Proceedings of DETC2008

2008 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences

& Computers and Information in Engineering Conferences

August 3-6, 2008, New York City, NY USA

COMPARISON OF WHOLE-BODY VIBRATION EXPOSURES ON OLDER AND 

NEWER HAULAGE TRUCKS AT AN AGGREGATE STONE QUARRY OPERATION 

Alan G. Mayton and Christopher C. Jobes 

NIOSH Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA 

Richard E. Miller 

NIOSH Spokane Research Laboratory 

Spokane, Washington USA 

ABSTRACT 

Exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) and the postural 

requirements of the job have been identified as important risk 

factors in the development of musculoskeletal disorders of the 

back among workers exposed to a vibratory environment. This 

paper focuses on preliminary results of WBV data collected for 

two groups of haulage trucks – four older trucks from 

manufacturer A (MFR-A) and two newer trucks from 

manufacturer B (MFR-B). 

All of the trucks and their respective seats were considered to 

be in good working order during the study. Measurement 

periods for the truck groups had similarities, but varied from 2 

to 58 minutes. Sampling times for the older trucks included a 

mean of 19.5 minutes and a standard deviation (STD) of 6.5 

minutes compared to a mean of 40.8 minutes and a STD of 12.1 

minutes for the newer trucks. Data collection coincided with 

the approximate delivery and first operation of the new trucks, 

and occurred approximately 12 months apart under similar 

weather and road conditions, and with the same drivers except 

an additional driver was included with the older trucks. Truck 

routes were somewhat different in that quarry production had 

changed location in the time between data collection activities. 

Overall, the results suggest that the newer trucks may provide 

better overall isolation to drivers/operators from WBV 

exposure compared to the older trucks operating at the quarry; 

although, this will need to be confirmed with additional 

measurements. Considering the higher variability and shorter 

sampling times for the older trucks, the results should be 

viewed with caution. For two of seven trials, the older trucks 

showed that seats amplified vibration, i.e., a transmissibility (T) 

>1.0. Seat T for the older trucks ranged from 0.31 to 1.17 with 

a mean of 0.77 and STD of 0.32. This contrasted with the 

newer haulage trucks where seats amplified vibration in 3 of 8 

trials. In this case, T did not vary greatly and ranged from 0.87 

to 1.05 with a mean of 0.97 and STD of 0.07. Regarding older 

trucks, in five of seven trials, the seat (output) data of weighted 

root-mean square (RMS) acceleration (wRMSZ) for the 

dominant z-axis exceeded the action level of 0.5 m/s2

 action 

level recommended by the European Union Good Practice 

Guide for WBV (EUGPG) and levels exceeded the 

recommended exposure limit of 1.15 m/s2

 in two of the seven 

trials. The wRMSZ values for the older trucks varied from 0.41 

to 1.83 m/s2

 with a mean of 0.99 and STD of 0.57. Similarly, 

newer trucks indicated a narrower range of wRMSZ from 0.38 

to 0.95 m/s2

. The mean wRMSZ was lower for the newer trucks 

at 0.58 m/s2

 with a STD of 0.23 m/s2. Similarly, newer trucks 

indicated wRMSZ reached or exceeded the action level in four 

of eight trials. None of the trials with the new trucks showed 

wRMSZ levels that reached or exceeded the recommended 1.15 

m/s2

 exposure limit. As an indicator of driver/operator 

discomfort, overall weighted total RMS acceleration (vector 

sum) values seem to show a “rougher” ride for the older trucks. 

The vector sum values for these trucks ranged widely from 0.70 

to 2.59 m/s2

 and, in four of seven trials, showed levels greater 

than 1.40 m/s2

. The mean vector sum was 1.44 m/s2 with a 

STD of 0.75 m/s2

. Comparatively, the newer trucks exhibited 

less variation with a range from 0.69 to 1.59 m/s2

. The mean 

vector sum was 1.02 m/s2

 with a STD of 0.35 m/s2. Vibration 

dose values for the dominant z-axis (VDVZ), gave a sense of 

vehicle jarring/jolting conditions. All trials with the older 

trucks were within the recommended EUGPG action level of 

9.1 m/s1.75. On the other hand, in three of eight trials, both 

newer trucks exceeded this action level with values of 9.18, 

12.58, and 13.21 m/s1.75. Neither truck group showed VDVZ

that exceeded the exposure limit of 21 m/s1.75. A statistical 

analysis was not conducted, since the differences reported 

between truck groups may not be statistically significant owing 

to the relatively small sample size. Road conditions, changes in 

the truck routes, and driver/operator differences (e.g., stopping 

and turning) are possible factors in the higher VDV for the 

newer trucks. 
Table 1. Description of equipment for newer 

and older haulage trucks evaluated 

1 INTRODUCTION 

Operation of earth-moving equipment contributes to some of 

the most common, prolonged, and severe occupational 

exposures of vehicle vibration among equipment operators. 

Whole-body vibration (WBV) is mechanical vibration or shock 

transmitted to the body as a whole [1]. The recognition of 

potential hazards has resulted in standards that address 

vibration transmitted by seats and the vibration exposure of 

vehicle operators [1-3]. 

at aggregate stone quarry.

MFR - A - Older Trucks 

Truck Year Age (Yrs) Capacity, Tons 

A1 1986 21 50 

A2 1978 29 50 

A3 1986 21 50 

A4 1992 15 50 

MFR - B - Newer Trucks 

B1 2007 0 70 

B2 2007 0 70 

NOTE: Manufacturer (MFR); Capacity is nominal rated 

value. Age is computed from vehicle year to date of 

latest data collection – 2007. 

Exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) and the postural 

requirements of the job have been identified as important risk 

factors in the development of musculoskeletal disorders of the 

spine among workers exposed to a vibration environment [4-

10]. Acute health effects from WBV exposure include loss of 

visual acuity, postural stability and manual control; whereas 

chronic health effects include low back pain, early degeneration 

of the spine, herniated discs, and digestive and circulatory 

disorders. Moreover, WBV may also contribute to the 

development of noise-induced hearing loss [11]. 

a frequency range of 0.3 Hz to 5 kHz and a charge sensitivity 

ranging from 949 to 1052 mV/g for the three orthogonal axes. 

The seat pad accelerometer featured a frequency range of 0.5 

Hz to 1 kHz and a charge sensitivity ranging from 97.4 to 105 

mV/g for the three orthogonal axes. Vibration data were 

collected using accelerometers with pre-amplifiers and filters 

connected to a digital data recorder. Installation (Figure 1) was 

2 BACKGROUND 

An assessment of WBV exposure was conducted at a U.S. 

eastern mid-Atlantic crushed stone operation. Company 

management had received a number of verbal and written 

responses from haulage truck drivers about back symptoms and 

vibration issues while performing their regular work cycles. As 

part of their ergonomics training, risk factor report cards 

submitted by employees indicated low back discomfort was the 

most frequently reported at one quarry, and exposure to 

bouncing and jarring was reported on a high percentage of 

cards. In some cases, employees indicated that the discomfort 

was associated with the seating in vehicles. Consequently, 

company managers were interested in evaluating seating and 

operator exposure to WBV at the driver/seat interface for older 

and newer model haulage trucks. Managers were also 

interested in establishing a baseline of data for new trucks 

brought into service to compare with data collected later at 6-

month intervals. The purpose of the repeated measures was to 

monitor the performance of older and newer truck models 

relative to WBV exposures as a means for determining when 

vehicle (e.g., suspension system) and seats required 

maintenance or replacement. 

Figure 1. Instrumentation installed to collect WBV exposures 

for haulage truck operators. Tri-axial accelerometers are 

placed on the seat (seat pad) and on the vehicle frame next to 

the cab window. 3 METHODS 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

researchers collected data related to WBV exposure, global 

positioning system (GPS), and seat vibration transmissibility. 

WBV exposure data was collected on four older and two newer 

haulage trucks, (Table 1). Although the older haulage trucks 

were rear-dump style vehicles, they differed from the newer 

trucks by year of manufacturer, age, and capacity. Vibration 

measurements were recorded with an 8-channnel, digital data 

recorder (model PC208Ax, Sony Manufacturing Systems 

America, Lake Forest, CA). Other instrumentation (PCB 

Piezotronics, Inc. Depew, NY) included tri-axial accelerometers 

(models 356B18, 356B40), signal conditioning amplifiers 

(model 480E09), and in-line, 150-Hz low-pass filters (model 

474M32). The floor or frame mounted accelerometer featured 

done at the maintenance shop and vehicle parking area for both 

truck groups. Two tri-axial accelerometers were installed, one 

on the frame of the haul truck or loader next to the cab window 

(frame measurement) and one (encased in a disk-shaped, rigid 

black pad) on the seat at the operator/seat interface (seat 

measurement). Frame accelerometers were ordinarily mounted 

on the floor of the operator’s compartment near the base of the 

seat, but space and setup constraints within the truck cab 

necessitated mounting the frame accelerometers on small 

ledges on the cab walls that were rigid and structurally 

connected to the floor. Measurement periods ranged from 2 to 

58 minutes with a mean of 29 and standard deviation (STD) of 

20 minutes. The relatively large deviation in sampling time is 
attributed to 2-, 3-, 6-, and 8-minute periods where random 

vehicle bouncing caused the battery to prematurely disconnect 

from the terminals in the recorder and resulted in recorder 

shutdown. Measures for the cyclical nature of load-haul-dump 

activities were considered representative of exposures for the 

shift. Given cab constraints and the setup of data collecting 

instrumentation, it was not feasible for researchers to ride along 

in the vehicles to observe truck operation. 

Truck routes began and ended at the maintenance shop in the 

earlier study with the older truck group. Instrumentation were 

switched on just prior to the truck departing this area and 

returned to the same area at the end of the measurement period 

for uninstalling the instrumentation. The older truck group 

included some data collected for hauling material activities 

from surge/loading bins to large storage piles located in the 

plant area. Seats in the older trucks were not the original 

equipment, but had been replaced since the vehicles started 

operation. Vehicle suspensions, on the other hand, were 

maintained but included the original design. The drivers, ages 

23, 57, and 59 weighed from 91 to 109 kg, respectively. Two 

of three truck drivers for the older truck group were the same 

two drivers for the newer group. Weather conditions during 

both studies were dry, warm and sunny to partly cloudy. The 

roadways were dusty and required constant watering for dust 

abatement. All of the trucks and their respective seats were 

considered to be in good working order. 

ISO 1997 [3] was used to evaluate the WBV exposures for 

haulage truck drivers. For the x, y, and z directions (Figure 2), 

weighted RMS accelerations (wRMS) and vibration dose 

values (VDV) with overall totals of wRMS and VDV were used 

to evaluate driver/operator exposure. Considering an eight-hour 

exposure period, the European Union Good Practice Guide for 

WBV [12] (EUGPG) recommends, for the worst-case axis, 

wRMS accelerations of 0.5 m/s2

 as the action level and 1.15 

m/s2

 as the exposure limit. Similarly, EUGPG recommends 

VDV of 9.1 m/s1.75 as the action level and 21 m/s1.75 as the dose 

limit for an eight-hour exposure. Moreover, the EUGPG 

recommends measurement periods totaling a minimum of 20 

minutes or longer, and if shorter periods are unavoidable, 

measurement periods should be at least 3 minutes long and 

repeated if possible, for a total time of more than 20 minutes. 

Vibration transmitted through the seat was determined by the 

ratio – transmissibility (T) – of vibration level at the vehicle 

frame or chassis to the vibration level at the seat. A value 

greater than 1.0 (times 100%) would indicate a higher vibration 

level at the seat and that the seat is amplifying rather than 

attenuating the vehicle ride vibration. Griffin [1] points out that 

comparing the accelerations on the seat with that at the seat 

base is the most direct method of obtaining accelerations. 

Impedance methods offer another means for measuring or 

predicting transmissibility. The seat effective amplitude 

transmissibility (SEAT) is given by the equation: 

SEAT = [ ∫ ss i ff i dffWfGdffWfG ] 5.0^])(2^)(/[])(2^)([% (1) 

where GSS (f) and Gff (f) are the seat and floor acceleration 

power spectra and Wi (f) is the frequency weighting of the 

human response to vibration [1]. In this study, the authors 

simply used the wRMSz for the seat and frame of the truck cab 

to approximate T values in Table 2. 

Figure 2. Vibrations levels are measured along the 

orthogonal x, y and z axes or vectors.

GPS data were also collected and synchronized with vibration 

data to note when vibration accelerations were significant and 

roadway maintenance was required. This information was 

documented in an effort to identify areas of the quarry that 

required road maintenance. Significant vibrations were noted 

in Figure 3 with flags overlaid on an aerial photographic image 

of the quarry. The flags indicate locations where vibration 

levels exceeded 10 m/s2

. 

 

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Table 2 shows the results from WBV exposure measurements 

collected for the newer and older haulage trucks at the 

aggregate stone operation. The data show that the vertical zdirection was the dominant axis of vibration and T, in column 

3, was computed using wRMSZ for the output (seat) and input 

(frame or chassis). The seats in the older trucks showed 

amplification of vibration, T >1.0, in 2 of 7 trials. The range 

was from 0.31 to 1.17 with mean of 0.77 and STD of 0.32. 

This compared with the newer haulage trucks where 

amplification occurred for 3 of 8 trials, where T ranged from 

0.87 to 1.05 with mean of 0.97 and STD of 0.07. Thus, the 

mean T for the newer trucks, showed less variation with a lower 

STD, but was higher than the mean for the older trucks. 

Regarding older trucks, in five of seven trials, wRMSZ for the 

dominant z-axis exceeded the action level of 0.5 m/s2

 action 

level recommended by the European Union Good Practice 

Guide for WBV (EUGPG). In two of seven trials, levels 

reached or exceeded the recommended exposure limit of 1.15 

m/s2

. The wRMSZ values varied from 0.41 to 1.83 m/s2 with a 

mean of 0.99 and STD of 0.57. Similarly, newer trucks 

indicated wRMSZ with a narrower range from 0.38 to 0.95 m/s2

 
and that reached or exceeded the action level in four of eight 

trials. The mean wRMSZ was lower for the newer trucks at 

0.58 m/s2

 with a STD of 0.23 m/s2. No trials with the new 

trucks showed wRMSZ levels that exceeded the recommended 

1.15 m/s2

 exposure limit. In assessing vehicle jarring/jolting 

conditions, vibration dose values for the dominant z-axis 

(VDVZ) for the older trucks were generally lower than those for 

the newer trucks and less than the recommended EUGPG 

action level of 9.1 m/s1.75. VDVZ varied from 2.13 to 6.94 

m/s1.75 for the older trucks with a mean of 4.13 m/s1.75and a 

STD of 2.04 m/s1.75. This contrasted with the newer trucks 

whose VDVZ values varied much more broadly than those for 

the older trucks from 3.73 to 13.21 m/s1.75 with a mean of 7.74 

m/s1.75and a STD of 3.62 m/s1.75. Moreover, in three of eight 

trials, both newer trucks exceeded this action level with values 

of 9.18, 12.58, and 13.21 m/s1.75. Neither truck group showed 

VDVZ exceeded the exposure limit of 21 m/s1.75. The routes, 

road conditions, stopping, turning, and inadequate seat 

adjustment to different size drivers/operators are possible 

factors in the higher VDV for the newer trucks. 

Overall weighted total RMS acceleration (vector sum) values 

can be used as an indicator of driver/operator comfort [3]. 

Vector sum values give the general sense of a “rougher” ride for 

the older trucks. The vector sum values for these trucks ranged 

widely from 0.70 to 2.59 m/s2

 and four of seven trials showed 

levels greater than 1.40 m/s2

. The mean vector sum was 1.44 

m/s2

 with a STD of 0.75 m/s2. Comparatively, the newer trucks 

exhibited less variation ranging from 0.69 to 1.59 m/s2

. The 

mean vector sum value was 1.02 m/s2

 with a STD of 0.35 m/s2. 

Eger et al. examined WBV exposure on a variety of mining 

equipment, including haulage trucks used in surface operations 

[13]. The trucks, however, were 150-ton trucks – about 2/3 

greater in size (considering rated haulage capacity) than those 

in the NIOSH studies. In comparing the NIOSH and Eger et al. 

studies, the mean wRMSZ and vector sum accelerations, for the 

newer haulage trucks in the NIOSH study were higher than 

those in the Eger et al study by about 2 to 3 times, respectively. 

Similarly, the mean wRMSZ and vector sum accelerations for 

the older haulage trucks in the NIOSH study were much higher 

than those in the Eger et al. study, approximately 3.5 to 4 times, 

respectively. Aside from truck capacity differences, fewer 

controls (e.g. sampling time variability and shorter durations, 

particularly for the older trucks) may account for differences in 

results between the NIOSH and Eger et al. studies. 

Table 2. Assessment of WBV exposure levels includes seat transmissibility, 

weighted RMS acceleration and VDV for each orthogonal axis, overall weighted 

total RMS acceleration (vector sum), and overall VDV according to ISO 2631-1:1997.

Seat - Output (Dominant Axis Shaded) 

Description ID T 

(z-axis) 

wRMSX wRMSY wRMSZ 

Vector 

Sum VDV VDVX VDVY VDVZ 

Older 

1.08 0.48 0.56 1.00 1.44 5.21 1.97 2.06 4.36 A1 

0.87 0.28 0.25 0.46 0.70 2.91 1.47 1.01 2.25 

1.17 0.73 0.74 1.83 2.34 8.28 3.07 3.31 6.94 A2 

0.81 0.28 0.34 0.60 0.86 3.04 1.21 1.42 2.40 

0.31 0.45 0.48 0.98 1.34 4.86 1.80 1.80 4.15 A3 

0.39 0.91 1.08 1.68 2.59 8.63 3.59 4.13 6.67 

MFR-A 

A4 0.75 0.30 0.43 0.41 0.84 3.31 1.64 1.93 2.13 

Newer 

0.98 0.52 0.75 0.93 1.58 17.82 7.03 9.68 13.21 

0.87 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.69 6.93 3.11 4.02 4.71 

1.02 0.26 0.43 0.43 0.82 9.05 3.64 5.97 5.74 

B1 

0.97 0.30 0.42 0.48 0.87 7.19 2.95 4.15 5.07 

0.96 0.33 0.42 0.52 0.91 13.37 8.06 5.34 9.18 

1.05 0.30 0.43 0.43 0.85 5.03 2.03 2.68 3.73 

1.03 0.55 0.73 0.95 1.59 17.01 7.08 8.80 12.58 

MFR-B 

B2 

0.87 0.28 0.42 0.50 0.87 9.96 3.64 5.16 7.71 

NOTE: Manufacturer (MFR); Vector Sum accelerations are in m/s2; VDVs are in m/s1.75; T (Transmissibility = 

weighted output-aRMS/weighted input-aRMS) is dimensionless. 
Review of the GPS data for the older trucks showed instances 

of jarring/jolting for haulage trucks traveling into the pit with 

no load. The GPS data also indicated episodes of jarring/jolting 

occurring at the loading tower for trucks operating 

in the plant area. Other instances of jarring or “bouncing” of 

truck also occurred from driver/operator braking. Considering 

the GPS data collected for the newer trucks, the majority of the 

shocks (jars/jolts) occurred at the loader, dump, and the wash 

out just below the entrance to the pit road, and the corner 

approaching the loader that the trucks took at a fairly high 

speed. Drivers entered this turn with no load (truck empty of 

material) and were traveling downhill. The data showed the 

average ride was “rougher” after the road was graded and there 

were fewer incidences of shocks over 1g. So, the inference is 

Figure 3. Marker flags overlaid on aerial photograph of aggregate stone quarry derived from GPS 

data. The numbered flags show locations where peak accelerations exceeded 10 m/s2

.

that the washouts were filled in, but that the road surface itself 

had been roughed up by the grader. According to quarry 

personnel and management, a wheel dozer was typically used 

to maintain roadways and did a better job in smoothing the road 

surface. However, at the time of data collection, this dozer was 

undergoing needed maintenance and was not in operation. 

Finally, results of this study are preliminary and should be 

viewed with caution because of the small sample size and 

limitations in study controls. Additional measurements are 

required before conclusive statements can be made about older 

versus newer truck performance relative to driver/operator 

exposures to WBV. 
5 LIMITATIONS 

The obvious limitations were the changes in the working 

environment (pit and bench location changes for loading 

operations) and truck driving routes over the 12-month period. 

Although the data were collected for both truck groups during 

dry summer conditions, the newer haulage trucks had a shorter 

travel route (roundtrips from pit to dump hopper). The older 

trucks travel began at the maintenance shop, approximately 

0.25 miles from the dump hopper. Sampling times for the older 

trucks (mean of 19.5 minutes and a STD of 6.5 minutes) varied 

more and were shorter than the newer trucks sampling times 

(mean of 40.8 minutes and a STD of 12.1 minutes). The larger 

newer truck size, greater haulage capacity, shorter route, and 

inadequate driver/operator seat adjustment may explain the 

higher concentration of vehicle jarring incidents in the WBV 

data from the newer trucks. 

6 CONCLUSIONS 

The results suggest that the newer trucks and associated seats 

may provide lower levels of WBV exposure when considering 

mean wRMSZ for drivers/operators compared to the older 

trucks and seats previously studied at the quarry. The lower 

mean vector sum values seem to indicate a “smoother” rather 

than “rougher” ride for newer truck drivers/operators than for 

the older truck drivers/operators. Even though the overall 

WBV was less, the newer trucks had a somewhat higher 

number of jarring incidents than the older trucks as evidenced 

by the greater variability in and higher mean VDVZ values. 

The reasons are not completely clear why the better overall 

results were achieved by the newer trucks, although 

contributing factors would include; differences by manufacturer 

and model, and improved wheel suspension designs for newer 

vehicles resulting from technological advances in these areas. 

Based on information from the quarry Maintenance Chief, the 

authors believe the newer and improved vehicle suspensions 

and isolated cab on the newer haulage trucks may be factors in 

providing better vibration isolation for the newer versus older 

trucks, although this can only be verified with additional data 

and, where possible, adding more study controls. Due to the 

small sample size and limited controls, results of this study are 

preliminary and are not to be viewed as definitive. Additional 

measurements are required before conclusive statements can be 

made about older versus newer truck performance relative to 

driver/operator exposures to WBV. Future activities will 

include additional analysis of meaningful segments of existing 

data (e.g., comparison of no- and full-load truck cycles) and 

additional data collections of WBV exposure data on the newer 

and older trucks at this quarry at six-month intervals for 

monitoring seat and truck vibration performance in terms of 

driver/operator exposure to WBV. 

7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors thank Vulcan Materials Company for their 

participation and cooperation in this research by providing the 

quarry for field data collection. In addition, the authors express 

appreciation to Janet Torma-Krajewski, PhD. and project 

Principal Investigator for contributions and support in revising 

the text and tables of data. 

8 REFERENCES 

[1] Griffin, M.J., 1990, Handbook of Human Vibration. 

London: Elsevier Ltd. 

[2] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 

10326-1:1992 – Mechanical vibration and shock – 

laboratory method for valuating vehicle seat vibration – 

Part 1: Basic requirements, Geneva, Switzerland. 

[3] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 

2631/1:1997 – Mechanical vibration and shock – 

evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration, 

Part 1: General requirements, Geneva, Switzerland. 

[4] Kittusamy N.K., Buchholz B., 2004, Whole-Body 

Vibration and Postural Stress among Operators of 

Construction Equipment: A Literature Review, Journal of 

Safety Research 35, 255-261. 

[5] Kittusamy N.K., 2003, Self-Reported Musculoskeletal 

Symptoms Among Operators of Heavy Construction 

Equipment, Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress 

of the International Ergonomics Association, Seoul, South 

Korea, Aug. 24-29, www.iea.org. 

[6] Kittusamy N., 2002, Ergonomic Risk Factors: A Study of 

Heavy Earthmoving Machinery Operators. Professional 

Safety—Journal of the American Society of Safety 

Engineers, October, 38-45. 

[7] Bovenzi M. and Zadini A., 1992, Self-Reported Low 

Back Symptoms in Urban Bus Drivers Exposed to WholeBody Vibration, Spine 17(9):1048–1059. 

[8] Johanning E., 1991, Back Disorders and Health Problems 

among Subway Train Operators Exposed to Whole-Body 

Vibration. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment 

and Health 17(6):414–419. 

 

[9] Bongers P.M., Boshuizen H.C., Hulshof C.T.J., 

Koemeester A.P., 1988, Back Disorders in Crane 

Operators Exposed to Whole-Body Vibration, 

International Archives of Occupational and 

Environmental Health 60(2):129–137. 

[10] Bongers P.M., Hulshof C.T.J., Dijkstra L., 

Boshuizen H.C., Groenhout H.J., and Valken E., 1990, 

Back Pain and Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration in 

Helicopter Pilots, Ergonomics 33(8):1007–1026. 

 

[11] Seidel H. and Heide, R., 1986, “Long-Term Effects of 

Whole-Body Vibration: A Critical Survey of the 

Literature, International Archives of Occupational and 

Environmental Health 58, 1-26. 
[12] Griffin, M.J., Howarth, H.V.C., Pitts, P.M., Fischer, S., 

Kaulbars, U., Donati, P.M. and Bereton, P.F., 2006, Guide 

To Good Practice on Whole-Body Vibration. Non-binding 

guide to good practice with a view to implementation of 

Directive 2002/44/EC on the minimum health and safety 

requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the 

risks arising from physical agents (vibrations).

Luxembourg, European Commission, 65pp. (EU Good 

Practice Guide WBV, 6.7g). Available at: 

http://www.humanvibration.com/EU/VIBGUIDE/WBV%20Go

od%20practice%20Guide%20v6.7g%20English%200706

06.pdf

[13] Eger, T., Salmoni, A., Cann, A., and Jack R., 2006, 

“Whole-Body Vibration Exposure Experienced by Mining 

Equipment Operators. Occupational Ergonomics 6:3-4 

121-127.