Vibration and Noise of a Tracked Forestry Vehicle

Marsili, A.; Ragni, Luigi; Vassalini, G.

doi:10.1006/jaer.1998.0296

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Gellerstedt (2002), 4,000 control inputs per hour have to be carried out by the operator, due to the lack of automatic functions of the boom and harvester head. Despite the ergonomic design of the cabs, the operators of mobile machinery are exposed mainly to noise (Hansson 1990;Axelsson 1998;Marsili et al 1998;Nieuwenhuis, Lyons 2002;Messingerová et al 2005;Sümer 2006;Beuk et al 2007;Gerasimov, Sokolov 2009;Aybek et al 2010;Bilski 2013), whole-body vibrations (Boileau, Rakheja 1990;Burdorf, Swuste 1993;Magnusson et al 1993;Hansson 1995;Huston et al 1999;Hinz et al 2002;Paddan, Griffin 2002;Hostens, Ramon 2003;Chen et al 2003;Sherwin et al 2004a,b;Deprez et al 2005;Kolich et al 2005;Tiemessen et al 2007;Li et al 2008;Gerasimov, Sokolov 2009), microclimatic conditions -mostly temperature, and airflow velocity inside the cab (Gao, Niu 2004;Kaynakli, Kilic 2005;Huang et al 2006;Mezrhab, Bouzidi 2006;Cengiz, Babalik 2007;Farzaneh, Tootoonchi 2008;Kim et al 2009;Zhang et al 2009a,b;Alahmer et al 2011), and severe mental and sensory load (Axelsson, Pontén 1990;Poschen 1993;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Martin¹,

Messingerová²,

Ferenčík³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article was aimed at assessment of selected factors of the work environment, which influenced the operators of harvesters and forwarders. The selection of the work environment factors was based on a thorough literature survey. From the survey exposure to whole-body vibrations, noise (equivalent and peak), microclimatic conditions and mental load were selected for detailed observations. The measurements were conducted according to international standards and assessed according to European or national legislation. Subjective assessment of the effects of the work environment was conducted through a structured interview. The exposure to whole-body vibrations was 0.5 m·s -2 . The equivalent noise exposure was 78 dB, peak noise exposure was 130 dB. The average temperature inside the machine cabs was 17.9°C and average airflow velocity was 0.06 m·s -2 . Mental load was high according to the Meister questionnaire, three operators considered the load inadequate, two considered it adequate. Subjective assessment showed that operators considered other factors to be light or no load.Keywords: noise exposure; whole-body vibrations; microclimate; mental load Work environment is a set of all conditions in which workers carry out their work. It consists of all workers and factors present at the workplace, or of those who have to do with the work and influence the health or comfort of workers. The worker is exposed to many harmful factors which interact and their joint effect can be synergistic or complementary (Schwartz et al. 2013).Operators of multi-operational machinery carry out their tasks in ergonomically designed cabs capable of partial attenuation of noise and vibrations caused by the machine movement, driving gear, and working parts of the machine. Cabs are also equipped with air conditioning and glare reducing windows. Some factors (e.g. electromagnetic, ionising radiation, various chemical factors, or energy expenditure) do not apply to the jobs of multioperational machinery operators. Their assessment would only consume time with no significant effect on the overall outcome of the assessment. The nature of work in mechanized logging partially shifted from physical to mental after employment of multi-operational machinery. The need for muscular activity decreased and the need to stay concentrated and alert through long periods grew in importance. Harvester operators have to be able to process a lot of information, react quickly, and retain their concentration in monotonous, repetitive operations (Axelsson, Pontén 1990;Poschen 1993;Gellerstedt 1997;Gellestedt et al. 1999;Tsioras 2012). Operating the machines is quite demanding. According to Gellerstedt (2002), 4,000 control inputs per hour have to be carried out by the operator, due to the lack of automatic functions of the boom and harvester head. Despite the ergonomic design of the cabs, the operators of mobile machinery are exposed mainly to noise (Hans-

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Martin¹,

Messingerová²,

Ferenčík³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…side-to-side axes [3][4][5][6][7] . Table 1 lists examples of the frequency-weighted rms accelerations (a wx , a wy and a wz ) due to vibration transmitted along the fore-aft (x-), side-to-side or lateral (y-) and vertical (z-) axes of various industrial and heavy road vehicles, derived on the basis of W d -and W k -weighting filters defined in ISO 2631-1 8) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Absorption of Seated Occupants Exposed to Horizontal Vibration and Role of Back Support Condition

Rakheja¹,

Mandapuram²,

Dong

2008

Ind Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational off road vehicle drivers are exposed to considerable magnitudes of whole-body vibration (WBV), which is known to cause discomfort, annoyance, and several health and safety risks. Many studies have suggested strong association between the exposure to WBV and low back pain 1,2) . The vast majority of the studies on human responses to vibration have emphasized the exposure to vertical WBV, since heavy on-road and off-road vehicles are believed to transmit relatively higher magnitudes of vertical vibration than those along the other axes. Such vehicles, however, also transmit substantial magnitudes of horizontal vibration (HV) along the fore-aft and

show abstract

“…Translational seat-to-head transfer functions from Wilder et al [10], Paddan and Griffin [11,12], Wilder et al [13], Zimmerman and Cook [14] and Jack and Eger [15] were combined with the results in Table 2 and compared to field exposure data from Parsons, Whitham and Griffin [16], Village, Morrison and Leong [2], Marsili, Ragni and Vassalini [17], Kumar et al [18], Salmoni et al [19], Rehn et al [20], Cation et al [21] and Jack [22], to determine if the VICON 460 motion capture system could be used in transmissibility studies utilizing field exposures as inputs. Similarly, rotational seatto-head transfer functions from Paddan and Griffin [23] and Paddan and Griffin [24] were combined with the results in Table 4 and compared to field exposure data from Parsons, Whitham and Griffin [16], Cation et al [21] and Jack [22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a High Resolution Motion Capture System to Determine 6-DOF Whole-Body Vibration Accelerations

Jack

Oliver

Hayward

2013

Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehensive investigations of the human response to vibration require many markers, accelerometers, and electrodes. The use of multiple measurement systems can result in time intensive subject preparation, large memory requirements for data storage and processing, skin motion artifacts, and subject encumbrance. The purpose of this study was to determine if a VICON motion capture system could reliably and accurately measure translational and rotational acceleration levels produced by mobile machines, thereby eliminating the need for accelerometers and potentially minimizing the aforementioned problems. Simulating these vibration exposures in a laboratory, it was found that translational displacements ≥ 0.1 mm produced absolute peak and RMS average acceleration measurement differences less than 5% between the VICON system and an accelerometer. The absolute peak and RMS rotational accelerations determined by the VICON system and those produced by a PRSCO hexapodrobot differed by 5.44 ± 3.87% and 3.57 ± 2.44% respectively. Accounting for the vibration attenuation of the human body, the VICON system also appears well suited for determining 6-DOF acceleration levels in laboratory seat-to-head vibration transmission studies.

show abstract

Vibration and Noise of a Tracked Forestry Vehicle

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Energy Absorption of Seated Occupants Exposed to Horizontal Vibration and Role of Back Support Condition

Using a High Resolution Motion Capture System to Determine 6-DOF Whole-Body Vibration Accelerations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About