Spring devices – Vehicle – Leaf
Reexamination Certificate
2000-03-10
2002-06-18
Dickson, Paul N. (Department: 3613)
Spring devices
Vehicle
Leaf
C267S283000, C267S041000, C280S124170, C280S124163
Reexamination Certificate
active
06406007
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to active components for suspension systems, and more particularly, to springs for such systems.
A basic object of any suspension system in a vehicle is to suspend the vehicle body above the vehicle wheels. To achieve this end, suspension systems are typically connected between the axle, or its housing, and the vehicle frame. Suspension systems typically include active components, such as springs and the like, to keep the sprung mass (vehicle body) suspended above the unsprung mass (vehicle wheels). A suspension system preferably permits a relatively smooth, yet stable, ride during acceleration, deceleration and cornering of the vehicle, and during jounce and rebound of the axle when the vehicle is driven over bumpy surfaces and the like.
In suspension systems, leaf springs often serve as the active components. In a variety of circumstances, concerns regarding vehicle packaging necessitate the use of an asymmetrical leaf spring. In asymmetrical leaf springs, one cantilever of the leaf spring is longer than the other cantilever. For instance, and referring to
FIG. 1
, in a typical asymmetrical leaf spring
10
, the front cantilever
12
(i.e., that portion of the leaf spring extending from one end
14
of the leaf spring to the center
16
of the axle seat portion
17
) might be longer than the rear cantilever
18
(i.e., that portion of the leaf spring extending from the center
16
of the axle seat portion
17
to the opposite end of the leaf spring
20
). This difference in length between cantilevers is what classifies a leaf spring as asymmetrical.
Ordinarily, leaf springs in general, including asymmetrical leaf springs, are designed such that they have the same stress level in each cantilever. In the case of asymmetrical leaf springs, this optimized design results in the shorter cantilever being stiffer than the longer cantilever. Stated differently, the shorter cantilever has a higher spring rate than the longer cantilever. Conversely, the longer cantilever is softer than the shorter cantilever, and it has a lower spring rate. Given this optimized design, during deflection of the leaf spring (e.g., during jounce and rebound of the vehicle axle), the seat portion
16
of the spring translates vertically and rotates due to the differing spring rates of the respective cantilevers. This rotation of the seat portion, in turn, applies torsion to the axle and causes it to rotate, producing a varying caster angle during vehicle movement. Those skilled in the art understand that this varying caster angle is sometimes undesirable, and can serve as a drawback designed for optimum stress tolerances. Nevertheless, vehicle packaging concerns and the like often necessitate use of such asymmetrical leaf springs.
In light of these deficiencies of stress tolerant asymmetrical leaf springs, it is desirable to design an asymmetrical leaf spring that has cantilevers with substantially equal spring rates so that the axle has constant caster during jounce and rebound.
When packaging concerns are not present, it is often desirable to use symmetrical leaf springs, such as the symmetrical leaf spring
22
shown in FIG.
2
. In such springs, the front and rear cantilevers
24
,
26
are substantially equal in length. When optimized for maximum stress tolerance, the cantilevers not only have equal stress levels, but also have equal spring rates to yield the equal stress levels. In such leaf springs, the seat portion does not rotate during spring deflection and the axle associated with the spring maintains a constant caster angle during jounce and rebound.
Although constant caster is often desirable, in some instances varying caster is optimal. Those skilled in the art will recognize that in trailing arm suspensions varying caster is often desirable in those instances when the axle, or its housing, is generally resistant to torsion. In those cases, by varying the caster angle of the axle during jounce and rebound, roll stability for the vehicle is increased. Therefore, the use of auxiliary roll stabilizers might be unnecessary. Elimination thereof reduces the cost and weight associated with those suspension systems.
In light of the aforementioned deficiencies of stress tolerant symmetrical leaf springs, it is desirable to design a symmetrical leaf spring that has cantilevers with substantially different spring rates so that the axle has varying caster during jounce and rebound.
As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, vehicles often optimally have a biased, fixed caster for each of its axles. Different axles often have different desirable biased, fixed caster angles. In conventional suspension systems, and referring to
FIG. 3
, a caster wedge
28
is often positioned between the axle seat of the leaf spring and the axle to provide for the selected, fixed caster angle of the axle.
FIG. 3
illustrates a conventional suspension system used for a front steering axle
30
. As shown therein, a vehicle frame
32
extends longitudinally and is suspended above axle
30
by a suspension system generally identified by reference numeral
34
. The suspension system
34
includes a leaf spring
36
pivotally connected at one end to a hanger
38
, which, in turn is fixedly mounted to frame
32
. At its other end, leaf spring
36
is pivotally connected to a hanger
40
through a conventional shackle
42
. Hanger
40
is mounted to frame
32
. An air spring
44
is optionally mounted at its top side to an air spring mounting bracket
46
, which is fixedly mounted to frame
32
. Air spring
44
is seated on an axle attachment assembly
48
in alignment with axle
30
. The axle attachment assembly
48
includes a pair of guide plates
50
,
52
positioned on opposite sides of axle
30
, the caster wedge
28
, and a pair of U-bolts
54
,
56
to fasten the assembly components together.
Caster wedge
28
causes axle
30
to rotate a fixed amount of degrees (either clockwise or counter-clockwise, depending on the orientation of the caster wedge) to accommodate the desired fixed caster angle for the axle. Use of extra suspension system components, such as caster wedge
28
, adds weight to the suspension system and increases the costs associated with the design, assembly and service of such systems.
In light of the foregoing, it is desirable to design suspension system components, particularly leaf springs, that provide for the desired fixed caster angle of a vehicle axle.
As an object of the present invention, it is desirable to produce an optimally designed asymmetrical leaf spring that maintains a constant caster angle for its associated axle during jounce and rebound.
As another object, it is desirable to produce an optimally designed symmetrical leaf spring that produces a varying caster angle for its associated axle during jounce and rebound.
It is also desirable to reduce the expense associated with suspension systems used in vehicles.
It is further desirable to eliminate the necessity of including additional components in such suspension systems.
It is yet further desirable to design a leaf spring having built-in features to produce a select biased caster angle for its associated axle.
These and other objects of the preferred forms of the invention will become apparent from the following description. It will be understood, however, that an apparatus could still appropriate the invention claimed herein without accomplishing each and every one of these objects, including those gleaned from the following description. The appended claims, not the objects, define the subject matter of this invention. Any and all objects are derived from the preferred forms of the invention, not necessarily the invention in general.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention is directed to a leaf spring assembly for use as an active component in vehicle suspension systems. The leaf spring assembly includes a full-leaf leaf spring component and a half-leaf leaf spring component. The full-leaf leaf spring extends substantially the entire length of the lea
Burch Melody M.
Cook Alex McFarron Manzo Cummings & Mehler, Ltd.
The Boler Company
LandOfFree
Leaf spring assembly having full-leaf leaf spring component... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Leaf spring assembly having full-leaf leaf spring component..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Leaf spring assembly having full-leaf leaf spring component... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2896418