Received: 27 April 2018 | Revised: 18 September 2018 | Accepted: 21 October 2018

DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20780

Measurement and evaluation of whole‐body vibration

exposure in drivers of cargo vehicle compositions

Alexander Bortolini1 | Letícia Fleck Fadel Miguel2 | Tiago Becker2

1
Postgraduate Program in Mechanical
Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande Abstract
do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil The present study carries out measurements and evaluations of whole‐body vibration
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
(WBV) exposure in drivers of a cargo vehicle composition, traveling under different
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto
Alegre, Brazil conditions of roads and loading, to compare and assess the health risk through the
various criteria provided by vibration exposure standards. Using the acceleration data
Correspondence
Letícia Fleck Fadel Miguel, Department of measured in the seat, the WBV exposure of the drivers is evaluated according to the
Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of
criteria provided by five standards: three different versions of ISO 2631 (Part 1, 1985
Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 90050‐170
Brazil. and 1997; Part 5, 2004), the European Directive 2002/44/EC and the new Brazilian
Email: letffm@ufrgs.br
regulation NR‐15 published in 2014. Comparisons investigating the differences
between the standards are presented. The results of the experimental data indicate
that the current version of the NR‐15 is more restrictive than the other standards
considered in this paper. Thus, these results can contribute to improve the criteria
used in the new NR‐15.

KEYWORDS
cargo vehicle compositions, drivers, ISO 2631, NR‐15, standards comparison, truck, whole‐body
vibration (WBV)

1 | INTRODUCTION In 2014, a new regulatory standard, NR‐15 (2014), established

Whole‐body vibration (WBV) exposure of workers has been addressed
in the Brazilian labor law for over 30 years. The pre‐2014 version of the
Brazilian standard (NR‐15/1978, modified in 1983) stated that the limits
for daily exposure to WBV in Brazil would be the limits presented in the
current version of the international standard ISO 2631. As, from the
version of 1997, the ISO 2631‐1 standard does not provide a clear limit
for exposure to WBV, the legislation became outdated, resulting in a
scenario of uncertainty on this issue for more than 15 years.
The transport of passengers and cargo in Brazil is done mainly on
tires, on roads which are often in poor maintenance conditions. For
instance, according to the Federação Nacional da Distribuição de
Veículos Automotores (Fenabrave, 2018), only in 2017, 52,069 trucks
and 25,602 road equipment were licensed in Brazil. A large number
of vehicles on the roads increases deterioration on existing roads.
Road deterioration along with a significant increase number of
vehicles on the roads increased the number of people exposed to the
associated risks (vibration, dust, smoke, noise, etc.).
Hum. Factors Man. 2019;29:253–264. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm
limits based on the vector sum of the weighted accelerations root
mean square (r.m.s., the sum of acceleration in the three axes of the
co‐ordinate system defined by ISO 2631‐1, International Organiza-
tion for Standardization, 1997) and of the resultant vibration dose
value (VDVR) (sum of the vibration dose value [VDV] for the three
axes) from vibration measured on the seat. The values adopted as the
limits for these parameters are very similar to those established in
the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002) for the dominant axis
(Table 2). This makes the Brazilian legislation, in practice, more
restrictive than the European. To date, however, there is no clear
idea as to how and how much the methodology proposed in NR‐15
(2014) will behave on the practical cases of WBV exposure. Thus, one
of the contributions of this paper is to present an approach to
quantify the differences between the standards commonly used and
the new NR‐15 (2014) in actual exposure conditions.
Moreover, due to the lack of clear limits and the various
interpretations that have emerged over the previous regulatory
standard through the years, there are still discussions about the
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 253
254 | BORTOLINI
T A B L E 1 Basic information of the two drivers
Driver 1 Driver 2
Age 41‐years‐old 59‐years‐old
Weight 85 kg 98 kg
Height 1.70 m 1.71 m
relationship of these new limits to those practiced before. There is, in
particular, a concern that the new limits are higher than those
used previously. In part, this question is related to the difficulty of
understanding the differences between the WBV exposure criteria
that could be used throughout the duration of the former Brazilian
standard. There is no direct comparison among the criteria of
ISO 2631‐1 (International Organization for Standardization, 1985),
ISO 2631‐1 (International Organization for Standardization, 1997)
and ISO 2631‐5 (International Organization for Standardization,
2004), or between r.m.s. values and VDV based on the dominant axis
and the vector sum. For example, if only the weighted r.m.s.
accelerations of one exposure are known, it is not possible to use
this data to determine the VDV, the Sed or the 1/3 octave bands for
that exposure. The various parameters to evaluate WBV were
created as attempts to capture the effect of vibration in the human
body in different ways and it is still unknown which one (if any of the
currently in use) does it in a satisfactory way.
The comparisons presented in this study, obtained through five
different standards for WBV exposure data in various traffic
conditions, have the intention to allow a clearer visualization of the
meaning of the reference standard parameters, and illustrate,
through data measured in a cargo vehicle, the differences among
these criteria. Previous studies addressed this issue as a part of their
objectives. Eger, Stevenson, Boileau, Salmoni, and Vib (2008), Chen,
Chen, Liu, Chen, and Pan (2009), Johnson, Rynell, and Blood (2010),
Lewis and Johnson (2012) and Park, Fukuda, Kim, and Maeda (2013)
carried comparisons out between ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and ISO 2631‐5
(2004) standards based on exposure measurements. Besides the
same two ISO standards, Thamsuwan, Blood, Ching, Boyle, and
Johnson (2013) and Kim et al. (2016) included analyses based on
vector sum and compared the results with the European Directive
2002/44/EC (2002) limits. Birlik (2009), for instance, assessed the
WBV exposure of train drivers through ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and the
European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002).
Besides that, there are still many questions about the relation-
ship between characteristics of the WBV exposure and adverse
T A B L E 2 Reference values for r.m.s.‐ and VDV‐based evaluation
ISO 2631‐1 (1997; caution zone boundaries) Lower
Upper
European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002; limit values) Action
Exposure
NR‐15 (2014; limit values) Action
Exposure
ET AL.
effects on the health of exposed workers. Studies (e.g., Bovenzi &
Hulshof, 1999; Bovenzi et al., 2006; Burdorf & Hulshof, 2006;
Chen et al., 2009; Kollock, Games, Wilson, & Sefton, 2015; Seidel,
Hinza, Hofmannb, & Menzela, 2008; Tamrin, Yokoyama, Aziz, &
Maeda, 2014; Viruet, Genaidy, Shell, Salem, & Karwowski, 2008;
Wikström, Kjellberg, & Landström, 1994) concerning the identifi-
cation of dose–response relationship are still trying to find a way
to quantify these effects. Burström, Nilsson, and Wahlström
(2015) carried out a review about WBV and the risk of low back
pain (LBP) and sciatica. These authors concluded that there is
scientific evidence that exposure to WBV increases the risk of LBP
and sciatica, but affirm that there are insufficient data to
determine safe levels and reinforce the need for further research
on dose‐response relationship.
Professional drivers represent a large population exposed to
WBV for long periods at work. Many studies addressing this topic can
be found in the literature (e.g., Palmer, Griffin, Bendall, Pannett, &
Coggon, 2000; Andrusaitis, 2004; Bovenzi et al., 2006; Bovenzi,
2009, 2010; Burdorf & Hulshof, 2006; Lemos, 2009; Nitti & De
Santis, 2010; Picu, 2009; Seidel et al., 2008; Thamsuwan et al., 2013;
Velmurugan, Kumaraswamidhas, & Sankaranarayanasamy, 2012). In
many cases, the combinations of vibration levels in vehicles and
common daily exposure periods for professional drivers are just in
the condition in which it is hard to identify the risks for his health
clearly. In addition, the combination with confounding factors, like
awkward posture and carrying heavy load makes it even harder to
identify the contribution of vibration to related diseases. Gallais and
Griffin (2006) presented a review of studies on LBP in car drivers
published between 1975 and 2005 and concluded that there was no
sufficient evidence to conclude whether WBV is the main cause of
low back problems in drivers. Thus, the need for further research is
clear.
In addition, there are still many questions about the efficiency of
current measures of WBV exposure in capturing the potential effects
on health. In 2004, ISO 2631‐5 (2004) introduced a new method for
WBV evaluation, trying to improve the traditional dose methods.
Bovenzi, Schust, Menzel, Prodi, and Mauro (2015), for instance,
recently studied the relations among LBP and different measures of
external dose and internal spinal dose in professional drivers
subjected to WBV. These authors concluded that to predict the
LBP in the drivers, measurements of internal spinal dose carried out
better than measurements of external dose. The authors also
concluded that the limit values of health risk suggested by ISO
A (8) (m/s2) av (8) (m/s2) VDV (m/s1.75) VDVR (m/s1.75)
0.433 – 8.5 –
0.866 – 17 –
0.5 – 9.1 –
1.15 – 21 –
– 0.5 – 9.1
– 1.1 – 21
BORTOLINI ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Truck used in the tests [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
2631‐5 (2004) tend to underestimate the risk in the drivers produced
by continued vibration exposure.
Vehicle type and driving conditions affect WBV exposure levels.
Picu (2009) analyzed six different types of busses and minibusses to
evaluate the acceleration levels that bus drivers are exposed during
their work for 8 hr/day. The tests were carried out with eight drivers
between 28‐ and 54‐years‐old and in roads of different qualities. Picu
compared his results with the limits of ISO 2631‐1 and concluded
that, in certain cases, the discomfort limits were exceeded.
Blood, Ploger, Yost, Ching, and Johnson (2010), while evaluating the
effects of different seats in WBV exposures, identified significant
differences in WBV exposures varying with both: road type and seat
pressure. In contrast, the authors also concluded that the driver weight
did not present significant differences in WBV exposures. However, these
authors call attention to the small sample size and indicate the necessity
of further tests.
To improve the knowledge of the dose–response relationship of
vibration in professional drivers, it is important to know the vibration
level produced by vehicles in common work conditions. Thus, in
addition, to illustrate the differences among the reference standards
for the exposure of workers to WBV, this study also provides WBV
exposure level data on a type of vehicle operating in customary
conditions, whereas assessing the influence of road type, driver, and
load conditions in the results. The results can contribute to improving
the criteria used in the new NR‐15 (2014).
2 | EXPERIMENTA L PROCEDU RE
The measurements used in this paper were part of the master
dissertation of Bortolini (2012). The truck used for all tests was
F I G U R E 2 (a) Dirt (off road) track, (b)
parallelepiped track, and (c) asphalt track
[Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
| 255
manufactured in 2011, and the tests were carried out in 2011–2012.
Thus, when the tests were conducted, the vehicle was less than
1‐year‐old and it was in very good condition. The test vehicle was a
standard 6 × 4 truck, 420 CV, coupled to a three‐axle implement. The
truck model was a Scania G 420 A4X2, cabin type CG19N. The truck
is shown in Figure 1.
Measurements were taken on the seat with a standard seat pad
connected to a data acquisition system (HBM Spider 8). The data
acquisition was controlled by Catman software, and the data
processing was done in Agilent VEE Pro. The recorded acceleration
signals for each of the conditions were acquired on a digital computer
at 300 samples per second and using antialiasing filters automatically
selected by the software and consistent with the sample rate.
Frequency‐weighted accelerations were calculated with the weighting
factors suggested by ISO 2631‐1 (1997).
The experimental study was conducted in three types of tracks
(dirt, parallelepiped, and asphalt—Figure 2), with two different drivers
and with two load conditions in the composition: loaded with 30 tons
and empty (unloaded). The testing procedure was repeated two times
for each situation and for each driver, totalizing 24 tests. Basic
information of the two drivers is shown in Table 1.
The dirt track (off road) is shown in Figure 2a. A distance of 10 km at
a constant speed of 40 km/hr was traveled on this track for each set of
measurements. The parallelepiped track is shown in Figure 2b. A distance
of 1.8 km at a constant speed of 25 km/hr was traveled on this track for
each set of measurements. The asphalt track is shown in Figure 2c. A
distance of 7 km at a speed of 60 km/hr was traveled on this track for
each set of measurements. In the established conditions, the duration of
each measurement was between 4 and 15 min. Measurement equipment
and procedures were according to ISO 2631‐1 (1997) specifications.
3 | R E F E R E N C E ST A N D A RD S
The reference standards considered in this study were the ISO 2631‐1
(1985), the ISO 2631‐1 (1997), the ISO 2631‐5 (2004), the European
Directive 2002/44/EC (2002) and the Brazilian regulating standard
NR‐15 (2014). There are six main parameters used to quantify the
exposure of workers to WBV in these standards: (a) unweighted r.m.s.
acceleration in 1/3 octave frequency bands, used only in ISO 2631‐1
(1985; the standard allows the use of the weighted global r.m.s.
acceleration, but makes clear that the 1/3 octave band method is
preferred when available); (b) the weighted global r.m.s. acceleration in
the dominant axis equivalent to 8 hr exposure—A (8), used in ISO
2631‐1 (1997) and in the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002); (c)
256 | BORTOLINI
the VDV in the dominant axis, also used in ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and in
the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002); (d) the equivalent static
compressive dose (Sed), used in ISO 2631‐5 (2004); (e) the vibration
total value of weighed r.m.s. acceleration (av); and (f) the VDVR, as
defined in Equation (1), used as a reference in the NR‐15 (2014).
Reference values for r.m.s. and VDV parameters are presented in
Table 2. For ISO 2631‐1 (1997), it is presented the boundary values
(upper and lower limits) of the caution zone (Figure B1 in Annex B of
the standard) for an 8 hr exposure. As shown in Table 2, there is only
one small difference in r.m.s.‐based evaluation limit from the
European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002) dominant axis limits to the
Brazilian Regulation, NR‐15 (2014), vector sum limits. All other
values are identical for the two standards. For an evaluation using
the criteria from NR‐15 (2014), if the limit for av or the VDVR is
exceeded, then the condition is considered of health risk. The
definitions of av and VDVR, the co‐ordinate system and the weighing
functions used in NR‐15 (2014) are the same as in ISO 2631‐1
(1997). The VDVR is obtained by:
4
VDVR = [(1.4VDVx)4 + (1.4VDVy) + (VDVz)4 ]1 / 4 (m /s1.75), (1)
where VDVx, VDVy, and VDVz, are the VDV toward each direction of
the ISO 2631‐1 (1997) co‐ordinate system.
As in 1997 version of ISO 2631‐1 (1997), the ISO 2631‐5 (2004)
does not provide a clear exposure limit to the Sed value. The
reference values presented are 0.5 MPa, below which there is a “low
probability of an adverse health effect,” and 0.8 MPa, above which
there is a “high probability of an adverse health effect.”
The manner of interpreting and the reference values for the
parameters listed may vary among standards. In particular, the ISO
2631‐1 (1997) defines r.m.s. and VDV value, but does not have clear
exposure limits for these parameters. The standard presents an
assessment method defining conditions associated with degrees of
health risk, based on the weighted r.m.s. acceleration in the dominant
axis and the exposure time. In contrast, the European Directive
2002/44/EC (2002) defines values for action level and exposure limit
for these same parameters.
All parameters mentioned use the concept of dose to evaluate
vibration exposure, defined as a combination of values calculated
from the acceleration measured in the vibration entrance point on
the body (usually the seat for drivers) and the exposure time. The
vibration frequency is also relevant as the body has different
sensitivity to different frequencies. The effect of frequency is taken
into account by the ISO 2631‐1 (1985) on the graphs used to access
vibration effects. In the methods based on the global r.m.s. value and
VDV, the frequency is considered by frequency weighting of the
acceleration signal. For the Sed value, the effect of frequency is taken
into account in the models used to estimate acceleration at the
lumbar spine from the acceleration measured on the seat.
There are important differences in the definitions of the above
parameters. In the main method proposed by the ISO 2631‐1
(1985), only the acceleration in the dominant 1/3 octave band,
considering the three axes, is used for the exposure assessment.
ET AL.
The global r.m.s. value, used in the ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and in the
European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002), considers the overall
value of the weighted acceleration in the full range of relevant
frequencies. The VDV already carries information about the
exposure time in the final result, in addition to integrating the
values of weighted acceleration raised to the fourth power, which
aims to give greater importance to high acceleration peaks in the
composition of the final value. Sed transforms the acceleration
data in the estimated equivalent compressive dose at the lumbar
spine.
The different principles make the parameters of different
standards not directly comparable. Even a comparison between
the use of a dominant axis or the sum of the three axes is very
difficult. In some cases, when the vibration has much higher levels
on one axis compared with others, the sum of the three axes may
be little greater than the value of the dominant axis. In contrast, if
the acceleration in the three axes shows similar levels, the sum
may be much larger. In the extreme case, if the acceleration is
equal for all axes, this difference will have a factor of 3 for r.m.s.
acceleration or 4
3 for the VDV. Thus, the only way to correlate
the different parameters is to compare the results of evaluations
in several exposure conditions.
4 | R E S U L T S AN D D I S C U SS I O N S
This section presents the results and discussions, based on all
vibration exposure parameters previously described, from the
vibration data measured on the seat in each of the 24 tests (also
described previously). Influence of the different factors (road type,
driver, and load condition) on the vibration levels are evaluated using
statistical analysis (analysis of variance [ANOVA]). A comparison of
the results from the current study with previous works in the
literature is also presented.
4.1 | ISO 2631‐1 (1985)
Although the ISO 2631‐1 (1985) has been revised 20 years ago, due
to the lack of clear limits for vibration exposure in the 1997 version
of the standard and the delay in updating the Brazilian regulation,
this previous version of the standard was still used some times in
work‐related claims until recently. This is the only outdated standard
considered in this paper, and it is the one for which it is not possible
to summarize the results of the assessment by a single value. For
those reasons, it is presented separately.
The results for all 24 tested conditions are presented in Figure
3 (Driver 1) and Figure 4 (Driver 2). Note that the two tests
(repetitions) for each condition are presented with the same color
in the graphs. The limit for an 8‐hr daily exposure was not
exceeded in any of the measured conditions. The most restrictive
condition, according to this standard, was found on the paralle-
lepiped road with no payload (unloaded condition). For most
conditions, exposure would be allowed for more than 16 hr. So,
BORTOLINI ET AL. | 257

F I G U R E 3 Exposure evaluation according to ISO 2631‐1 (1985) on all conditions for Driver 1 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

based on this standard, none of the conditions evaluated would
represent a health risk.
4.2 | Current standards
Table 3 summarizes the results (r.m.s., VDV, and Sed values) of all 24
measurements. Values for each of the three axes (x, y, and z) and the
vector sum are presented. The r.m.s. vector sum (av) was calculated
according to ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and the VDVR was calculated with
Equation (1).
In Table 3, r.m.s. and VDV values for x and y directions are
multiplied by the 1.4 factor. The VDV and Sed values are projected for
8‐hr exposure time from the results of each measurement. For all
following analysis, it is assumed that each condition is representative
of an 8‐hr daily exposure.
The color coding scheme used in Table 3 represents boundary
values for applicable standards for each case. For the directions x, y,
and z, the red values represent the r.m.s. or VDV values that are higher
than the exposure limit given by the European Directive 2002/44/EC
(2002), that is, values higher than 1.15 m/s2 for the r.m.s. or 21 m/s1.75
for the VDV; the orange values represent the r.m.s. or VDV values that
258 | BORTOLINI ET AL.

F I G U R E 4 Exposure evaluation according to ISO 2631‐1 (1985) on all conditions for Driver 2 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

are higher than the action level and lower than the exposure limit
given by the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002), that is, values in
the range 0.5–1.15 m/s2 for the r.m.s. or 9.1–21 m/s1.75 for the VDV.
For the sum, the red values represent the r.m.s. or VDV values that are
higher than the exposure limit given by the NR‐15 (2014), that is,
values higher than 1.1 m/s2 for the r.m.s. or 21 m/s1.75 for the VDV;
the orange values represent the r.m.s. or VDV values that are higher
than the action limit and lower than the exposure limit given by the
2
NR‐15 (2014), that is, values in the range 0.5–1.1 m/s for the r.m.s. or
9.1–21 m/s1.75 for the VDV. For the Sed, the red values represent the
values that are higher than the high‐risk limit given by the ISO 2631‐5
(2004), that is, values higher than 0.8 MPa; the orange values
represent the values that are higher than the low‐risk limit and lower
than the high‐risk limit given by the ISO 2631‐5 (2004), that is, values
in the range 0.5–0.8 MPa.
Thus, analyzing Table 3, it is possible to conclude that using as
reference the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002), only one of the
measurements exceeded the 8‐hr exposure limit (1.15 m/s2) for the r.m.s.
value (one measurement for Driver 2, parallelepiped track, unloaded
condition). Considering the VDV as a reference, five results exceeded the
BORTOLINI ET AL. | 259

T A B L E 3 Root mean square, 8 hr VDV, and Sed values for all 24 experimental conditions

r.m.s. (ms-2) VDV 8h (ms-1.75)

Sed 8h
sum sum
x y z x y z (MPa)
[av] [VDVR]
Driver T1 0.285 0.453 0.409 0.674 5.232 7.958 7.194 9.287 0.261
1 T2 0.310 0.470 0.456 0.725 5.740 8.711 8.338 10.395 0.325
Asphalt
Driver T1 0.292 0.484 0.407 0.697 5.300 8.621 7.062 9.686 0.259
2 T2 0.315 0.487 0.441 0.728 5.751 9.010 7.982 10.410 0.316
Driver T1 0.665 0.769 0.715 1.243 14.182 14.770 15.600 19.590 0.802
Unloaded

1 T2 0.587 0.723 0.655 1.139 12.209 13.905 13.810 17.601 0.587

Dirt
Driver T1 0.781 0.848 0.729 1.364 16.968 16.534 16.190 21.812 0.771
2 T2 0.767 0.844 0.703 1.339 16.352 17.458 14.790 21.464 0.616
Driver T1 0.901 0.590 0.772 1.325 19.012 11.472 19.470 23.239 1.169
1 T2 0.962 0.636 0.789 1.397 21.854 11.841 17.260 24.085 0.884
Parallelepiped
Driver T1 1.075 0.692 0.871 1.547 24.556 13.258 21.190 27.786 1.206
2 T2 1.169 0.772 0.996 1.719 26.488 15.750 26.130 31.780 1.266
Driver T1 0.284 0.378 0.441 0.646 4.998 6.829 7.568 8.830 0.238
1 T2 0.289 0.372 0.448 0.649 5.170 6.670 7.748 8.908 0.256
Asphalt
Driver T1 0.280 0.398 0.410 0.637 4.960 7.223 6.915 8.656 0.241
2 T2 0.297 0.379 0.439 0.652 5.348 6.807 7.571 8.892 0.254
Driver T1 0.552 0.794 0.679 1.181 10.671 15.134 13.830 17.871 0.690
Loaded

1 T2 0.534 0.753 0.699 1.158 10.104 14.224 14.370 17.510 0.572

Dirt
Driver T1 0.546 0.823 0.677 1.197 10.518 15.960 13.500 18.226 0.555
2 T2 0.538 0.806 0.699 1.195 10.433 15.596 14.000 18.188 0.573
Driver T1 0.478 0.569 0.710 1.028 10.158 10.689 18.780 19.617 1.086
1 T2 0.579 0.705 0.854 1.250 12.800 13.275 20.330 21.869 1.247
Parallelepiped
Driver T1 0.622 0.684 0.883 1.278 14.140 13.306 23.810 25.033 1.299
2 T2 0.613 0.797 0.867 1.328 12.615 15.568 22.400 24.073 1.394

8‐hr exposure limit (21 m/s1.75). All results for Driver 2 on parallelepiped 15 of the 24 tests, and the action level (0.5 m/s2 and 9.1 m/s1.75) was
track, for both loaded and unloaded condition, are above the exposure exceeded by all tests. The only track in which the exposure limit
limit. One measurement for Driver 1, parallelepiped track and the value was never exceeded was asphalt.
unloaded condition is above the exposure limit. In contrast, except for
measurements on asphalt, almost all results are above the action level
(0.5 m/s2 and 9.1 m/s1.75). 4.3 | Statistical analyses
Taking into account the results for the Sed, the upper limit of One of the objectives of this study was to investigate the effect on
0.8 MPa suggested by the ISO 2631‐5 (2004) is exceeded by all eight the vibration parameters of the road type, driver, and load condition.
measurements in parallelepiped track. Besides these, only one result, For the weighed r.m.s. acceleration and the VDV value, it is also
for unloaded, dirt track and Driver 1 condition exceeded the upper possible to explore the influence of the movement direction. For the
limit. Only the results for asphalt track did not exceed the lower limit Sed, av and VDVR, as the values are a combination of the movement in
(0.5 MPa) suggested by the standard. all directions, this factor cannot be evaluated.
If the reference values of ISO 2631‐5 (2004) are to be considered Thus, four‐way (for r.m.s. and VDV values) and three‐way (for Sed,
as action level (0.5 MPa) and limit value (0.8 MPa), then, for the av, and VDVR values) ANOVA were performed on the values
present work, the conclusions achieved by this reference would be
similar to the obtained using as reference the VDV in the dominant
axis with the limits used by the European Directive 2002/44/EC
(2002). Only four conditions would lead to different conclusions, as
illustrated in Figure 5.
Comparing the values presented in Table 3 with the values
given in Annex B of ISO 2631‐1 (1997), considering Equation B1 of
the standard, six results are above the caution zone (0.866 m/s2
for an 8‐hr daily exposure). All occurred in parallelepiped track, for
which the only results below the upper limit of the caution zone
were for Driver 1 in the loaded condition. Only one measurement
(one result for Driver 2, asphalt track, loaded condition) did not
exceed the lower limit of the caution zone (0.433 m/s2 for an 8‐hr
daily exposure). F I G U R E 5 Comparison of evaluations of vibration exposure using
Taking into account an evaluation by the parameters of NR‐15 Sed and VDV in the dominant axis for all 24 measurement conditions
(2014), the exposure limit (1.1 m/s2 and 21 m/s1.75) was exceeded in [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
260 | BORTOLINI ET AL.

T A B L E 4 Four‐way ANOVA for r.m.s. values most significant again. For the Sed value, as can be seen in Table 5,
Source Sum Sq. DOF Mean Sq. F Prob. > F only the road type showed a significant influence on the result.
For the r.m.s. and VDV ANOVA, the following two‐factor
A 0.09238 2 0.04619 27.29 0
interactions resulted significant: direction–track (AC, in Table 4),
B 0.06516 1 0.06516 38.50 0
direction–load (AD), driver–track (BC), and track–load (CD). It was
C 2.07282 2 1.03641 612.29 0
also observed one three‐factor interaction involving direction–track–
D 0.12038 1 0.12038 71.12 0
load (ACD). For the direction–track interaction, it is possible to see
AB 0.00331 2 0.00166 0.98 0.3855 that different types of track present the maximum values of weighted
AC 0.24026 4 0.06006 35.48 0 acceleration in different directions. For example, for the dirt track,
AD 0.14420 2 0.07210 42.60 0 the maximum value of the weighted acceleration is in the y‐direction,
BC 0.04499 2 0.02250 13.29 0 while for the parallelepiped and asphalt tracks, the z‐direction is
BD 0.01090 1 0.01090 6.44 0.0156 dominant. For the direction–load interaction, different load condi-
CD 0.05047 2 0.02524 14.91 0 tions present the maximum values of weighted acceleration in

ABC 0.00294 4 0.00074 0.43 0.7829

different directions. For example, for the unloaded condition, the
maximum value of the weighted acceleration is in the x‐direction,
ABD 0.00288 2 0.00144 0.85 0.4353
whereas for the loaded condition, the z‐direction is dominant. For the
ACD 0.16604 4 0.04151 24.52 0
driver–track interaction, for both drivers, the asphalt track presents
BCD 0.00403 2 0.00202 1.19 0.3157
the lowest values of weighted acceleration. For Driver 1, the values
ABCD 0.00274 4 0.00068 0.40 0.8043
of weighted acceleration in the dirt and parallelepiped tracks are
Error 0.06094 36 0.00169 – – similar, while for Driver 2, the weighted acceleration is higher in the
Total 3.08445 71 – – – parallelepiped track. For the track–load interaction, for both load
Note. ANOVA: analysis of variance; DOF: degree of freedom; r.m.s.: root conditions, the asphalt track presents the lowest values of weighted
mean square. acceleration. For loaded condition, the values of weighted accelera-
tion in the dirt and parallelepiped tracks are similar, while for
presented in Table 3, to check the influence of the controlled
unloaded condition, the weighted acceleration is higher in the
variables on the results. For illustration purposes, Table 4 shows the
parallelepiped track.
four‐way ANOVA for r.m.s. values and Table 5 shows the three‐way
Based on the ANOVA for Sed, av, and VDVR values, the only
ANOVA for Sed values. In Table 4, A represents the direction, B the
significant interaction was driver–track (AB) for VDVR values. In this
driver, C the track, and D the load condition. In Table 5, A represents
case, for both drivers, the asphalt track presents the lowest values of
the driver, B the track, and C the load condition.
weighted acceleration. For Driver 1, the values of weighted
The ANOVA for VDV, av, and VDVR values were also carried out
acceleration in the dirt and parallelepiped tracks are similar, while
and present similar results. The conclusions presented are based on a
for Driver 2, the weighted acceleration is higher in the parallelepiped
significance level of 99%. For the r.m.s. and VDV values, all the four
track.
variables showed a high significance level, showing that direction,
It is important to note that the effects and interactions observed
driver, track, and load condition influence the results, being the road
here cannot be generalized due to the limited sample size (24 tests).
type the most significant. For the av and VDVR values, all the three
However, this analysis is additional to the main objective of this
variables resulted significant for the result, being the road type the
paper and is presented for illustrative purposes.

4.4 | Estimated time for exposure limit

T A B L E 5 Three‐way ANOVA for Sed values
Source Sum Sq. DOF Mean Sq. F Prob. > F When vibration levels cannot be reduced, the alternative way to

A 0.01670 1 0.01670 1.89 0.1944

control exposure is to limit the exposure time. Table 6 shows a
comparison of the exposure time that would lead to the exposure
B 3.46247 2 1.73124 195.89 0
limit in each of the conditions measured in this study compared with
C 0.00014 1 0.00014 0.02 0.9036
each assessment criterion. In Table 6, the values in red color are
AB 0.06148 2 0.03074 3.48 0.0643
those that exceed the correspondent limit in less than 8 hr of daily
AC 0.00134 1 0.00134 0.15 0.7043
exposure.
BC 0.05356 2 0.02678 3.03 0.0860 Besides the differences in the way acceleration is treated, as the
ABC 0.00130 2 0.00065 0.07 0.9297 duration of exposure relationship to the dose varies among different
Error 0.10605 12 0.00884 – – exposure parameter, the exposure time needed to reach the limit in
Total 3.70303 23 – – – each parameter can be very different. For r.m.s.‐based values, the
Note. ANOVA: analysis of variance; DOF: degree of freedom; r.m.s.: root dose is related to the square root of the exposure time. For the VDV,
mean square. the dose is related to the fourth root of time, and for the Sed, the dose
BORTOLINI ET AL. | 261

T A B L E 6 Time to reach the exposure limit for each standard and evaluation criterion for all 24 experimental conditions

r.m.s. VDV Sed 1/3 Oct

ISO 97 EuD 02 NR-15 ISO 97 EuD 02 NR-15 ISO 04 ISO 85
Driver T1 >24 >24 21:18 >24 >24 >24 >24 >24
1 T2 >24 >24 18:25 >24 >24 >24 >24 24
Asphalt
Driver T1 >24 >24 19:57 >24 >24 >24 >24 >24
2 T2 >24 >24 18:15 >24 >24 >24 >24 24
Unloaded Driver T1 10:09 17:54 6:15 11:16 >24 10:33 7:54 24
1 T2 11:29 20:15 7:27 17:52 >24 16:12 >24 24
Dirt
Driver T1 8:20 14:42 5:12 8:03 18:46 6:52 9:57 24
2 T2 8:25 14:51 5:23 7:11 16:44 7:19 >24 24
Driver T1 7:22 13:01 5:30 4:38 10:49 5:20 0:49 16
1 T2 6:29 11:26 4:57 2:55 6:49 4:37 4:23 16
Parallelepiped
Driver T1 5:11 9:09 4:02 1:50 4:16 2:36 0:40 16
2 T2 4:23 7:44 3:16 1:21 3:09 1:31 0:30 16
Driver T1 >24 >24 23:11 >24 >24 >24 >24 >24
1 T2 >24 >24 22:57 >24 >24 >24 >24 >24
Asphalt
Driver T1 >24 >24 23:52 >24 >24 >24 >24 >24
2 T2 >24 >24 22:48 >24 >24 >24 >24 >24
Driver T1 9:31 16:48 6:56 12:44 >24 15:15 19:30 24
Loaded

1 T2 10:35 18:39 7:13 15:40 >24 16:33 >24 24

Dirt
Driver T1 8:51 15:36 6:45 10:17 23:58 14:06 >24 24
2 T2 9:13 16:16 6:46 11:17 >24 14:13 >24 24
Driver T1 11:54 20:59 9:10 5:22 12:30 10:30 1:16 16
1 T2 8:13 14:30 6:11 3:54 9:06 6:48 0:33 24
Parallelepiped
Driver T1 7:41 13:34 5:55 2:04 4:50 3:57 0:26 16
2 T2 7:58 14:04 5:29 2:39 6:10 4:37 0:17 16

is related to the sixth root of time. The effect of those differences can
be illustrated by an example. Assume the limit value for an 8‐hr
exposure in a given parameter is exceeded by 10%. If this parameter
is based on the r.m.s. value, the exposure time should be limited to
6.61 hr for the limit daily dose not to be exceeded. If the parameter is
based on the VDV value, the exposure time should be limited to
5.46 hr, and, if the parameter is the Sed, the exposure time should be
limited to 4.52 hr.
As shown in Table 6, there are large variations among the
different criteria to reach the daily limit of exposure considering the
current limit values for each criterion. The difference for the same
exposure can be of up to 50 times. For the condition Loaded,
Parallelepiped, Driver 2, T2, the exposure limit for the Sed would be
achieved in 17 min, whereas it would take more than 14 hr to reach
the limit for the dominant r.m.s. the value in the EU directive.
In conditions in which the dose limit is reached in less than 8 hr for
the Sed and at least one more parameter in Table 6 (i.e., all results for
the parallelepiped road and one result for the dirt track; total of nine
results), the Sed is in most cases the parameter to reach the exposure
limit in the shortest time (the only two exceptions are the results for
Unloaded, Dirt, Driver 1, T1 and Unloaded, Parallelepiped, Driver 1, T2).
Comparing the parameters based on r.m.s. and VDV values, which
are currently the most used for regulation, and considering only the
16 results in which the 8‐hr limit value was exceed in at least one
parameter, the NR‐15 (2014) criteria leaded to the shortest exposure
duration to reach the daily limit values in 8 results, while the upper
limit of the ISO 2631‐1 (1997) caution zone for the VDV value was
reached in the shortest exposure duration in the other 8 results.
Considering those same 16 results, and comparing the NR‐15
(2014) criteria with the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002), the
average time to reach the r.m.s. daily dose limit is 14.97 hr in the EU
criterion and 6.04 hr in the NR‐15 criterion. For the VDV, the daily
dose limit is reached in 17.35 hr for the EU criterion and in 8.80 hr in
the NR‐15 criterion.
Comparing the two criteria proposed in the current version of NR‐15
(2014), the 8‐hr limit value was exceeded in 15 results. In nine of those,
the parameter to reach the daily doses limit in the shortest exposure
duration was the r.m.s. value and in the other six were the VDV.
4.5 | Additional comments
In the Introduction, works that carried out comparisons among
standards and different evaluation parameters were cited. In general,
these works adopt one or more of ISO 2631‐1 (1997), ISO 2631‐5
(2004), and European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002) standards.
Thus, in the following, the results obtained in the present study
are compared and validated with previous works presented in
the literature. However, the studies cited have as their main
objective the evaluation of one or more types of vehicle or
certain exposure conditions with the different criteria proposed in
standards, or in the correlation between symptoms associated with
WBV (such as LBP) and these parameters, whereas the main
objective of the present study is to compare the standards and
evaluation criteria in a real situation of exposure. Thus, in many
cases, the presentation of the results in these works limits the direct
comparison with the present study.
In the work of Thamsuwan et al. (2013) the values of av and
VDVR in buses are compared with the limits of the European
Directive 2002/44/EC (2002). Sed values are also calculated. The
results indicate that criteria equivalent to those of NR‐15 (2014;
262 | BORTOLINI
i.e., VDVR and av) tend to reach current limit values (action level and
exposure limit) more frequently than Sed reaches the health risk
levels of ISO 2631‐5 (2004), which is in agreement with the results
obtained in the present work, as can be seen in Table 3.
Kim et al. (2016) also include in their study on WBV in
professional truck drivers the values of Sed, av, and VDVR, using as
reference the limits of the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002).
Only mean values and distribution parameters are presented, limiting
the possibilities of comparison. However, it is possible to verify that,
for measurements of vibration in the driver’s seat, the parameter
equivalent to that of NR‐15 (2014; VDVR) was the parameter that
most exceeded the action level of the European Directive 2002/44/
EC (2002), again in agreement with the results of the present work,
which indicates that av and VDVR are the most critical parameters, as
can be seen in Table 3.
Eger et al. (2008; load‐haul‐dump vehicles), Chen et al. (2009;
motorbikes, scooters, sedans), Lewis and Johnson (2012; bus) and
Park et al. (2013; agricultural tractors and recreational vehicles)
assessed exposure to WBV considering only the criteria and risk
zones of ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and ISO 2631‐5 (2004) standards.
Chen et al. (2009) compared the predicted health risks of
motorcycle riders according to ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and ISO 2631‐5
(2004) standards and concluded that the vibration dose value of ISO
2631‐1 (1997) and daily dose of equivalent static compression stress
of ISO 2631‐5 (2004) have roughly equivalent boundaries for
probable health effects, which is in agreement with the results of
the present work, as may be seen in Figure 5. Chen et al. (2009) also
state that in 50% of the evaluations performed, the maximum limit
for the VDV (dominant axis) and Sed was reached in up to 2 hr, while
the limit for the r.m.s. acceleration (dominant axis) was only reached
in times larger than 2 hr. This is also in agreement with the present
work, in which it is possible to see in Table 6 that the VDV (dominant
axis) and the Sed reached the maximum limit in fewer hours than the
r.m.s. acceleration (dominant axis).
Eger et al. (2008) predicted health risks, associated with the
operation of load‐haul‐dump vehicles, by ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and
2631‐5 (2004) criteria. Their results showed that r.m.s. acceleration
(based on an 8 hr exposure duration) are above the health guidance
caution zone (above the exposure limit) in two of the seven cases
analyzed, whereas the VDV are above the health guidance caution
zone in three of the seven cases, showing that the VDV is more
critical than the r.m.s. acceleration, which is, again, in agreement with
the results of the present work, as can be seen in Table 3. The Sed
reached the action level (0.5 MPa) in two of the seven cases analyzed,
however, no case reaches the upper limit of the health guidance
caution zone (0.8 MPa), which is in disagreement with the present
work. In this context, it is important to note that Chen et al. (2009)
also affirm that their study yielded opposite results in relation to the
work of Eger et al. (2008).
Lewis and Johnson (2012) determined the levels of vibration for
bus drivers using both ISO 2631‐1 (1997) and ISO 2631‐5 (2004)
standards. Their results showed that the VDV (dominant axis)
reached the action level in the three cases analyzed, while r.m.s.
ET AL.
acceleration (dominant axis) reached the action level in only one of
the three cases, showing that the VDV is more critical than the r.m.s.
acceleration, which is, again, in agreement with the results of the
present work, as can be seen in Table 3. The Sed reached the action
level in two of the three cases analyzed.
Park et al. (2013) reported similar findings among exposure
assessments, considering 8 hr of exposure per day, using the r.m.s.
acceleration on the dominant axis and Sed, in most cases (VDV was
not considered).
As vibrations on vehicles are mainly induced by road profile, it
is expected that the vibration levels differ among road conditions.
In the present study, the lower levels of vibration were found on
the asphalt track. This can be considered expected as the tests
were conducted on a reasonable well‐preserved asphalt track
(Figure 2c). The conditions between the other two track types
vary widely, that is, the conditions of parallelepiped tracks and
dirt tracks are highly variable so that the results of the
comparison between them in this study cannot be generalized
or compared with others. In this paper, the vibration levels found
in the parallelepiped track were higher than the values found in
the dirt track.
The values of vibration exposure for Driver 2 were higher than
for Driver 1 for all parameters, even in the case of Sed, in which this
difference was not statistically significant (Table 5). As only two
drivers participated in the measurements, the origin of the difference
in the vibration levels for this factor cannot be identified. Factors
such as body weight, age, and way of driving can be the causes of
different vibration levels.
It is also interesting to note that even after multiplying the r.m.s.
and VDV values in x and y direction by 1.4, the vibration values in
z‐direction are still, on average, larger than for both parameters, and
the vibration in x‐direction presents the lowest average level.
Finally, the data also showed that the vibration levels for the
unloaded truck are higher than those found for the loaded truck.
Again, this is also true for the Sed, in which the difference did not
show statistical significance.
5 | CO NCL USIONS
This paper presented evaluations of WBV exposures of drivers of a
cargo vehicular composition, from measurements performed on
the seat according to ISO 2631‐1 (1997). The vibration exposure
of two drivers was measured in different types of tracks, with
loaded and unloaded carrier composition. The measurement
results were evaluated according to five different standards,
including the recently published Brazilian regulating standard
NR‐15 (2014).
In addition, to illustrate the differences among the reference
standards for the exposure of workers to WBV, this study also provided
WBV exposure level data on a type of vehicle operating in customary
conditions, whereas assessing the influence of road type, driver, and load
conditions in the results.
BORTOLINI ET AL.
The following conclusions are based on the data measured in this
study, and cannot be extrapolated to general situations. For an 8‐hr
daily exposure, the NR‐15 (2014) standard was the most restrictive,
with 15 of 24 tests above the exposure limit, and the ISO 2631‐1
(1985) was the less restrictive, with no condition exceeding the
exposure limit. The European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002) limit for
the r.m.s. the value was exceeded in only one condition, and the VDV
limit was exceeded in five conditions. The caution zone of ISO 2631‐1
(1997) was exceeded in six conditions, and the high‐risk value for the
Sed in the ISO 2631‐5 (2004) was reached by nine tests. Also
considering an 8‐hr daily exposure, there is a tendency of agreement
between the results obtained using the European Directive 2002/44/
EC (2002) action and exposure limits and the lower and upper
reference values offered by the ISO 2631‐5 (2004).
It was expected for the NR‐15 (2014) to be more restrictive
compared with the European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002). It is also
clear that the ISO 2631‐1 (1997) caution zone upper limit is lower
than the limit presented in the European Directive 2002/44/EC
(2002). However, other comparisons among the criteria considered in
this paper should be carried out based on experimental data from
real exposure situation.
Statistical analyses showed that, for the measured data, all
vibration exposure parameters considered in this paper captured the
influence of road type on driver vibration exposure. Driver and load
condition did not influence the Sed value, however, presented a
significant influence on all other parameters.
The time analysis showed, for the measured data, in addition to
the same conclusions already presented, for instance, that the
parallelepiped track is the most critical case, for both loaded and
unloaded condition, a tendency for large differences in the time to
reach the limit daily dose among the different WBV exposure
parameters for a given exposure.
Other studies found in the literature evaluated WBV exposure using
more than one criterion from different standards. The main purpose of
these studies was not to compare standards, and they only applied some
of the evaluation parameters analyzed in the present study. Even so,
their results allowed for the comparison among some standards and
criteria. The results found in the present study are similar to those
obtained in several other exposure situations, investigated by other
authors. For instance, the data from Thamsuwan et al. (2013) and Kim
et al. (2016) indicate, as in the current work, that the criteria currently
adopted by NR‐15 (2014) tend to be, in many cases, more stringent
than the other standards currently used.
Finally, it is important to mention that the results presented can
contribute to improving the criteria used in the new NR‐15 (2014).
A C K N O W L E D GM E N T S
The authors acknowledge the financial support of CNPq and CAPES.
OR CID
Letícia Fleck Fadel Miguel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9165-4306
| 263
R E F E R E N CE S
Andrusaitis, S. F. (2004). Estudo da prevalência e fatores de risco da lombalgia
em caminhoneiros do estado de São Paulo (master dissertation).
Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Birlik, G. (2009). Occupational exposure to whole body vibration‐train
drivers. Industrial Health, 47, 5–10.
Blood, R. P., Ploger, J. D., Yost, M. G., Ching, R. P., & Johnson, P. W. (2010).
Whole body vibration exposures in metropolitan bus drivers: A
comparison of three seats. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 329, 109–120.
Bortolini, A. (2012). Avaliação dos Níveis de Vibração em Motoristas de
Composições Veiculares de Carga em Diferentes Pistas (master disserta-
tion). Programa de Pós‐Graduação em Engenharia Mecânica, Escola
de Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto
Alegre, Brazil.
Bovenzi, M. (2009). Metrics of whole‐body vibration and exposure–response
relationship for low back pain in professional drivers: A prospective cohort
study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82(7),
893–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420‐008‐0376‐3
Bovenzi, M. (2010). A longitudinal study of low back pain and daily vibration
exposure in professional drivers. Industrial Health, 48, 584–595.
Bovenzi, M., & Hulshof, C. T. J. (1999). An updated review of
epidemiologic studies on the relationship between exposure to
whole‐body vibration and low back pain (1986–1997). International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 72(6), 351–365.
Bovenzi, M., Rui, F., Negro, C., D’agostin, F., Angotzi, G., Bianchi, S., …
Stacchini, N. (2006). An epidemiological study of low back pain in
professional drivers. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 298(298), 514–539.
Bovenzi, M., Schust, M., Menzel, G., Prodi, A., & Mauro, M. (2015).
Relationships of low back outcomes to internal spinal load: A
prospective cohort study of professional drivers. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88(4), 487–499. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00420‐014‐0976‐z
Burdorf, A., & Hulshof, C. T. J. (2006). Modelling the effects of exposure to
whole‐body vibration on low‐back pain and its long‐term conse-
quences for sickness absence and associated work disability. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 298, 480–491.
Burström, L., Nilsson, T., & Wahlström, J. (2015). Whole‐body vibration
and the risk of low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and
meta‐analysis. International Archives of Occupational and Environ-
mental Health, 88(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420‐
014‐0971‐4
Chen, H. C., Chen, W. C., Liu, Y. P., Chen, C. Y., & Pan, Y. T. (2009). Whole‐
body vibration exposure experienced by motorcycle riders—An
evaluation according to ISO 2631‐1 and ISO 2631‐5 standards.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39,pp 708–718.
Eger, T., Stevenson, J., Boileau, P. É., Salmoni, , A., & Vib, R. G. (2008).
Predictions of health risks associated with the operation of load‐haul‐
dump mining vehicles: Part 1—Analysis of whole‐body vibration
exposure using ISO 2631‐1 and ISO‐2631‐5 standards. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38(38),pp 726–738.
European Directive 2002/44/EC (2002). On the minimum health and
safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents (vibration). The European Parliament and
the Council of the European Union. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L177/13–L177/19.
Fenabrave, (2018). Federação Nacional da Distribuição de Veículos
Automotores (Automotive Vehicles Distribution National Federation).
Retrieved from http://www.fenabrave.org.br
Gallais, L., & Griffin, M. J. (2006). Low back pain in car drivers: A review of
studies published 1975 to 2005. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 298,
499–513.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 2631‐1, (1985).
Evaluation of human exposure to whole‐body vibration—Part I:
General requirements. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
264 | BORTOLINI
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 2631‐1, (1997). Mechan-
ical vibration and shock—Evaluation of human exposure to whole‐body
vibration—Part 1: General requirements. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 2631‐5, (2004).
Mechanical vibration and shock—Evaluation of human exposure to
whole‐body vibration—Part 5: Method for evaluation of vibration
containing multiple shocks. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johnson, P. W., Rynell, P., Blood, R., (2010). Differences in whole body
vibration exposures between a cab‐over and conventional flatbed truck.
Proceedings of the third american conference on human vibration, 67–68.
Kim, J. H., Zigman, M., Aulck, L. S., Ibbotson, J. A., Dennerlein, J. T., &
Johnson, P. W. (2016). Whole body vibration exposures and health
status among professional truck drivers: A cross‐sectional analysis.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 60(8), 936–948.
Kollock, R., Games, K., Wilson, A. E., & Sefton, J. M. (2015). Effects of
vehicle‐ride exposure on cervical pathology: A meta‐analysis. Indus-
trial Health, 53, 197–205.
Lemos, L. C. (2009). Prevalência de queixas de dores osteomusculares em
motoristas de caminhão que trabalham em turnos irregulares (master
dissertation). Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lewis, C. A., & Johnson, P. W. (2012). Whole‐body vibration exposure in
metropolitan bus drivers. Occupational Medicine, 62, 519–524.
Nitti, R., & De Santis, P. (2010). Assessment and prediction of whole‐body
vibration exposure in transport truck drivers. Industrial Health, 48,
628–637.
NR‐15 (2014). NR‐15—Anexo 8, Vibração, Ministério do Trabalho. Limite
de tolerância. Portaria 1.297 de 13 de agosto de 2014. Brasil.
Palmer, K. T., Griffin, M. J., Bendall, H., Pannett, B., & Coggon, D. (2000).
Prevalence and pattern of occupational exposure to whole‐body
vibration in Great Britain: Findings from a national survey. Occupa-
tional and Environmental Medicine, 57, 229–236.
Park, M. S., Fukuda, T., Kim, T., & Maeda, S. (2013). Health risk evaluation
of whole‐body vibration by ISO 2631‐5 and ISO 2631‐1 for operators
of agricultural tractors and recreational vehicles. Industrial Health, 51,
364–370.
ET AL.
Picu, A. (2009). Whole body vibration analysis for bus drivers. SISOM
2009 and Session of the Commission of Acoustics, Bucharest, May 28–
29, 2009.
Seidel, H., Hinz, B., Hofmann, J., & Menzel, G. (2008). Intraspinal forces
and health risk caused by whole‐body vibration‐predictions for
European drivers and different field conditions. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 856–867.
Tamrin, S. B. M., Yokoyama, K., Aziz, N., & Maeda, S. (2014). Association of
risk factors with musculoskeletal disorders among male commercial
bus drivers in Malaysia. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufactur-
ing, 24(4), 369–385.
Thamsuwan, O., Blood, R. P., Ching, R. P., Boyle, L., & Johnson, P. W. (2013).
Whole body vibration exposures in bus drivers: A comparison between
a high‐floor coach and a low‐floor city bus. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 43, 9–17.
Velmurugan, P., Kumaraswamidhas, L. A., & Sankaranarayanasamy, K. (2012).
Measurement of whole‐body vibration exposure from unsuspended cabin
tractor semi‐trailers. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 22(6),
481–486.
Viruet, H. B., Genaidy, A., Shell, R., Salem, S., & Karwowski, W. (2008).
Effect of forklift operation on lower back pain: An evidence‐based
approach. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(2),
125–151.
Wikström, B. O., Kjellberg, A., & Landström, U. (1994). Health effects of
long‐term occupational exposure to whole‐body vibration: A review.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 14, 273–292.
How to cite this article: Bortolini A, Miguel LFF, Becker T.
Measurement and evaluation of whole‐body vibration exposure
in drivers of cargo vehicle compositions. Hum. Factors Man.
2019;29:253–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20780