The effects of rivet guns on hand-arm vibration

Kattel, Bheem P.; Fernandez, Jeffrey E.

doi:10.1016/s0169-8141(98)00074-2

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study showed that a deviation from neutral wrist posture, which is defined as the riveter stands erect, arm adducted, 90° elbow flexion, forearm parallel to floor, and midpronated with wrist in neutral posture, significantly reduces the maximum acceptable task frequencies (a specification on the amount of riveting vibration should be received by the a riveting operator during a daily work load) 5 . Observations from Kattel and Fernandez’s 6 experiment also concluded that different wrist postures will dramatically affect the level of riveting vibrations into the riveter’s hands. To eliminate the possible misalignment between the rivet gun and the bucking bar during a riveting process, Cherng and Peng 7 designed a test fixture and measured continuous impact accelerations with sensors mounted on the rivet gun and bucking bar excluding any manual operations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…This conventional tool possesses the characteristics of fast installation rate and relatively low manufacture cost; nevertheless, most manufacturing procedures had not been numerically controlled and evaluated. Riveting work‐related injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and vibration white finger, in aircraft and other heavy vehicle industries 5–8 due to excess impacts, had been studied and analyzed by several researchers. Fredericks and Fernandez 5 mounted force sensors on the handle of a pneumatic gun, wrist, and forearm positions to collect impact vibration during a rivet process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality Verification on Riveting Process of a Pneumatic Rivet Tool

Wang

Chen

Hsu

2007

Experimental Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Verification on Riveting Process of a Pneumatic Rivet Tool

Wang

Chen

Hsu

2007

Experimental Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has been demonstrated that pneumatic riveting hammers can generate high magnitudes of impulsive vibrations (Dandanell and Engstrorn, 1986; Burdorf and Monster, 1991; McDowell et al ., 2012). These vibrations can be effectively transmitted to the hands and fingers of the riveting hammer and bucking bar operators (Kattel and Fernandez, 1999). Such hand-transmitted vibration (HTV) has been associated with the development of hand-arm vibration syndrome (Yu et al ., 1986; Griffin, 1990; Burdorf and Monster, 1991; McKenna et al ., 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory and Workplace Assessments of Rivet Bucking Bar Vibration Emissions

McDowell

Warren

et al. 2014

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sheet metal workers operating rivet bucking bars are at risk of developing hand and wrist musculoskeletal disorders associated with exposures to hand-transmitted vibrations and forceful exertions required to operate these hand tools. New bucking bar technologies have been introduced in efforts to reduce workplace vibration exposures to these workers. However, the efficacy of these new bucking bar designs has not been well documented. While there are standardized laboratory-based methodologies for assessing the vibration emissions of many types of powered hand tools, no such standard exists for rivet bucking bars. Therefore, this study included the development of a laboratory-based method for assessing bucking bar vibrations which utilizes a simulated riveting task. With this method, this study evaluated three traditional steel bucking bars, three similarly shaped tungsten alloy bars, and three bars featuring spring-dampeners. For comparison the bucking bar vibrations were also assessed during three typical riveting tasks at a large aircraft maintenance facility. The bucking bars were rank-ordered in terms of unweighted and frequency-weighted acceleration measured at the hand-tool interface. The results suggest that the developed laboratory method is a reasonable technique for ranking bucking bar vibration emissions; the lab-based riveting simulations produced similar rankings to the workplace rankings. However, the laboratory-based acceleration averages were considerably lower than the workplace measurements. These observations suggest that the laboratory test results are acceptable for comparing and screening bucking bars, but the laboratory measurements should not be directly used for assessing the risk of workplace bucking bar vibration exposures. The newer bucking bar technologies exhibited significantly reduced vibrations compared to the traditional steel bars. The results of this study, together with other information such as rivet quality, productivity, tool weight, comfort, worker acceptance, and initial cost can be used to make informed bucking bar selections.

show abstract

“…The biodynamic response can be described as through-the-hand-arm and to-thehand-arm response functions. The first approach describes the transmission of vibration to specific segments of the hand-arm system (Reynolds and Angevine, 1977;So¨rens-son and Lundstro¨m, 1992;Kattel et al, 1998), while the second approach relates the vibration in the vicinity of the hand to the force at the driving point, which has been used more widely. This function could be expressed as apparent mass (APMS) or driving-point mechanical impedance (DPMI) (Burstro¨m, 1990a, b;Janda´k, 1998;Cronja¨ger and Hesse, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%