Experimental evaluation of uncertainty in hand–arm vibration measurements

Abstract Hand–arm vibration measurements are necessary for vibration exposure risk assessment and for the determination of vibration emission values in hand-guided machines. It has been reported that there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with this kind of measurement. The main goal of the present work is to investigate which factors cause uncertainty in hand–arm vibration evaluation and how much they contribute to the total uncertainty of the measurements. Some experiments were carried out in order to evaluate separately the factors relating to instrumentation and the methods of fixing accelerometers. The experiments were performed with handles belonging to real machines while being handheld by an operator. The results of this investigation show that the fixing method and the accelerometer behaviour are the two main sources of uncertainty. The total uncertainty of the measurements in this work, considering both instrumentation and fixing method, reaches up to 8% of the values measured. It is concluded that the adaptors for fixing the accelerometer with metallic stripe hose clips cause less uncertainty than handheld adaptors and should therefore be used as the first option. Relevance to industry A good accuracy in hand–arm measurements is the key for a correct assessment of the risk of developing HAVS (Hand–Arm Vibration Syndrome). Knowledge of the uncertainty factors will help the technicians who carry out the measurements to improve their quality.

[1]  Virendra Tewari,et al.  Characteristics of hand-transmitted vibration of a hand tractor used in three operational modes , 2009 .

[2]  David J. Edwards,et al.  Variation between manufacturers’ declared vibration emission values and those measured under simulated workplace conditions for a range of hand-held power tools typically found in the construction industry , 2008 .

[3]  Pierre Marcotte,et al.  Effect of handle size and hand–handle contact force on the biodynamic response of the hand–arm system under zh-axis vibration , 2005 .

[4]  I. Fraser Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery for pesticide application, amending Directive 2006/42/EC of 17 May 2006 on machinery for pesticide application , 2010 .

[5]  G. Paddan,et al.  Evaluating worker vibration exposures using self-reported and direct observation estimates of exposure duration. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  Subhash Rakheja,et al.  Estimation of the biodynamic responses distributed at fingers and palm based on the total response of the hand–arm system , 2010 .

[7]  Thomas W. McDowell,et al.  Analysis of handle dynamics-induced errors in hand biodynamic measurements , 2008 .

[8]  Subhash Rakheja,et al.  Analysis of anti-vibration gloves mechanism and evaluation methods , 2009 .

[9]  Bradley A. Evanoff,et al.  Challenges and uncertainties in designing field studies to measure hand vibration , 2006 .

[10]  Anthony J. Brammer,et al.  Exposure monitoring system for day-long vibration and palm force measurements , 2008 .

[11]  D. E. Welcome,et al.  An investigation on characteristics of the vibration transmitted to wrist and elbow in the operation of impact wrenches. , 2009 .

[12]  Subhash Rakheja,et al.  On the discrepancies in the reported human hand–arm impedance at higher frequencies , 2008 .

[13]  R. G. Dong,et al.  Measurement of biodynamic response of human hand–arm system , 2006 .