The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A comparison of evaluations and assessments obtained using alternative standards for predicting the hazards of whole-body vibration and repeated shocks

A comparison of evaluations and assessments obtained using alternative standards for predicting the hazards of whole-body vibration and repeated shocks
A comparison of evaluations and assessments obtained using alternative standards for predicting the hazards of whole-body vibration and repeated shocks

There are three current standards that might be used to assess the vibration and shock transmitted by a vehicle seat with respect to possible effects on human health: ISO 2631/1 (1985), BS 6841 (1987) and ISO 2631-1 (1997). Evaluations have been performed on the seat accelerations measured in nine different transport environments (bus, car, mobile crane, fork-lift truck, tank, ambulance, power boat, inflatable boat, mountain bike) in conditions that might be considered severe. For each environment, limiting daily exposure durations were estimated by comparing the frequency weighted root mean square (i.e., r.m.s.) accelerations and the vibration dose values (i.e., VDV), calculated according to each standard with the relevant exposure limits, action level and health guidance caution zones. Very different estimates of the limiting daily exposure duration can be obtained using the methods described in the three standards. Differences were observed due to variations in the shapes of the frequency weightings, the phase responses of the frequency weighting filters, the method of combining multi-axis vibration, the averaging method, and the assessment method. With the evaluated motions, differences in the shapes of the weighting filters resulted in up to about 31% difference in r.m.s. acceleration between the "old" and the "new" ISO standard and up to about 14% difference between BS 6841 and the "new" ISO 2631. There were correspondingly greater differences in the estimates of safe daily exposure durations. With three of the more severe motions there was a difference of more then 250% between estimated safe daily exposure durations based on r.m.s. acceleration and those based on fourth power vibration dose values. The vibration dose values provided the more cautious assessments of the limiting daily exposure duration.

0022-460X
915-926
Lewis, C. H.
6a953646-70d2-4785-9f6d-ee6f90b16cd5
Griffin, M. J.
24112494-9774-40cb-91b7-5b4afe3c41b8
Lewis, C. H.
6a953646-70d2-4785-9f6d-ee6f90b16cd5
Griffin, M. J.
24112494-9774-40cb-91b7-5b4afe3c41b8

Lewis, C. H. and Griffin, M. J. (1998) A comparison of evaluations and assessments obtained using alternative standards for predicting the hazards of whole-body vibration and repeated shocks. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 215 (4), 915-926. (doi:10.1006/jsvi.1998.1591).

Record type: Article

Abstract

There are three current standards that might be used to assess the vibration and shock transmitted by a vehicle seat with respect to possible effects on human health: ISO 2631/1 (1985), BS 6841 (1987) and ISO 2631-1 (1997). Evaluations have been performed on the seat accelerations measured in nine different transport environments (bus, car, mobile crane, fork-lift truck, tank, ambulance, power boat, inflatable boat, mountain bike) in conditions that might be considered severe. For each environment, limiting daily exposure durations were estimated by comparing the frequency weighted root mean square (i.e., r.m.s.) accelerations and the vibration dose values (i.e., VDV), calculated according to each standard with the relevant exposure limits, action level and health guidance caution zones. Very different estimates of the limiting daily exposure duration can be obtained using the methods described in the three standards. Differences were observed due to variations in the shapes of the frequency weightings, the phase responses of the frequency weighting filters, the method of combining multi-axis vibration, the averaging method, and the assessment method. With the evaluated motions, differences in the shapes of the weighting filters resulted in up to about 31% difference in r.m.s. acceleration between the "old" and the "new" ISO standard and up to about 14% difference between BS 6841 and the "new" ISO 2631. There were correspondingly greater differences in the estimates of safe daily exposure durations. With three of the more severe motions there was a difference of more then 250% between estimated safe daily exposure durations based on r.m.s. acceleration and those based on fourth power vibration dose values. The vibration dose values provided the more cautious assessments of the limiting daily exposure duration.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 27 August 1998
Organisations: University of Southampton, Human Factors Research Unit

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 407914
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/407914
ISSN: 0022-460X
PURE UUID: d568e2c6-a95e-4368-898a-2ae7e00be568
ORCID for M. J. Griffin: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-0743-9502

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 28 Apr 2017 01:11
Last modified: 14 Mar 2019 01:56

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×