Citation

Rantaharju T, Mansfield NJ, Ala-Hiiro JM, Gunston TP. Ergonomics 2014; 58(7): 1071-1087.

Affiliation

a Loughborough Design School , Loughborough University , Leicestershire , UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/00140139.2014.959071

PMID

25312024

Abstract

In this paper, alternative assessment methods for whole-body vibration and shocks are compared by means of 70 vibration samples measured from 13 work vehicles, deliberately selected to represent periods containing shocks. Five methodologies (ISO 2631-1:1997, BS 6841:1987, ISO 2631-5:2004, DIN SPEC 45697:2012 and one specified by Gunston [2011], 'G-method') were applied to the vibration samples. In order to compare different evaluation metrics, limiting exposures were determined by calculating times to reach the upper limit thresholds given in the methods. Over 10-fold shorter times to exposure thresholds were obtained for the tri-axial VDV (BS 6841) than for the dominant r.m.s. (ISO 2631-1) when exposures were of high magnitude or contained substantial shocks. Under these exposure conditions, the sixth power approaches (ISO 2631-5, DIN SPEC, G-method) are more stringent than a fourth power VDV method. The r.m.s.

METHOD may lead to misleading outcomes especially if a lengthy measurement includes a small number of severe impacts. In conclusion, methodologies produce different evaluations of the vibration severity depending on the exposure characteristics, and the correct method must be selected. Practitioner Summary: Health risks related to whole-body vibration and high acceleration events may be predicted by means of several different methods. This study compares five such methods giving emphasis on their applicability in the presence of shocks. The results showed significant discrepancies between the risk assessments, especially for the most extreme exposures.

Language: en