

(b)

The output load histories for node 49941 are shown in Fig.11 for SAESUS and experimental
applied loads, respectively. From these two load histories, the difference in the range between the two
cases is very clear. For the SAESUS case, the range was 4212 while the experimental case only had a
range of 1938.8. This is because the SAESUS sequences are not intended to represent standard loading
spectra in the same way that it is represented by Carlos or Falstaf. However, SAESUS sequences do
contain many features which are typical of ground vehicle applications and, therefore, are useful in the
evaluation of life estimation methods [15].
Figure 11: FEA Output load history for node 49941 after applying the (a) SAESUS load history
(b) Experimental load history

(a)

(b)

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

568

The value of damage from the output SAESUS and experimental load history for nodes 53739
and 49941, from finite element analysis, is shown in Table 4. Although the strain values are different
for the SAESUS and experimental loading cases, due to the aforementioned reason, they still yield less
damage than one (D < 1) which represents an acceptable value.
Table 4:

Damage finite element analysis results for nodes 53739 and 49941 after applying SAESUS and
experimental loading
Damage finite element analysis
SAESUS loading
Node 53739
8.28X10-2

Node 49941
1.15X10-5

Experimental loading
Node 53739
Node 49941
5.28X10-4
4.88X10-7

Three dimensional cycle histograms, and the corresponding damage histograms, for SAE1045
steel calculated using SAESUS and experimental loading histories are shown in Figures 12 and 13,
respectively. Both figures show the results of the rainflow cycle count for the critical location of the
component. This cycle/damage histogram gives an idea of where the majority of the damages are
coming from. It is observed that there are many cycles at the low cycle range. However, the number of
cycles significantly decreases as the cycle range increases. The height of each tower represents the
number of cycles at that particular cycle range and mean. Each tower is used to identify damage, which
is summed over all the towers. For each cycle, Nf was calculated using the Morrow strain life model
[eq. 2]; fatigue damage was then calculated for each cycle using [eq. 3].
Although most of the cycles have a low cycle range, they still cause high damage due to the
large number of cycles, which causes damage accumulation.
Figure 12: Distribution of node 53739 due to applied SAESUS load history: (a) fatigue cyclic histogram, (b)
fatigue damage histogram.

(a)

(b)

569

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

Figure 13: Distribution of node 53739 due to applied experimental load history:(a) fatigue cyclic histogram (b)
fatigue damage histogram.

(a)

(b)

5. Conclusions
The finite element approach was used for modelling and simulation. Comparison of the FEA predicted
data and experimentally collected road data supports the following conclusions:
1. The requirement for accuracy prediction applies to the aspects of loads and boundary
conditions in order to generate the necessary stress and strain results.
2. This study has highlighted the need for experimental work to validate FEA modelling and to
allow its advantages be maximised.
3. Strain distribution of the lower suspension arm has been reliably predicted using the finite
element model. This model was used to choose the correct fixing strain gauge positions on a
real component in order to collect experimental road data.
4. Due to the large difference in the range of FEA output load histories after applying SAESUS
and experimental load histories, component data should collect for each subject used in the
study, rather than using reference data which may yield more accurate FEA results.
5. Although most of the cycles which caused failure have a low cycle range, they still cause the
majority of fatigue damage due to the large number of them.

Comparison Between Experimental Road Data and Finite Element Analysis

Data for the Automotive Lower Suspension Arm

570

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

Ameen, M., 2005. Computational Elasticity, Theory of elasticity and finite and boundary
element methods. (Alpha Science International Ltd. Harrow, U.K.).
Rao, S. 2004. The Finite Element Method In Engineering, 4th edition, Butterworth Heinemann,
USA.
Zoroufi, M. and Fatemi, A. 2003. Fatigue Life Comparison of Competing Manufacturing
Process: A Study of Steering Knuckle, SAE Technical paper, No. 2004-01-0628, 1-11.
Fourlaris, G., Ellwood, R. and Jones, T. 2007. The reliability of test results from simple test
samples in predicting the fatigue performance of automotive components, Materials and
Design, 28(4), 1198 -1210.
Mrzyglod, M. and Zielinski A., 2007. Parametric structural optimization with respect to the
multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criterion. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 33(2),
161-171.
Curiel, E., Alegre J. and Saez A., 2006. Fatigue analysis of an electric windows mechanism
subjected to operation cycles, Engineering Failure Analysis, 13(2), 282-291.
Devlukia, J., Bargmann, H. and Rstenberg, I. Fatigue Assessment of an Automotive
Suspension Component Using Deterministic and Probabilistic Approaches, Fatigue Design of
Components, ESIS Publication 22, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on
Fatigue Design, FD95, 5-8 September, 1995, Helsinki, Finland, Marquis, G., Solin, J., Eds.,
1997, pp. 436-445.
Haiba, M., Barton, D., Brooks, P., and Levesley, M., 2003. The development of an optimisation
algorithm based on fatigue life. International Journal Fatigue, 25(4), 299-310.
Kim, J., Lei, L. and kang, B., 2003. Preform design in hydroforming of automobile lower arm
by FEM. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 138(1-3), 58-62.
Heyes, P., Dakin, J. and StJohn, C., 1995, The Assessment and Use of Linear Static FE Stress
Analyses for Durability Calculations. SAE Technical paper 951101.
Karnopp, D. C., 1995. Active and semi-active vibration isolation. ASME Journal of
Manufacturing and Science Engineering, 117, 177-185.
Hrovat, D., 1997. Survey of Advanced Suspension Developments and Related Optimal Control
Applications. Automatica, 33(10), 1781-1817.
Hrishikesh, V. and Nam P., 2004. Axiomatic design of customizable automotive suspension.
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Axiomatic Design, Seoul.
Bishop, N., and Sherratt, F., 2000. Finite Element Based Fatigue Calculations. The
International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community Netherlands: NAFEMS Ltd.
MSC. Patran, 2003. Reference Manual Vol.3, MSC. Software Corporation, USA.
Dabell, B., 1983. Digital techniques in Fatigue, Proceedings, SEECO83, Buntingford, UK.
Lin, X. B. and Heyes, P. J., 1999, Some aspects of automotive durability analysis, Fatigue 99,
Proceedings of the Seventh International Fatigue Congress, edited by Wu, X. R., and Wang, Z.
G., Beijing, P.R. China.
Dowling, N. E., 1999, Mechanical Behaviour of Materials: Engineering Methods for
Deformation, Fracture and Fatigue, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Palma, E. S. and Martins, M. G. M., 2004, Durability test analysis in a passenger vehicle,
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Experimental Mechanics (ICEM12), Bari,
Italy, 29th August 2nd September, paper no. 237.
Dabell, B., 1997, General fatigue design considerations, SAE Fatigue Design Handbook (AE22), Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale.
Bignonnet, A., 1999, Automotive industry and fatigue design, Fatigue 99, Proceedings of the
Seventh International Fatigue Congress, edited by Wu, X. R., and Wang, Z. G., Beijing, P. R.
China, pp 2627-2634.

571

Nawar A. Al-Asady, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, S.M. Beden and M.M. Rahman

[22]

Smith, R. A., 1999, Fatigue in transport: Background, Solutions and Problems, Fatigue 99,
Proceedings of the Seventh International Fatigue Congress, edited by Wu, X. R., and Wang, Z.
G., Beijing, P.R. China, pp 2583-2590.
Darrell, S., Harold, R., Stephen, D., Steve, T., Brian, L., and Drew, N., 1997, SAE Fatigue
Design Handbook, third addition, AE-22, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., USA.
Coffin, L. F., 1954, A study of the effect of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metals,
Transactions of ASME, Vol. 79, pp 931-950.
Manson, S. S., 1965, Fatigue: a complex subject some simple approximation, Experimental
Mechanics, Vol. 5, pp 193-226.
Graham, J.A. ed., 1968. SAE Fatigue Design Handbook, Vol. 4, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Philadelphia.
Neuber, H., 1961, Theory of stress concentration for shear strained prismatic bodies with
arbitrary nonlinear stress-strain law. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 28, 544-551.
Lindberg, R.A. 1977. Processes and Materials of Manufacture, 2nd ed. Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MD, USA.
Stephens, R. I., Fatemi, A., Stephens, R. R., and Fuchs, H. O. Metal fatigue in engineering, 2nd
edition, 2001 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York).
Oh, C.S., 2001, Application of wavelet transform in fatigue history editing, International
Journal of Fatigue, 23(3), 241-250.
Stephens, R.I., Dindinger, P.M. and Gunger, J.E., 1997. Fatigue damage editing for accelerated
durability testing using strain range and SWT parameter criteria. International Journal of
Fatigue, 19(8-9), 599-606.
Poelman MA, Weir RP.,1992, Vehicle Fatigue Induced by Road Surface Roughness, ASTM
Digital Library. ASTM Publication, Source STP1164-EB.
Frost, N. E., Marsh, K. J. and Pook, L. P., 1974, Metal Fatigue, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]