standard test codes for the declaration of vibration emission: …vibration test codes investigated...
TRANSCRIPT
Standard test codes for the declaration of vibration emission: a review of research carried out by the Health and Safety Executive
Prepared by the Health and Safety Executive
RR1162 Research Report
© Crown copyright 2020
Prepared 2016 First published 2020
You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any fo rmat or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit ww w.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].
Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so can not be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected].
Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a painful and disabling disorder of the blood vessels, nerves and joints,
caused by exposure to hand transmitted vibration, often from using power tools. HAVS is preventable, but once
damage is done, it is irreversible.
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 require manufacturers to minimise machinery vibration risk and declare vibration emission. British standard test codes can
be used for this declaration. Manufacturers must provide in formation to enable risk from vibration (after minimisation by the manufacturer) to be assessed and e ffectively managed; they should draw attention to any gap between the risk indicated by the declared vibration e mission and the likely actual risk during use.
Th is report gives an overview of HSE research carried out up to 2013 to investigate vibration emission information from stan dard test codes for 31 different power tool categories.
R esults showed that vibration emission data measured according to the latest test codes are useful for identifying l ow or high vibration power tools in some, but not all, cases. Typically, in-use vibration is under-estimated, r endering the data unsuitable for risk assessment.
Employers and users of power tools should seek c orroboration of data they intend to use for risk assessment to assure the data are reliable for estimating hand-arm v ibration exposures.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or
conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not
necessarily reflect HSE policy.
2
Standard tLorem ipsum dest codes ofor tlor sithe de ametclaration of vibration
consectemission
etuer a: a revidipisciew ong f researcelit h car ried out by the Health and Safety Exec utive
Sue Hewitt and Paul Brereton Health and Safety Executive Harpur Hill Buxton Derbyshire SK17 9JN
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the help of all the power tool manufacturers who have provided
machines for our tests and provided advice and training on the use of their machines over the
years. We would like to thank the many organisations that have assisted us with the in-use
measurements of machines. We would also like to thank all our HSE colleagues for their advice
and support. Finally, the lead author would like to thank all colleagues, past and present, who
have worked on the various elements of these projects, for their individual contributions and for
all their hard work and enthusiasm.
4
KEY MESSAGES
Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a painful and disabling disorder of the blood vessels,
nerves and joints, caused by exposure to hand transmitted vibration, often from use of power
tools. HAVS is preventable, but once damage is done, it is irreversible.
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 require manufacturers to minimise
machinery vibration risk and declare vibration emission. Standard vibration test codes can be
used for this declaration. Manufacturers must provide information to enable risk from hand
transmitted vibration (after minimisation by the manufacturer) to be assessed and effectively
managed and draw attention to any gap between the risk indicated by the declared vibration
emission and the likely actual risk during use.
HSE research on thirty one vibration test codes carried out up until 2013 for a wide range of
power tools has shown that:
• Power tool vibration emission data measured according to the latest standard test codes
can be useful for identification of low or high vibration machines in some instances, but
not in others.
• The standard test codes have been developed as far as possible to reflect risk. However
due to the need to define repeatable and reproducible test conditions, they are not able
to reflect the full range of vibration magnitudes from the machines.
• Declared vibration emission data typically underestimate the in-use vibration and are
not suitable to use for workplace risk assessment.
Although power tool manufacturers have a duty to provide supplementary information on
residual risk when the declared emission value is inadequate, this information is often missing.
When the information is missing, duty holders should seek corroboration of any data they intend
to use for workplace risk assessment of power tools so that hand-arm vibration exposures are
not underestimated. Corroboration might be achieved by, for example, talking to manufacturers,
seeking advice from the Health and Safety Executive website, and checking databases and other
sources of in-use vibration magnitudes. Purchasers considering vibration when choosing
between tools should use manufacturers’ data with caution.
The report provides technical details of interest to standards makers and technical specialists
dealing with hand-arm vibration emission standards.
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 (referred to in this report as the Supply
Regulations) require manufacturers to minimise risks from machinery used in the workplace.
The regulations set essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) relating to the design and
construction of machinery; their purpose is to ensure that machinery is safe and is designed and
constructed so that the hazards associated with foreseeable use of the machine are controlled
throughout all phases of the machine's life.
Prolonged exposure to vibration transmitted to the hand can cause painful and disabling
disorders of the blood vessels, nerves and joints. These health effects are referred to as Hand
Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). HAVS is preventable, but once the damage is done, it is
permanent.
The Supply Regulations, and corresponding European legislation, require manufacturers to
minimise vibration risk and declare vibration emission and associated uncertainties in the
instructions and in any literature describing the performance characteristics of equipment.
Information warning about any residual vibration risk must be provided. This might be, for
example, if the declared vibration emission values under-estimate workplace risk under specific
operating conditions. The regulations also require instructions to be provided if specific actions
are required to control vibration risk, such as maintenance or operating methods.
Vibration test codes can be used by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the Supply Regulations. These should be designed to produce emission data
that enable manufacturers to comply with the regulations and enable authorities to verify that
vibration has been minimised. The same emission data should enable the employer to identify
and then select between high and low vibration risk machines and make an initial vibration risk
assessment for their workers.
Aims
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has carried out a programme of research, working with
manufacturers and developers of international standards to investigate and improve test codes
for vibration emission declaration and thereby improve the quality and usefulness of the
vibration emission data for power tools. This report, prepared in 2016, summarises the work and
the outcomes from the research programme carried out up until 2013. For each of the thirty one
vibration test codes investigated there were three main aims:
1. To assess the standard tests for usability, repeatability and, where possible,
reproducibility.
2. To compare vibration emission values with vibration magnitudes measured under real
operating conditions.
3. To produce information based on the research outcomes, so that HSE can better inform
users and suppliers of machines of the value of vibration emission data in terms of
estimating vibration risk.
To achieve these aims, the vibration emissions of samples of machines were measured
according to the provisions of each vibration test code under investigation. Further tests were
carried out to obtain in-use vibration magnitudes. The investigations allowed comparison of
HSE measured emission data with manufacturers’ declared emission data and both
manufacturers’ and HSE emission data with HSE in-use measurements.
6
Main Findings
HSE research pre 2001 showed that both manufacturers’ declared and HSE measured emission
data could be used to identify high or low vibration machinery. Many of the international
vibration test codes at that time stated that emission data could not be used for workplace risk
assessment.
Following the revision of the standard technique for assessment of vibration exposure in the
workplace in 2001, in the period of time up to 2009, considerable changes were made to
vibration test codes. Investigation of vibration test codes produced since 2009 showed that
vibration emission data were adequate for some, but not all machines, to identify high and low
vibration machines. According to the Supply Regulations, the data should also be suitable for
verifying that vibration risk has been minimised; HSE research showed that this is not always
the case.
The apparent weakening of the test codes’ ability to identify low and high vibration machines
may be due, in some cases, to general improvements in tool design making it less common for
tools to exhibit either extremely high or extremely low vibration. This explanation does not
however apply to all test codes investigated.
The implementation of the Supply Regulations, and changes in associated standards, clarified
that all emission data should be expressed in terms of vibration total values. The relationship
between measured vibration emission for the purpose of declaration, and that experienced by
operators during typical use has been improved since 2001 by making the following changes to
the vibration test codes:
• Changing from single axis to vibration total value measurement
• Introducing more realistic operations
• For some machines, requiring measurement at two hand positions.
Investigating vibration test codes produced after 2009 showed that despite some improvements,
there remains a substantial gap between the risk represented by manufacturers’ declared
emission values compared with the HSE in-use measurements of vibration. Where emission
data are not representative of risk, the Supply Regulations require manufacturers to provide
residual risk information for their power tools.
HSE found that of the test codes published since 2009, some produce vibration emission data
that over-predict vibration risk, some under-predict and a small proportion of the emission data
represent workplace vibration risk. Despite some improvements, the HSE measured emission
data based on vibration magnitudes and associated uncertainties, show that out of fourteen tool
categories investigated since 2009 only four (~29%) produce data representative of risk.
Manufacturers’ declared data showed only two categories (~14%) that represent risk.
Recommendations
Purchasers considering vibration when choosing between tools should use manufacturers’ data
with caution.
Employers and users of power tools should seek corroboration of data they intend to use for risk
assessment to assure the data are reliable for estimating hand-arm vibration exposures.
7
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................. 4
KEY MESSAGES............................................................................................... 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 6
CONTENTS........................................................................................................ 8
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 10 1.1 The EU Machinery Directive........................................................................................... 10 1.2 The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005....................................................... 11 1.3 Measurement of workplace exposures........................................................................... 12 1.4 Standards for declaration of vibration emission ............................................................. 12 1.5 Declaration of vibration emission ................................................................................... 13 1.6 Vibration emission studies at HSE ................................................................................. 14 1.7 Vibration emission studies by other researchers ........................................................... 15
2 GENERAL METHOD............................................................................. 16 2.1 Equipment ...................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Emission tests ................................................................................................................ 17 2.3 In-use measurements..................................................................................................... 17
3 RESULTS.............................................................................................. 19
4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 22 4.1 Results for test codes pre 2001...................................................................................... 22 4.2 Development of power tools and test codes since 2001................................................ 23 4.3 Documentation and verification of emission data........................................................... 29 4.4 Emission values as an indicator of risk .......................................................................... 29 4.5 Identification of low vibration machines.......................................................................... 46
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 48
6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 50
ANNEX A ......................................................................................................... 56 Individual results for each tool category ...................................................................................... 56 Angle grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995 [5] ............................................................................... 57 Demolition hammers - BS EN 28662-5:1995 [6] .......................................................................... 57 Road breakers - BS EN 28662-5:1995 [6] .................................................................................... 58 Chipping hammers - BS EN 28662-2:1995 [3] ............................................................................. 58 Rock drills and rotary hammers - BS EN 28662-3:1995 [4] ......................................................... 59 Impact drills - BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995 [7] ................................................................................... 59 Brush cutters – ISO 7916:1989 [62] .............................................................................................. 60 Rammers - BS EN ISO 8662-9:1996 [9]....................................................................................... 60 Die grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 [15] ............................................................................... 61 Impact wrenches - BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 [12].......................................................................... 61 Saws and files - BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 [14]............................................................................ 62 Sanders and Polishers - BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997 [13]................................................................. 62
8
Nibblers and shears - BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 [17] ................................................................... 63 Breakers - BS EN ISO 8662-5:1995 [6] ........................................................................................ 63 Cut off saws – BS EN ISO 1454:1997 [11].................................................................................... 64 Fastener driving tools – ISO 8662-11:1999 [63] ........................................................................... 64 Angle grinders - BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 [24]................................................................................ 65 Reciprocating saws - BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 [22]...................................................................... 65 Hammers - BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 [28] ........................................................................ 66 Lawn mowers - BS EN 836:1997 [10] ........................................................................................... 66 Hedge trimmers - BS EN ISO 10517:2009 [25] ............................................................................ 67 Drills – BS EN ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 [27] ....................................................................... 67 Scaling hammers and needle scalers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 [31]........................................ 68 Percussive drills, hammers & breakers – BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011 [34] .................................. 69 Stone hammers – BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011 [35]....................................................................... 70
ANNEX B ......................................................................................................... 71 Emission data as an indicator of real use risk............................................................................. 71
ANNEX C ......................................................................................................... 73 Emission values as indicators of risk - ratio graphs .................................................................... 73
9
1 INTRODUCTION
In 1989 a European Directive was introduced that, through the associated national legislation,
placed duties on manufacturers to minimise the risk from vibration and declare the vibration
emission values for their products (Machinery Directive 89/392/EEC)[39]. In 2002 a European
Directive on the control of risks from workplace exposures to vibration (Physical Agents
(Vibration) Directive 2002/44/EC)[40] stated that the information supplied by manufacturers may
be used for the assessment of vibration exposure.
Standardised methods for determining the vibration emission of powered hand-held tools have
been under development since the mid to late 1980s. Until the Machinery Directive 89/392/EEC
there was no requirement for declaration of vibration emission and until the Physical Agents
(Vibration) Directive 2002/44/EC, there was no requirement for declarations to represent
workplace vibration magnitudes.
During the development of the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive, the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) investigated the safety standards for some common machines to assess the
usefulness of vibration emission data. This work highlighted that in most cases, the vibration
emission data could not be used to estimate workplace vibration exposures. Since then, HSE has
carried out a programme of research, working with manufacturers and standards developers to
improve the test procedures for emission declaration and thereby improve the quality and
usefulness of the vibration emission data.
1.1 THE E U MACHINERY D IRECTIVE
The Machinery Directive seeks to eliminate or minimise risks from the use of machinery used in
the workplace by requiring that manufacturers address defined essential health and safety
requirements (EHSRs) relating to the design and construction of machinery. The purpose of the
EHSRs is to ensure that machinery is safe and is designed and constructed so that the hazards
associated with foreseeable use of the machine are controlled throughout all phases of the
machine's life.
The first version of the Machinery Directive was published in 1989 (89/392/EEC)[39] and was
transposed into United Kingdom (UK) legislation by the Supply of Machinery (Safety)
Regulations in 1992[74]. The third and most recent version of the Machinery Directive
(2006/42/EC)[41] included revisions to the requirements for reporting vibration emissions. It was
transposed in to UK legislation by the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008[75],
which came in to force on 29th December 2009. The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations
2008 (referred to in this report as the Supply Regulations), place duties on manufacturers (or
their authorised representatives) to identify the health and safety hazards (for example hand-
transmitted vibration) that are likely to be present when the machinery is used, to assess the
likely risks and if possible, eliminate them. For hand-transmitted vibration, the key requirements
of the Supply Regulations are:
• To reduce the vibration emissions to the lowest level taking account of technical
progress and the availability of means of reducing vibration, in particular at source.
• Where risks cannot be eliminated or sufficiently reduced, to provide safeguards or
information about residual risks and place signs on the machinery to warn of risks that
cannot be reduced in other ways.
10
• To provide, in the instructions accompanying the machine, information on how to
reduce risks, about residual risks and on vibration emissions, including the vibration
total value to which the hand-arm system is subjected together with the associated
uncertainty of measurement.
• To provide in any sales literature describing the performance characteristics of
machinery, the same information on vibration emissions as is contained in the
instructions.
To facilitate the process of vibration emission declaration, the European Committee for
Standardisation (CEN) was mandated by the European Commission to develop standardised
vibration test codes as EN Standards. Once an EN standard has been cited in the Official Journal
of the European Union (OJEU) and has been implemented as a national standard in at least one
Member State, the standard becomes a harmonised standard. Compliance with that standard
provides a presumption of conformity with the EHSRs of the Machinery Directive within the
limits of the scope of that standard.
It is not compulsory to use a test code from a harmonised standard to demonstrate conformity
with the Machinery Directive, but if relevant harmonised standards are not followed,
manufacturers (or importers) are obliged to prove their products conform to the EHSRs.
The purpose of a harmonised standard test code is to provide vibration emission values that are
consistent when repeated within the same test house (i.e. the results are repeatable) and are
consistent when the test is reproduced at another test house (i.e. the results are reproducible).
To achieve a repeatable and reproducible test, some standard tests are based on operations that
are quite different to real use of the machines.
1.2 THE C ONTROL OF VIBRATION AT WORK REGULATIONS 20 05
On 6th July 2002 the European Union published Council Directive 2002/44/EC[40] on the
minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising
from physical agents (vibration). The requirements of this Directive are implemented in Great
Britain as the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005[42].
The aim of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 is to control the risk to workers
from exposure to vibration. The Regulations define duties for employers based on an
assessment of vibration risk which usually requires an estimation of vibration exposure. This
estimation needs to be based on the magnitude of vibration emitted by machinery and
employers are directed to consider any information on vibration provided by the manufacturer
of the machinery. The use of reliable emission and other data from manufacturers can avoid the
time and cost of expensive measurement and, in most cases, should establish whether or not
exposures are likely to present a risk such that specific actions to control the risk are required.
If manufacturers’ declared emission data are to be used to estimate risk, the relationship
between the vibration emission values and the vibration likely to be experienced by the user is a
key concern. If the declared emission value is not a reasonable representation of the in-use
vibration, the daily vibration exposure estimated using the declared emission value may
significantly under- or over-estimate the actual exposure, leading to unsuitable actions by
employers. If the data are unreliable for indicating risk, they are also likely to be unreliable for
the purposes of comparing competing products on the basis of their vibration emissions.
11
1.3 MEASUREMENT OF WORKPLACE E XPOSURES
The earliest standards relating to hand-arm vibration were for evaluation of workplace exposure
to hand-arm vibration: ISO 5349:1986[61] and BS 6842:1987[1]. Both of these standards were
based on measurement of single, dominant axis (or highest axis) vibration value. ISO 5349:1986
was the basis for all international hand-arm vibration measurement standards, such as those for
vibration emission.
In 2001, ISO 5349:1986 was revised as BS EN ISO 5349-1:2001[18] which required triaxial
measurements of vibration and the use of the vibration total value to represent exposure. This
development reflected a growing recognition within the scientific community that single axis
measurements were inadequate for representing the risks associated with some types of
machinery, particularly those which had rotary action. The Physical Agents (Vibration)
Directive (2002/44/EC) references ISO 5349-1:2001 with regard to the assessment of exposure,
indicating the requirement for triaxial measurements when estimating exposure to hand-arm
vibration. The change in requirement for daily vibration exposure assessment to be based on
triaxial rather than single axis measurements was well established by the time the Physical
Agents (Vibration) Directive was published.
1.4 STANDARDS F OR DECLARATION OF VIBRATION EMISSION
1.4.1 Pneumatic powered machines
ISO 8662 part 1 was first published in 1988. It was adopted as a EN Standard in 1993 and
published in the UK as a British Standard, BS EN 28662-1:1993[2]. This standard, which only
applied to pneumatic machines, gave general guidance on how to carry out vibration emission
tests. Further guidance on the production of vibration emission test codes was provided by BS
EN 1033:1996[8]. BS EN 1033 and BS EN ISO 8662-1 were superseded by BS EN ISO
20643:2005[23].
The BS EN ISO (2)8662 series of standards gave emission declaration requirements in parts 2 to
14 for specific categories of pneumatic machine. These standards were published from 1994
onwards and were based on the guidelines in BS EN 28662-1.
BS EN ISO 20643, first published in 2005, gave guidance on production of vibration test codes
and introduced the requirement for triaxial vibration measurements in test codes. Prior to this,
emission test codes such as the BS EN 28662 series for pneumatic tools developed in the 1990s,
were based on single axis measurements in keeping with the first standards for workplace
assessment such as ISO 5349:1986. They also prescribed a single measurement point to
represent the hand location.
BS EN ISO 20643:2005 and all subsequent versions of this standard, specify that the declared
vibration emission value should reflect the upper quartile of the in-use vibration. The upper
quartile is the value in a range of data below which 75% of the range will lie. This guidance has
been followed by the standards committee responsible for development of the BS EN ISO
28927 series of vibration emission test codes, which replace the BS EN ISO 8662 series. The
28927 series has been generalised to apply (in principle) to all tools. The major improvements
to the BS EN ISO 28927 series of standards are that they:
• Require triaxial measurements and declaration of the vibration total value.
• Modify the BS EN ISO 8662 test conditions to give results that are more representative
of real work, in some cases.
12
• Require measurements at all relevant grip points and reporting of the highest vibration
values from all hand positions.
Based on the specification given in BS EN ISO 20643, the BS EN ISO 28927 series of
standards should produce vibration emission values that represent the likely vibration risk from
use of the machine.
1.4.2 Electrically powered machines
The first series of test codes for declaration of vibration emission from electrically powered
machines was the BS EN 50144 series, published in the 1990s. This series was subsequently
revised and published as the BS EN 60745 series. Like the BS EN ISO 28927 series, the
electrical tool standards have been improved. The BS EN 60745 series require triaxial
measurements, specify test conditions that give results more representative of real work in some
cases, and require measurements at relevant grip points and reporting of the highest vibration
values from all hand positions.
BS EN 60745-1 was first published in 2003[21] and it included the generic vibration test code for
electrical machines and performed a similar function to BS EN ISO 20643:2005, setting out the
basic requirements for all machine specific test codes. Further amendments were made to BS
EN 60745-1:2003. Changes were made in March 2007 (following the publication of Machinery
Directive 2006/42/EC), which included the requirement for all parts of the BS EN 60745 series
to obtain emission data from triaxial measurements. There was also a shift towards producing
data intended to reflect typical use in the various revisions of BS EN 60745-1. BS EN 60745
1:2003 specifically stated:
“…It is not intended that the values are used for assessment of human exposure to
vibrations…”
This statement was not included in BS EN 60745-1:2009[26]. Although the 2009 version did not
specifically state its intention was to generate declaration values that reflected the upper quartile
of in-use vibration, (which would align it to BS EN ISO 20643:2008[36]) it contained the
following statement:
“…Those operating conditions shall be used that are representative of the highest vibration
values likely to occur at typical and normal use of the machine under test…”
The BS EN 60745 series is now being revised in the BS EN 62841 series. BS EN 62841
1:2015[37] has now been issued; BS EN 60745-1:2009+A11:2010[32] will cease to provide a
presumption of conformity in February 2018. All other parts of BS EN 60745 series are being
replaced by the BS EN 62841 series and will cease to provide a presumption of conformity by
2019. The wording relating to the operating conditions in BS EN 62841-1:2015 is unchanged.
At the present time, the emission data generated by both electric and pneumatic machine test
codes should produce data that enable the manufacturer to verify that vibration has been
minimised. It should also enable the end user to identify and then select low vibration risk
machines and make an initial vibration risk assessment for their workers.
1.5 DECLARATION OF VIBRATION EMISSION
The declaration of vibration emission values is standardised under BS EN 12096:1997[16]. This
standard gives the following vibration related definitions:
13
• Measured vibration emission value, a, in m/s² — a value that represents the measured
vibration emission value of a single machine or the mean value of a reasonably large
sample from a batch of machines.
• Uncertainty, K, in m/s² — a value representing the measurement uncertainty of the
measured vibration emission value a, and also, in the case of batches, production
variations of machinery.
• Declared vibration emission value, a+K — the sum of the measured vibration
emission value, a, and its associated uncertainty, K. The sum of a and K indicates the
limit below which the vibration value of an individual machine, and/or a specified large
proportion of the vibration values of a batch of machines, are stated to lie when the
machines are new.
The declaration of both a and K values is specified in all of the revised test codes in the BS EN
60745 series and BS EN 62841 series for electrical machines and the BS EN ISO 28927 series
for hand-held portable power tools. This reflects the requirement in the current version of the
Machinery Directive, to provide both the vibration total value to which the hand-arm system is
subjected (a) and the uncertainty of measurement (K).
1.6 VIBRATION EMISSION STUDIES AT HSE
For a number of years, HSE has been investigating the relationship between the manufacturers’
declared vibration emission, the vibration emission measured by HSE under standard test
conditions, and the vibration, also measured by HSE, during typical use for different categories
of tool. The work started in 1995 with the first project looking at the then newly issued vibration
test code for angle grinders (BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995[5]). The project concluded that the
vibration emission as declared by the manufacturer or as measured according to the standard test
by HSE, related poorly to the data measured on the same machines under conditions of typical
use and that the test code could not reliably discriminate between high and low vibration
machines [51,48]. The subsequent investigations of other test codes in the BS EN ISO 8662 series
also indicated on the whole that vibration emissions did not provide a credible representation of
workplace vibration, although many test codes were found capable of discriminating between
higher and lower vibration machines [48,49,50,51].
This report describes studies carried out by HSE over a 20 year period to investigate the
effectiveness of vibration emission test codes in producing vibration information suitable for
risk assessment. For some machines, data are included from both the earlier versions and the
most up-to-date versions of the vibration test codes. This report, prepared in 2016, summarises
the findings from these HSE studies. Each study looked at test codes for determining the
vibration emission from a particular type of tool. For each test code investigated there were
three main aims:
• To assess the standard tests for usability, repeatability and where possible, for
reproducibility.
• To compare vibration emission values with vibration magnitudes measured under real
operating conditions.
• To produce information based on the research outcomes, so that HSE can better inform
users and suppliers of machines of the value of vibration emission data in terms of
estimating vibration risk.
14
To achieve these aims, the vibration emission of a sample of machines was measured according
to the provisions of the test code under investigation. Where possible, new machines were tested
as supplied by manufacturers. After completion of the HSE laboratory measurements of the
vibration emission, in-use measurements were made using the same machines and transducer
mounting locations in order to compare emission and in-use data.
BS EN ISO 5349 parts 1 and 2[18,19] specify the current method of measuring and assessing
workplace exposure to vibration. In BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001+A1:2015[19] the transducer
mounting locations continue to be defined in the centre of the gripping zone. This is different
from the location that has typically been defined in emission test codes since about 2003, which
tends to be the thumb/finger position. The thumb/finger position has been specified by standards
committees ‘for practical reasons’ according to BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 and because
it is perceived by some to be the point of maximum grip. BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001+A1:2015
acknowledges that this location has been chosen for emission tests, but states that ‘…it is not
invariably suitable for workplace exposure assessment’.
HSE investigated the influence of transducer mounting positions for some power tools. The
thumb/finger location was shown by HSE to give consistently lower vibration magnitudes than
the centre of the gripping zone for some tool types such as angle grinders fitted with standard
side handles [44] and some sanders [53]. For the purposes of comparing emission values and in-use
data, to avoid introducing a systematic error due to location, HSE used the mounting locations
specified in the test code for both emission and in-use measurements.
1.7 VIBRATION EMISSION STUDIES B Y OTHER RESEARCHERS
Other institutions have investigated the relationship between vibration emission and vibration
during typical use of power tools. Rimmel et al 2007[69] carried out many vibration
measurements for a wide range of power tools and concluded that, in general the manufacturers’
declared emission data tended to under-estimate the measured exposure. Also researchers at
NIOSH [38,65,66] carried out similar investigations. The most recent of these papers, McDowell et
al 2012 [66] describes measurements on riveting hammers; laboratory measurements on these
tools were considerably different to those measured in their field study, but that the rank orders
of the tools were fairly consistent.
15
2 GENERAL METHOD
2.1 EQUIPMENT
The vibration measurement technique described here is as used by HSE to investigate all
vibration emission test codes included in the research. Triaxial hand-arm vibration
measurements were made on each tool, at the hand locations defined in the vibration test code,
using three single axis piezoelectric accelerometers bolted to a mounting block. The blocks
were fixed to the tool handle(s) using either a plastic cable tie and tensioning gun system or
cyano-acrylate adhesive. Kennedy 1989[64] showed that both techniques provide a reliable,
repeatable fixing technique that does not have any significant influence on the vibration
measurement. Data from the accelerometers were collected and processed using a real-time
frequency analysis system giving frequency-weighted vibration total values for each
measurement location. Figure 1a shows a breaker set up for emission testing. Figures 1b and 1c
show examples of the configuration of accelerometers on the handles of a power tool. Figure 1d
shows a close-up of the test device for impactive tools known as a dynaload.
Figure 1a A breaker in 60 mm dynaload
Figure 1b Transducers fixed with cyano-acrylate adhesive
Figure 1c Transducers fixed with cable tie
16
Figure 1d Close-up of 60 mm dynaload at HSE
2.2 EMISSION TESTS
The emission test procedures vary from test code to test code, but all of them usually have the
same basic approach to obtaining data. The measurements are made on a new machine. Five
consecutive measurements are made for each of three operators on each tool at each
representative hand location. In the BS EN ISO 60745 series since 2006 and in the BS EN ISO
28927 series since 2009, the representative hand location is defined as the thumb/finger
position1. The overall arithmetic mean, a, is obtained from the mean vibration total values for
the three tool operators. A value for the individual tool deviation, K, is also calculated from the
variability of the measured vibration values and factors relating to the reproducibility of the test
code and the variability of tool. The K value was originally defined in BS EN 12096:1997[16], to
which the BS EN ISO 28927 series of test codes refer. It is also defined separately in BS EN
ISO 60745-1:2009[26] for electrical machines.
2.3 IN-USE M EASUREMENTS
Following the emission tests, in-use measurements were made on the same machines, using the
same accelerometer mounting locations. Operating conditions were chosen to represent typical
use of the tool under test.
For comparison purposes, the data were summarised in terms of the tool manufacturers’
declared vibration emission, the HSE measured vibration emission and the HSE measured in-
use vibration. BS EN ISO 20643 requires that test codes produce values indicative of the upper
quartile of real-world use, therefore in-use data are presented here as upper quartile values. For
1 Note: This is a deviation from the location defined in the 2005 version of BS EN ISO 20643[23]
in order to make the measurement location consistent with that used in the BS EN ISO 60745
series of test codes. This deviation is recognised in the introductions to the BS EN ISO 28927
series of test codes. In 2012, an amendment to BS EN ISO 20643 was produced to address this
discrepancy.
17
each test code investigated, the tools used were anonymised and assigned an alphabetic
identification.
18
3 RESULTS
The full results of the work for each tool HSE studied are given in individual HSE reports. The
tool categories HSE investigated and the corresponding HSE report references are:
1. Grinders (1996)[76,51]
2. Demolition hammers (1998)[77]
3. Road breakers (1998)[77]
4. Chipping hammers (1999)[48]
5. Rock drills and rotary hammers (2000)[50]
6. Impact drills (2000)[49]
7. Brush cutters (2001)[67]
8. Rammers (2001)[72]
9. Die grinders (2003)[60]
10. Impact wrenches (2003)[73]
11. Saws (2003)[52]
12. Nibblers and shears (2006)[70]
13. Sanders and polishers (2006)[53]
14. Breakers (2006)[54]
15. Cut-off saws (2007)[55]
16. Fastener driving tools (2007)[43]
17. Electric angle grinders (2009)[44]
18. Reciprocating saws (2009)[45]
19. Hammers (2010)[56]
20. Lawn mowers (2011)[46]
21. Hedge trimmers (2011)[47]
22. Drills and impact drills (2011)[71]
23. Needle scalers 2012)[57]
24. Chisel scalers 2012)[57]
25. Scabblers (2012)[57]
26. Percussive hammers (In press)[58]
27. Stone hammers (In press)[59]
Individual results obtained for each tool tested by HSE during the course of the research are
shown in Annex A.
Figures 2a and 2b summarise the data from 12 of the first 13 test codes HSE investigated. These
investigations pre-date the implementation of legislation that requires total values to be
measured. Data for rammers are not included in Figure 2 to allow for optimisation of the y-axis
scale because rammers have extremely high vibration magnitudes compared with other tools
(see Annex A). Brush cutters were studied by HSE as part of a different programme of work.
The available data have been included, i.e. manufacturers’ emission data and in-use data, but no
HSE measured emission data.
For this summary report, calculation of the upper quartile of in-use vibration for each tool has
been made using the ‘quartile.exc’ function in Excel, which is regarded as providing a better
representation of the quartile values, than the function available in excel prior to this and used in
the earlier research. This means that the upper quartiles reported here tend to be slightly higher
than those in some of the references and Annex A, where the calculation of the upper quartile
predates the use of this function in Excel.
19
Figure 2a Emission and in-use vibration for grinders, demolition hammers, road breakers, chipping hammers and rock drills and rotary hammers
20
Figure 2b Emission and in-use vibration for impact drills, brush cutters, die grinders, impact wrenches, saws, nibblers and shears and sanders and polishers
21
4 DISCUSSION
The review of studies of hand-arm vibration emission declaration over a period from the mid
1990s to the present day must take into account the changes that occurred during that period in
the underpinning standards, EU Directives and associated legislation. A key change was the
introduction of ISO 5349-1:2001[18]. This brought about the requirements to declare vibration
total values rather than single axis values and to consider both hand positions. Another
important change made later was the introduction of BS EN ISO 20643:2005[23], which
emphasised the need for test codes to produce declaration values which are indicative of real
use.
In this discussion, a distinction is made between results from standard test codes based on the
pre 2001 version of ISO 5349 and those developed since ISO 5349-1:2001 was published. It
should be noted that changes to test codes occurred gradually over a period of several years
following the introduction of ISO 5349-1:2001.
4.1 RESULTS FOR TEST CODES PRE 20 01
Figures 2a and 2b show that vibration emission values measured according to the early test
codes, such as the BS EN ISO 8662 series and the BS EN 50144 series dated 1995 to 1999,
whether measured by manufacturers or by HSE, did not, generally reflect the vibration that
operators would be exposed to under conditions of typical use. These figures show (with a few
exceptions) that the emission values tend to be at, or sometimes below, the bottom of the range
of in-use values. The main reasons for this include:
• Early test codes measured single axis values, whereas BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001[19]
required measurement of the vibration total value, which is the root-sum-of-squares of
all three orthogonal axes. When test codes specified single axis measurements they did
not always capture the direction of highest vibration, particularly for rotary machines
where the vibration tends not to have a single dominant axis.
• Some test codes only specified measurements at the hand position on the main handle
and ignored the support hand location, which was often the location of much higher
vibration magnitude.
Although the vibration emission magnitudes measured did not reflect the upper quartile in-use
vibration, early results did show that, in general, the emission values could be useful for
identifying which machines would be high vibration under conditions of typical use. The profile
of both the manufacturers’ and HSE measured emission test values tends to follow the profile
for the upper quartile of in-use data, although at lower magnitudes. The emission values also
give an indication of the state-of-the-art, in that they could be used to identify equipment with
much higher or lower vibration in comparison with similar machines. Those machines that
appeared to be outliers in terms of emission values also tended to be outliers in terms of in-use
values. It is worth noting that there was a wide range in vibration emissions between competing
tools at this time, which helped to make identification of high and low vibration tools
achievable.
Identification of the failings of the early vibration emission test was raised with the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Following this, CEN took action to prioritise revision of
the test codes.
22
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF POWER TOOLS AND TEST CODES SINCE 20 01
HSE has data for a number of different tools that allow a comparison between early and the
more recent versions of vibration test codes. These comparisons are shown in Figures 3 to 6.
The data were compared to investigate the extent to which changes in the test codes have
improved the likelihood that the emission value will reflect the upper quartile of in-use vibration
total value.
Figure 3 shows a detailed comparison of the results from the rock drills and rotary hammers
work of 2000[50] and the work on electric rotary hammers from 2010[56]. In 2000, the test codes
for pneumatic (BS EN 28662-3:1995[4]) and electric (BS EN 50144-2-6:2001[20]) rock drills and
rotary hammers were investigated. Both of these test codes specified the same method for
measuring vibration. They differed slightly in the way the vibration data were treated to derive
the mean a emission value. In 2010 only the newer electrical tool test code BS EN 60745
1:2009 was investigated. In Figure 3 the masses and power sources of the machines tested are
noted on the x-axis.
Figure 3 shows that the upper quartile in-use values (blue cross) for rock drills and rotary
hammers range from approximately 10 to 25 m/s² based on measurements made in accordance
with the test codes available in 2000 and 2010. The data also show that ranges of in-use
vibration were wider for tools tested in the 2010 than in 2000. The HSE measured emission data
(green triangle) are a better reflection of the in-use data in the 2010 research than the
manufacturers’ declared emission values. As the test code for these tools has always required
testing while drilling into concrete of a particular specification, the improvements in prediction
of the in-use values are most likely due to the conversion from single axis to total values and the
improved specification of measurement positions.
Manufacturers’ data provided with some of the rock drills and rotary hammers tested in 2012
were lower than the in-use data, with some big differences observed. This may reflect a delay
in conversion to total values on the part of some of the manufacturers. Although the HSE
research was published in 2010, machines were obtained for testing in 2007 and often the
handbook information was dated 2005 and therefore may reasonably be expected to be single
axis data. Handbooks should specify the operating conditions and measurement methods used.
This information can be provided by dated reference to the standard and part number used for
the declaration. In practice, information on the test code used (and its date) was rarely given, so
it was difficult to determine how any individual declaration value had been obtained.
23
Figure 3 Comparison of rotary hammers’ vibration data from 2000 [24] with that from 2010 [44]
24
Figure 4 Comparison of angle grinders’ vibration data from 1996 (electric and pneumatic) with that from 2009 (electric only) 25
Figure 5 Comparison of breakers’ vibration data from 1998 with that from 2006
26
Figure 6 Comparison of chipping hammers and demolition hammers’ vibration data from 1999 with that from 2015 27
Figure 4 is a comparison of data for angle grinders from 1996[51] and 2009[44]. It shows, with the
exception of one machine, that the typical range of in-use upper quartile values (indicated by a
blue cross) was 4 to 10 m/s² in 1996, compared with 6 to 10 m/s² in 2009. The improved
agreement shown in Figure 4 between HSE emission test and in-use data indicate the benefits of
moving from single axis to triaxial (vibration total value) measurements and the revised and
more precise specification of measurement positions. The changes to the vibration test code for
electric angle grinders in BS EN ISO 60745-2-3:2007[29] also included a modification to the
aluminium test wheel to have a depressed centre. This change caused a noticeable increase in
the measured magnitude of vibration in the HSE data compared with the flat wheel specified in
the 1995 version of the test code [5]. However, the data in Figure 4 show that the use of vibration
total value (solid green triangle) in place of single axis values (outline of black diamond) is the
most important factor in achieving an emission value that reflects the upper quartile of in-use
data for angle grinders. Both values were determined during the same measurements.
Figure 5 shows a comparison of the data HSE obtained for breakers in 1998[77] and 2006[54]. The
emission test from which both sets of data were obtained, used a steel ball energy absorber or
dynaload. The dynaload is an artificial test device, which is commonly used in vibration
emission tests for tools that have impactive action, such as road breakers. An example of a
dynaload can be seen in Figure 1d. When HSE tested breakers in both 1998 and 2006, the
current version of the test code was BS EN 28662-2:1995 [3] and most manufacturers provided
single axis emission data. Only the 32 kg breaker tested in 2006 was supplied with triaxial
emission data. Figure 5 shows that in 1998, most of the manufacturers’ emission data were near
the bottom or below the range of in-use vibration. The HSE measured emission data were closer
to the upper quartile than the manufacturers’ data for some breakers, but were still below the
upper quartile of in-use vibration. The HSE measured emission total values obtained in 2006
were closer to the upper quartile in-use vibration, but only reached or exceeded it for one of the
machines.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the data for chipping hammers obtained in 1999[48], pick
hammers obtained in 1998[77], and chipping and pick hammers obtained in 2015[58]. The
emission test for all these tools used the dynaload. In 1998 and 1999 the manufacturers’ data
were single all axis emission values. A mixture of emission data was provided with the tools
tested by HSE in 2015:
• The small pneumatic hammers and chipping hammers were provided with single axis
emission data, although the new harmonised test code introduced in 2010 required
triaxial measurements.
• The demolition hammers were provided with total values.
• No vibration emission information was provided with the 1.6 kg pneumatic hammer.
The HSE data reported in 1998 and 1999 were single axis emission values. Vibration total
values were reported in the 2015 study. All the in-use values in Figure 6 are vibration total
values.
The ranges of in-use values for most of the tools HSE tested in 2015 were very wide, being at
least 20 m/s² for four of the six tools tested. This wide range highlights the variability of the in-
use vibration for tools of this type. The HSE measured emission values are consistently at the
bottom or below the range of in-use vibration. The manufacturers’ declared emission values and
the HSE measured emission values shown in Figure 6 are, in almost all cases, below the upper
quartile of in-use vibration, regardless of whether they were single axis (1998 and 1999) or
28
total value emission data (2015). The reason vibration emission data do not represent in-use
values for chipping and pick hammers is likely to be the continuing use of the dynaload for
measurement of emission data. The dynaload does not produce vibration emission data that
represents the upper quartile of in-use measurements for these impactive tools.
4.3 DOCUMENTATION AND VERIFICATION OF EMISSION DATA
In 2009 the Supply Regulations, which implemented the requirements of the Machinery
Directive 2006/42/EC[41], required triaxial vibration measurements. Consideration of the test
codes investigated since 2009 shows no obvious improvement in the ability of manufacturers’
data to predict vibration risk. However, manufacturers’ data for the tools tested at that time may
have been produced according to superseded test codes. The date of the test code used by
manufacturers was not always easy to establish. HSE observed that manufacturers did not
typically report the full details of the test code used (including the standard part number and
date) with the vibration emission values, even though the Supply Regulations require
manufacturers to provide details of operating conditions during measurements and measurement
method. Consequently, users cannot assume that the declared emission value has been
determined with the latest version of the test code. Due to lack of clarity of the precise date and
part number of the test code, it has been difficult, in some instances, for HSE to be certain
whether data presented is single axis or vibration total value.
All vibration declarations made after December 2009 should be based on triaxial measurements.
Instruction manuals supplied with tools should include details of the operating conditions during
measurements and the measurement methods used. This can be achieved by referencing an
appropriate harmonised vibration test code, including the relevant part number and date. HSE
research since 2009 showed that there were very few examples of tools for which direct
comparisons could be made between HSE measured and manufacturers’ declared emission data.
Manufacturers’ declared emission data and HSE measured emission data were compared for
each test code investigated for verification according to BS EN 12096:1997[16]. Discussion of
the findings typically requires details of the declaration and the specific test method and
therefore is beyond the scope of this summary report. The individual research reports contain
details of the comparisons made and the outcomes. For the test codes investigated since 2009,
out of a total of 88 possible comparisons, there were 45 positive verifications, just over 50%.
4.4 EMISSION VALUES AS AN INDICATOR OF RISK
4.4.1 Review of all data
One of the requirements of the Supply Regulations is that the manufacturer should report the
vibration risk. The principal indicator of risk is the declaration value and if it reflects in-use
vibration magnitudes, then the declaration value may be regarded as an adequate indicator of the
vibration risk. BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 [36] and previous versions since 2005, requires
that the emission value should represent the upper quartile of in-use vibration magnitudes.
Fulfilment of this requirement should increase the chance of manufacturers’ emission
declarations fulfilling the requirement of the Supply Regulations to report vibration risk.
The results from the thirty-one test codes HSE investigated are summarised in Table 1 to show
the ability of emission data to reflect in-use vibration risk. The data in Table 1 are also
displayed in bar charts in Annex B. The table shows the percentage of tools tested for which the
HSE measured emission value and the manufacturers’ declared vibration emission represents
the upper quartile of in-use vibration. The data in Table 1 are divided into two parts, dependent
29
upon whether the HSE emission data used for the comparison are single axis or vibration total
value.
Table 1 Summary of results
Power tool category Test code(s) No. of
tools
tested
% cases for
which HSE
emission
reflects or
exceeds in-use
upper quartile
% cases for
which
manufacturer’s
emission
reflects or
exceeds in-use
upper quartile
a a+K a a+K
HSE emission tests are single axis
Electric and pneumatic
grinders
BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995 and
BS EN 50144-2-3:1995
10 0 20 0 20
Demolition hammers BS EN 28662-5:1995 5 20 20 20 60
Road breakers BS EN 28662-5:1995 11 9 27 9 18
Chipping hammers BS EN 28662-2:1995 12 8 8 0 17
Rock drills and rotary
hammers
BS EN 28662-3:1995
BS EN 50144-2-6:1997
7 0 0 0 43
Impact drills BS EN 50144-2-1:1995
BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995
7 0 14 0 43
Brush cutters ISO 7916:1989 6 N/A N/A 17 67
Pneumatic rammers BS EN ISO 8662-9:1997 6 67 100 50 83
Electric rammers BS EN 50144-2-6:1997 2 0 50 50 50
Die grinders BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 7 0 0 0 0
Impact wrenches BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 7 14 29 14 14
Saws and files BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 6 50 67 17 50
Breakers BS EN 28662-5:1995 5 0 40 0 20
Sanders and polishers
(pneumatic)
BS EN 60745-2-4:2003 10 0 0 10 20
Sanders and polishers
(electric)
BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997 3 33 100 0 0
Nibblers and shears BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 and
BS EN ISO 60745-2-8:2003
7 14 14 0 0
Cut-off saws BS EN ISO 1454:1997 3 33 33 0 67
Fastener driving tools ISO 8662-11:1999 11 18 18 36 100
HSE emission tests are total values
Angle grinders BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 5 60 80 0 0
Reciprocating saws BS EN 60745-2
11:2003+A11:2007
4 0 25 0 0
Hammers (in dynaload) BS EN 60745-2-6:2003
+A2:2009
20 45 65 0 25
Hammers (in concrete) 13** 50 83 15 23
Lawn mowers BS EN 836:1997 4 25 50 25 25
Hedge trimmers BS EN ISO 10517:2009 4 100 100 0 100
30
Power tool category Test code(s) No. of
tools
tested
% cases for
which HSE
emission
reflects or
exceeds in-use
upper quartile
% cases for
which
manufacturer’s
emission
reflects or
exceeds in-use
upper quartile
a a+K a a+K
Drills, impact in concrete BS EN 60745-2-1:2003
+A1:2009
5 80 100 40 80
Drills, non-impact in
metal
5 40 60 80 80
Needle scalers BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 9 11 33 22 33
Chisel scalers 6 17 17 0 0
Scabblers 4 75 100 50 50
Percussive hammers (in
dynaload)
BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011 8 0 25 25 25
Percussive hammers (in
concrete)
1 100 100 100 100
Stone hammers BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011 4 25 25 25 75
**Only 12 tools were tested
The a emission value is the value expected to reflect the upper quartile in-use vibration
according to in BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A12:2012. The K value represents the uncertainty of
the emission test. The a+K value is used to verify the declared vibration emission values stated
by the manufacturer according to BS EN 12096. To verify a declaration the verifier’s measured
a value should be below the declarer’s a+K value2. It is also reasonable to expect that in most
cases the in-use vibration would be below the a+K value if the standard test achieves the
objective to represent the upper quartile of in-use vibration magnitudes in BS EN ISO
20643:2008+A12:2012. The data presented in Table 1 and Annex B show that frequently this is
not the case. Despite improvements made to the vibration test codes, of the fourteen tool
categories (covered by nine test codes) investigated by HSE since 2009 only four categories
(~29%) produce data representative of vibration risk when HSE’s measured a+K data are
considered. Only two categories (~14%) of tools produce vibration emission data that represent
risk when manufacturers’ declared a+K data are considered. These overall findings lead to the
conclusion that emission data may need to be supplemented with additional information to
enable operation, adjustment and maintenance without putting persons at risk from vibration.
The relationships between emission values and the upper quartiles of the in-use values are
shown in Figures 7 to 14. These figures show data determined using the test codes investigated
since 2009. In the figures, the a emission values are plotted on the y-axis with the vertical error
bars indicating the K value. The upper quartile of in-use values for the same machines are
plotted on the x-axis with the error bars indicating the upper and lower bounds of the 95%
confidence interval. Confidence intervals were estimated using the binomial method. This
statistical analysis was carried out using Stata/MP 14.1 for Windows. The position of the data
points in Figures 7 to 14 in relation to the reference line, shown in each figure as a bold
diagonal line, indicates the following:
2 Details of this comparison for each tool type and descriptions of the findings are contained in the individual
references, but are beyond the scope of this report.
31
• If the a emission value and the upper quartile value are the same, the points will lie on
the 45 degree reference line.
• If the a emission is greater than the upper quartile in-use value, the data points will be
above the reference line.
• If the a emission value is lower than the upper quartile, the points will lie below the
reference line.
The data have been plotted for both manufacturers’ declared emission values (red data points)
and for HSE measured emission values (green data points). Where data points frequently
overlie, data have been presented in two graphs, the graph on the right representing the
comparison for manufacturers’ declared emission values and the graph on the left representing
the comparison for HSE measured emission values. Each figure shows tools covered by the
same test code, but which may have different applications.
The data presented in Figures 7 to 15 have also been plotted as the ratio of the a emission values
to upper quartile of in-use vibration in the figures in Annex C to aid interpretation of the data.
32
Figure 7a and 7b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for hammers
33
Figure 8a and 8b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for percussive hammers
34
Figure 9 Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for stone hammers
35
Figure 10a and 10b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for rotary hammers
36
Figure 11a and 11b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for reciprocating saws
37
Figure 12 Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for lawn mowers
38
Figure 13 Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for hedge trimmers
39
Figure 14a and 14b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for drills in concrete and metal
40
Figure 15a. Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for needle scalers
41
Figure 15b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for chisel scalers
42
Figure 15c Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for scabblers
43
4.4.2 Emission tests on hammers using a dynaload
Figure 7 shows the manufacturers’ a emission values (red markers) and the HSE a emission
values (green markers) plotted against the upper quartile in-use vibration for electric hammers
tested in the dynaload in 2010. Figure 7a shows that none of the manufacturers’ a emission
values reached the upper quartile of in-use values. Taking account of the K value and the 95%
confidence interval for the upper quartile, as shown by the vertical and horizontal error bars
respectively, the manufacturers’ data achieved the upper quartile for six of the twenty machines
tested (30%).
In contrast to the manufacturers’ data, the higher a emission values determined by HSE, shown
in Figure 7b, tended to exceed the measured upper quartile in-use vibration magnitudes. The
HSE data show that the emission test is not adequate for representing the in-use vibration of all
the hammers covered by BS EN 60745-2-6:2010 [33]. The hammers test code both over- and
under-estimates the in-use vibration. Any changes aimed at improving the emission values for
hammers that have lower measured emissions, which under-estimate risk, might result in
emission values that considerably over-estimate the risk for other tools. The challenge of
developing a vibration test code capable of producing reliable information for all machines in a
category appears to be unachievable using the current approach for hammers.
The absolute values of the HSE measured emissions and upper quartile in-use vibration for
electric hammers can also be seen in Figure 7b. The HSE emission values are in the range ~3 to
27 m/s² whereas the upper quartile in-use vibration covers a much narrower range from ~10 to
20 m/s². This suggests that the emission test using the dynaload may be sensitive to differences
in the vibration performance of the tool, which are not significant in normal use.
The data in Figure 8a for pneumatic hammers shows that manufacturers’ emission data,
determined from tests using the dynaload, mostly under-estimated in-use vibration. Only one of
the HSE measured emission values in Figure 8b reached the upper quartile of in-use vibration.
For six of the eight tools tested by HSE, the ratio of a emission to upper quartile in-use vibration
was 0.4 or less (as shown in Annex C, Figure C2b), indicating that the emission value fell short
of the upper quartile in-use vibration by around 60%.
Figure 9 shows the relationship between emission and in-use data for four stone hammers. One
of the tools was not supplied with emission data. For two of the other three, it was not clear how
the emission data had been measured. It was therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the
usefulness of the manufacturers’ data for stone hammers. HSE emission data were determined
in accordance with the current version of the vibration test code for stone hammers. Previous
versions had used a dynaload whereas in the current version the stone hammer is used to carve
stone. Figure 9 shows that HSE emission data were no more successful than the manufacturers’
data at reflecting the upper quartile of in-use values, despite use of real use operating conditions.
The HSE interpretation and application of vibration test codes using the dynaload has resulted
in emission values that provide a better indication of the vibration risk than the manufacturers’
data, as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. The large differences between the emission values
determined by manufacturers and by HSE have not been explained, although they may be due to
different interpretation or application of the standard test.
44
4.4.3 Emission tests on rotary hammers
Figures 10a and 10b show the a emission plotted against the upper quartile in-use vibration for
rotary hammers tested while drilling into concrete. For this tool category and test method, the
manufacturers’ a emission data, shown in Figure 10a, only reached the in-use upper quartilefor
two of the twelve tools (~17%). However, in Figure 10b, the HSE a emission data for six of the
twelve tools (50%) reached or exceeded the upper quartile and the emission values for another
two tools were within 4%. Of the remaining four rotary hammers, the HSE a emission value
fell short of the upper quartile in-use value by less than 20 % (Annex C, Figure C3b).
Of the twelve tools tested at HSE as rotary hammers, drilling in to concrete, ten tools also had
hammer only action and were also tested as hammers in the dynaload (data shown in Figure 7b).
When tested as rotary hammers the emission test produced emission values that were
representative of risk. When the same tools were tested in the dynaload, the test did not produce
values that represented risk. This indicates that, for this tool type, if the test is carried out during
actual use of the tool, it is possible for the emission data to represent the upper quartile of in-use
vibration.
Manufacturers’ data for rotary hammers obtained according to the latest test code did not
represent vibration risk, whereas the HSE emission data also determined using the new test code
produced data that closely represented vibration risk. No explanation has been found for this
anomaly. It is possible that the use of HSE measurement instrumentation and techniques, for
both emission tests and in-use measurements, may tend to reduce sources of variability between
HSE data that may exist between HSE’s and those of manufacturers. However, the full reasons
for inconsistency between HSE measured emission data and manufacturers’ data for some tool
categories are not clear.
4.4.4 Emission tests for other tool categories
Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14 show the a emission plotted against the upper quartile in-use vibration
for reciprocating saws, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, and drills. The data in these figures show
that manufacturers’ emission values generally do not reflect the upper quartile of in-use
vibration. The HSE measured emission provided a better representation, particularly for hedge
trimmers and drills in concrete, with a small number of exceptions. The emission test procedure
for drills involves drilling into concrete and/or metal. The data in Figure 14 may suggest that
realistic operating conditions specified in a emission test code will produce emission values that
are representative of real use vibration magnitudes. However, it is not always the case that a test
code based on a realistic work operation will produce better data than a test using an artificial
test operation. For example, hedge trimmers are tested when free running and yet all of the HSE
emission data, shown in Figure 13, were representative of risk. Lawn mowers are tested while
stationary and not cutting grass, shown in Figure 12. Despite the artificial test conditions, two of
the four HSE measured emission values reached, or almost reached, the real use upper quartile
values. The test for reciprocating saws, on the other hand, is based on realistic operation, yet
none of the a emission values shown in Figure 11b reached the upper quartile in-use vibration.
Figures 15a, 15b and 15c show the a emission data plotted against the in-use upper quartile for
needle scalers, chisel scalers and scabblers. Five of the six tools tested as chisel scalers, had dual
function and could also be used as needle scalers. The current test for these tools, BS EN ISO
28927-9:2009 [31] is based on a realistic operation, however most of the manufacturers’ data had
been measured according to the previous version of the test code using a dynaload. One tool
was not supplied with any vibration emission information. The manufacturers’ emission data for
45
needle and chisel scalers were generally less than 60% of the upper quartile in-use values (as
shown in Figure C5a, Annex C).
The in-use vibration data for some of the tools, for example, one reciprocating saw in Figure
11a and 11b and one chisel scaler in Figure 15b, show a very large spread as indicated by the
long confidence lines. When there are big differences in the measured in-use vibration for some
machines in a class, due to external influencing factors, it increases the challenge for the
emission value to reflect the upper quartile of in-use vibration. For some test codes, such as
needle scalers and chisel scalers, it was clear that most manufacturers were testing according to
the old vibration test code and this clearly influenced the outcome of the comparisons. However
one needle scaler manufacturer had declared emission values for two needle scalers according to
the latest version of the test code. Data from these two tools can be seen in the bottom left of
Figures 15a and 15b for both manufacturers’ and HSE emission data, showing two clear
examples of low-vibration needle scalers. In this case, the manufacturer’s declared emission,
HSE measured emission and in-use vibration values all agree. This implies that, for these tools
at least, it is possible to create a reproducible test code that produces emission data
representative of vibration risk.
The HSE measured emission values for six of the nine needle scalers tested were at or within 20
% of the upper quartile in-use value (as shown in Figure C5b, Annex C). Testing the tools as
chisel scalers did not produce emission data that represented in-use risk so successfully. This
may have been due to a literal interpretation of the test procedure, operating the chisel
perpendicular to the work surface, which adversely affected the emission test results.
Subsequent discussion with the standard’s authors suggests that HSE’s interpretation of the
angle of operation was not what had been intended. The HSE measured emission data obtained
for scabblers provided an adequate representation of in-use risk as shown in Figure 15c.
The research described in this summary report has shown that despite improvements, the use of
manufacturers’ data for risk assessment may result in an under-estimate of vibration risk. If
manufacturers do not provide supplementary information to help users carry out a risk
assessment, employers will need to find an alternative source of information on in-use vibration
magnitudes. HSE is aiming to make in-use vibration data available, as for example in the recent
publication by Pitts and Brereton[68], to help employers assess and manage vibration risk
effectively. Comparing data from at least two sources and seeking an explanation of any
inconsistent vibration magnitudes can increase your confidence in the quality or relevance of
available vibration magnitude information. Vibration magnitudes can be higher or lower than
the values indicated and you should make allowance for this when estimating vibration risk.
For example, if your estimated exposures are approaching the exposure action value you should
assume that the exposure action value is likely to be exceeded.
4.5 IDENTIFICATION OF LOW VIBRATION MACHINES
Research carried out by HSE before 2001 suggested that vibration emission data could be used
to identify low and high vibration tools and therefore was suitable to inform purchasing
decisions. Manufacturers’ declared vibration emission values should now include both a and K
values. The K value gives an indication of the uncertainty in the a value. The K value can be
added to the a emission value when potential purchasers compare like tools within a class. HSE
Guidance[42] which was based on the early HSE research, says that the difference between two
tools is not considered significant if it is smaller than one of the quoted K values.
The HSE measured emission values determined since 2009 (see Annex A) sometimes follow the
profile of the upper quartile of in-use vibration, for example in the case of angle grinders and
46
scabblers. At other times the HSE emission values follow the profile, although at a lower level,
for example in the case of reciprocating saws and needle scalers. For some tool categories, for
example chisel scalers, the data was scattered and suggested there was no relationship between
the HSE emission values and the upper quartile in-use values. A comparison of HSE and
manufacturers’ emission data showed that, with a few exceptions such as chisel scalers, the
manufacturers’ emission data followed a similar trend to the HSE emission data, although
usually at a lower level. These results suggest that for some tool categories, purchasers may be
able to use the emission data determined using vibration test codes after 2009 to compare
competing tools in a class and make informed choices about the vibration risk for potential
purchases, but for other categories, they may not.
In the recent research carried out by HSE, some of the test codes investigated covered more than
one type of tool and sample sizes were limited and typically too small to allow specific
recommendations to be made. HSE research suggests that vibration test codes pre 2001
produced emission data that could identify low and high vibration machines more successfully
than more recent test codes. Initial views were that this finding was due to a general
improvement in tool design, making it less common for tools to exhibit either extremely high or
extremely low vibration. However, the data in Figures 3 to 6 do not support this, as the typical
in-use vibration magnitudes are not reduced.
BS EN 60745-2-6:2010[33], which applies to electric hammers, is an example of a test code that
both over- and under-estimates the in-use vibration depending on what class of tool is tested.
HSE tested a large sample of hammers, but they were split into several subcategories due to the
different masses of the tools. This made it difficult to draw conclusions about the ability of the
test to identify low or high vibration tools. The range of HSE measured emission values for
hammers tested in the dynaload (seen in Figure 7b) was much greater than the range of in-use
values suggesting that the emission test results were influenced by differences that did not
persist during the in-use measurements. Any changes aimed at improving the test code to give a
better outcome for tools that have lower measured emissions, and which under-estimate
vibration risk, might cause the same test to considerably over-estimate the risk for other tools
also covered by the test code. It may be that the challenge of producing an adequate test for all
machines in a category is not always achievable.
The use of artificial test methods, such as using a dynaload, appears to be responsible for lack of
successful risk representation for many tools within the hammers category, both electric and
pneumatic. However, it is not always the case that an artificial test causes under-estimates of the
in-use vibration, as shown for example in the free-running test for hedge trimmers. Conversely
tests that are based on real use are not necessarily guaranteed to reflect risk, as shown in the
case of reciprocating saws.
47
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 requires:
• Minimisation of vibration through design and construction.
• Declaration of the vibration emission and its uncertainty in the instructions and in
literature describing the performance of equipment.
• Information warning about any residual vibration risk.
• Instructions to be provided if there are specific actions required to control vibration risk
such as maintenance or operating methods.
Compliance with all the vibration requirements of the Supply Regulations using the latest
versions of emission test codes should provide the user with sufficient and suitable vibration
information to make informed choices about potential purchases. It should also allow them to
carry out an initial risk assessment to estimate the extent of the vibration risk from use of the
machine, such that they can plan for use of the machine without risk from vibration.
HSE research pre 2001 showed that manufacturers’ declared emission data could be used to
identify high or low vibration machinery, which would help users to purchase low vibration
tools. Many harmonised standards at that time stated that emission data could not be used for
risk assessment.
Vibration test codes have changed since 2001. They now require total vibration values rather
than single axis values and for some tools more realistic operations and measurements at two
hand positions. These changes have improved the potential for emission data to predict
vibration risk and this is reflected in the HSE emission data which are no longer typically below
the range of in-use vibration values as was the case for pre 2001 test codes.
The vibration declarations obtained according to test codes after 2009 should be vibration total
values. HSE research on test codes produced since 2009 showed that while some of these test
codes may be able to identify low and high vibration machines, others may not.
Some test codes provide emission values that reflect vibration risk while others do not. Some
test codes provide emission values that allow tools to be correctly ranked according to in-use
vibration risk while others do not. The data presented here also suggest that the challenge of
developing a test code capable of producing reliable information for all machines in a class is
unachievable for some tool types. These findings mean that it is not possible to provide generic
guidance on the use of vibration emission data for the purpose of assessing and managing
vibration risk.
The data from the HSE research show that for many tools a substantial gap remains between the
vibration emission values determined using an appropriate test codes and the upper quartile of
the vibration magnitudes measured during typical use. As a consequence, manufacturers should
consider what residual risk information they need to provide for power tool users to ensure that
work can be planned so that will be without risk from vibration. Manufacturers have a duty to
provide supplementary information where necessary. This information must be sufficient to
alert the user of the gap between the risk as indicated by the declared emission values and the
likely risk during real use.
48
In the absence of residual risk information, manufacturers’ data should be supplemented with
other available data on the vibration from use of tools under typical operating conditions. This
might be achieved by, for example, talking to manufacturers, seeking advice from the HSE
website and checking databases and other sources of real use vibration magnitudes.
HSE has published tables of information that can be used to plan for use of power tools without
vibration risk. Comparing data from at least two sources and seeking an explanation of any
inconsistent vibration magnitudes can increase confidence in the quality or relevance of
available vibration magnitude information. Vibration magnitudes can be higher or lower than
the values indicated and allowance should be made for this when estimating vibration risk.
49
6 REFERENCES
1. British Standards Institution. BS 6842:1987 Guide to measurement and evaluation of
human exposure to vibration transmitted to the hand. London: British Standards
Institution.
2. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-1:1993. Hand-held portable power tools –
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. London: British Standards Institution.
3. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-2:1995. Hand-held portable power tools –
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Pavement breakers and hammers for
construction work. London: British Standards Institution.
4. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-3:1995 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Rock drills and rotary hammers. London:
British Standards Institution.
5. British Standards Institution BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995 Hand-held portable power tools –
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Part 4. Grinders. London: British Standards
Institution.
6. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-5:1995 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Pavement breakers and hammers for
construction work. London: British Standards Institution.
7. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Impact drills. London: British Standards.
8. British Standards Institution. BS EN 1033:1996 Hand-arm vibration – Laboratory
measurement of vibration at the grip surface of hand-guided machinery – General.
London: British Standards Institution.
9. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-9:1996. Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Rammers. London: British Standards
Institution.
10. British Standards Institution. BS EN 836:1997 Garden equipment. Powered lawnmowers.
Safety. London: British Standards Institution.
11. British Standards Institution. BS EN 1454:1997 Portable, hand-held, internal combustion
cutting-off machines. Safety. London: British Standards Institution.
12. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Wrenches, screwdrivers and nut runners with
impact, impulse or ratchet action. London: British Standards Institution.
13. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Polishers and rotary, orbital and random orbital
sanders. London: British Standards Institution.
50
14. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Saws and files with reciprocating action and
saws with rotating or oscillating action. London: British Standards Institution.
15. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Die grinders. London: British Standards
Institution.
16. British Standards Institution. BS EN 12096:1997 Mechanical vibration - Declaration and
verification of vibration emission values. London: British Standards Institution.
17. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 Hand-held portable power tools.
Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Nibblers and shears. London: British Standards
Institution.
18. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 5349-1:2001 Mechanical vibration - Guidelines
for the measurement and assessment of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration.
Part 1. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.
19. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001+A1:2015 Mechanical vibration
Guidelines for the measurement and assessment of human exposure to hand-transmitted
vibration. Part 2. Practical guidance for measurement at the workplace. London: British
Standards Institution.
20. British Standards Institution. BS EN 50144-2-6:2001 Safety of hand-held electric motor
operated tools. Particular requirements for hammers. London: British Standards
Institution.
21. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-1:2003 Hand-held motor-operated electric
tools. Safety. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.
22. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 Hand-held motor-operated electric
tools. Safety. Particular requirements for reciprocating saws (jig and sabre saws).
London: British Standards Institution.
23. British Standards Institution.BS EN ISO 20643:2005 Mechanical vibration - Hand-held
and hand-guided machinery - Principles for evaluation of vibration emission. London:
British Standards Institution.
24. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 Hand-held motor-operated electric
tools. Safety. Particular requirements for grinders, polishers and disk-type sanders.
London: British Standards Institution.
25. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 10517:2009 Powered hand-held hedge
trimmers. Safety. London: British Standards Institution.
26. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-1:2009 Hand-held motor-operated electric
tools. Safety. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.
27. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 Hand-held motor-
operated electric tools. Safety. Particular requirements for drills and impact drills.
London: British Standards Institution.
51
28. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 Hand-held motor-
operated electric tools. Safety. Particular requirements for hammers. London: British
Standards Institution.
29. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 Hand-held motor-operated electric
tools. Safety. Particular requirements for grinders, polishers and disk-type sanders.
London: British Standards Institution.
30. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 10517:2009 Powered hand-held hedge trimmers
– Safety. London: British Standards Institution.
31. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 Hand-held portable power tools
Test methods for evaluation of vibration emission. Part 9: Scaling hammers and needle
scalers. London: British Standards Institution.
32. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-1:2009+A11:2010 Hand-held motor-operated
electric tools. Safety. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.
33. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-6:2010 Hand-held motor-operated electric
tools. Safety. Particular requirements for hammers. London: British Standards Institution.
34. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011 Hand-held portable power tools.
Test methods for evaluation of vibration emission. Percussive drills, hammers and
breakers London: British Standards Institution.
35. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011 Hand-held portable power tools.
Test methods for evaluation of vibration emission. Stone hammers. London: British
Standards Institution.
36. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 Mechanical vibration-
Hand-held and hand-guided machinery- Principles for evaluation of vibration emission.
London: British Standards Institution.
37. British Standards Institution. BS EN 62841-1:2015 Electric motor-operated hand-held
tools and lawn and garden machinery - Safety. General requirements. London: British
Standards Institution.
38. Dong RG, McDowell TW, Welcome DE, Warren C, Schopper AW (2004) An evaluation
of the standardized chipping hammer test specified in ISO 8662-2. Ann Occup Hyg 2004
Jan:48(1), pp 39-49.
39. European Commission (1989). Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery. Official Journal of
the European Communities, L 183, p.9-32.
40. European Commission (2002). Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding
the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth
individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) - Joint
Statement by the European Parliament and the Council. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L 177, p.13-20.
52
41. European Commission (2006). Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast).
Official Journal of the European Communities, L157, p.24-86.
42. Health and Safety Executive (2005). Hand-arm vibration. The Control of Vibration at
Work Regulations 2005. Guidance on the Regulations. HSE Books, L140. ISBN
0717661253.
43. Heaton R, Hewitt S and Yeomans E (2007) Correlation between vibration emission and
vibration during real use - Fastener driving tools. Research report RR625. HSE Books:
Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr625.pdf accessed 27/07/2020.
44. Heaton R and Hewitt S (2009) Evaluation of EN 60745 test codes: BS EN 60745-2
3:2007 angle grinders. Research Report RR717. HSE Books: Sudbury.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr717.htm accessed 27/07/2020.
45. Heaton R (2009) Evaluation of EN 60745 series of test codes: BS EN 60745-2-11:2003
reciprocating saws. Research Report RR754. HSE Books: Sudbury.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr754.htm accessed 27/07/2020.
46. Heaton R and Hewitt S (2011a) Hand-arm vibration of horticultural machinery – Part 1.
Research report RR884 HSE Books: Sudbury.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr884.htm accessed 27/07/2020.
47. Heaton R and Hewitt S (2011b) Hand-arm vibration of horticultural machinery – Part 2.
Research report RR894 HSE Books: Sudbury.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr894.htm accessed 27/07/2020.
48. Hewitt S (1999) Comparison of EN ISO 8662 emission data with vibration in use
Chipping hammers and stone working tools. HSL report NV/99/04. Available from HSL
Buxton.
49. Hewitt S, Critchlow SG, Ward T and Smeatham D (2000a) Vibration emission of Impact
drills - Comparison of emission data with vibration in use. HSL report NV/00/09.
Available from HSE Buxton.
50. Hewitt S, Critchlow SG, Ward T and Smeatham D (2000b) Vibration emission of rock
drills and rotary hammers - Comparison of emission data with Vibration in use (ISO
8662-3). HSE report NV/00/10. Available from HSE Buxton.
51. Hewitt S, Critchlow SG, Ward T and Smeatham D (2000c) Vibration emission of
Grinders - Comparison of emission data with vibration in use. (ISO 8662-4). HSE report
NV/00/17. Available from HSE Buxton.
52. Hewitt S, Smeatham D, Hutt R and Mole M (2003) Correlation between vibration
emission and vibration during real use - Saws and files. HSE report NV/03/09. Available
from HSE Buxton.
53. Hewitt S, Heaton R, Shanks E and M Mole (2006) Correlation between vibration
emission and vibration during real use - Polishers and sanders. Research report RR590.
53
HSE Books: Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr590.pdf accessed
27/07/2020.
54. Hewitt S, Shanks E, Heaton R and Mole M (2006) Vibration emission and simulated real
use measurements on six road breakers.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0626.pdf accessed 27/07/2020.
55. Hewitt S and Heaton R (2007) Comparison of vibration measurements on cut-off saws
according to BS EN ISO 1454 and BS EN ISO 19432 and in-use measurements. HSL
report NV/07/07. Available from HSL Buxton.
56. Hewitt S, Shanks E, Heaton R and Mole M (2010) Evaluation of EN 60745 test codes:
BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 concerning the vibration of hand-held electric
hammers. Research Report RR868. HSE Books: Sudbury.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr868.htm accessed 27/07/2020.
57. Hewitt S, Mole M and Hunwin G (2012) The effectiveness of BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009
concerning the vibration emission of scaling hammers and needle scalers. Research
Report RR967. HSE Books: Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr967.htm
accessed 27/07/2020.
58. Hewitt S, Mole M and Hunwin G (2015) The effectiveness of BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011
concerning the vibration emission of percussive drills, hammers and breakers. In press.
59. Hewitt S, Mole M and Hunwin G (2015) The effectiveness of BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011
concerning the vibration emission of stone hammers. In press.
60. Hutt R, Smeatham D, Hewitt S and Mole M (2003) Correlation between vibration
emission and vibration during real use - Die grinders. HSL report NV/03/10. Available
from HSL Buxton.
61. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 5349:1986 Mechanical vibration.
Guidelines for the measurement and the assessment of human exposure to hand-
transmitted vibration.
62. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 7916:1989 Forestry machinery
Portable brush-saws - Measurement of hand-transmitted vibration.
63. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 8662-11:1999 Hand-held portable
power tools - Measurement of vibrations at the handle - Part 11: Fastener driving tools.
64. Kennedy S (1989) Transducer mounting methods. Part 2: An investigation of mounting
methods used for on-site measurements. HSL report IR/L/NV/89/12. Available from HSL
Buxton.
65. McDowell TW, Dong RG, Xu X, Welcome DE and Warren C (2008) An evaluation of
iImpact wrench vibration emissions and test methods. Ann Occup Hyg, Vol 52, No.2, pp
125-138.
66. McDowell TW, Warren C, Welcome DE and Dong RG (2012) Laboratory and field
measurements and evaluations of vibration at the handles of riveting hammers. Ann
Occup Hyg Vol 56 No.8. pp 911-924
54
67. Pitts P (2001) Hand arm vibration exposure of brush cutter operators HSL report
NV/01/16. Available from HSL Buxton.
68. Pitts P and Brereton P (2016) “The Development and use of tools to support workplace hand-arm vibration exposure evaluation” Acoustics Australia online.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40857-016-0043-x accessed 27/07/2020.
69. Rimmel AN, Notini L, Mansfield NJ, Edwards DJ (2007) Variation between
manufacturer’s declared vibration emission values and those measured under simulated
workplace conditions for a range of hand-held power tools typically found in the
construction industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38 (9-10), pp 661
675.
70. Shanks E (2006) Correlation between vibration emission and real world exposure
Nibblers and shears. Research report RR576 HSE Books: Sudbury.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr576.pdf accessed 27/07/2020.
71. Shanks E, Hewitt S, Heaton R and Mole M (2011) Evaluation of EN 60745 test codes:
BS EN 60745-2-1 2003 (inc. amendment no. 1) Particular requirements for drills and
impact drills; vibration emission. Research Report RR879. HSE Books: Sudbury.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr879.htm accessed 27/07/2020.
72. Smeatham D, Hewitt S and Mole M (2001) Vibration emission of rammers - Comparison
of emission data with vibration in use. HSL report NV/01/24. Available from HSL
Buxton.
73. Smeatham D, Hewitt S, Hutt R and Mole M (2003) Correlation between vibration
emission and vibration during real use - Impact wrenches. HSL report NV/03/17.
Available from HSL Buxton.
74. Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992. The Stationery Office, S.I. 1992/3073.
75. Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. The Stationery Office, S.I. 2008/1597.
ISBN 9780110818924.
76. Ward T (1996) Correlation between vibration emission and vibration during use –
grinders. HSL report NV/96/04. Available as HSL report NV/00/17 in anonymised form.
77. Ward T (1998) Vibration emission of pavement breakers and pick hammers - Comparison
of ISO 8662-5 emission data with real use vibration. HSL report NV/98/3. Available from
HSL Buxton.
55
ANNEX A
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS FOR EACH TOOL CATEGORY
In the Figures presented in this Annex, a triangle represents the HSL measured emission value
for a tool, a circle represents the manufacturer’s declared emission value for the same tool and a
cross represents the upper quartile of in-use data as measured by HSL. Attention is also drawn
to the varying maxima on the y-axes in the figures. The axes differ to optimise the display of the
data for each tool type.
Angle grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995.................................................................................. 48
Demolition hammers - BS EN 28662-5:1995 ............................................................................. 48
Road breakers - BS EN 28662-5:1995........................................................................................ 49
Chipping hammers - BS EN 28662-2:1995 ................................................................................ 49
Rock drills and rotary hammers - BS EN 28662-3:1995 ............................................................ 50
Impact drills - BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995 ..................................................................................... 50
Brush cutters – ISO 7916:1989 ................................................................................................... 51
Rammers - BS EN ISO 8662-9:1996 and BS EN 50144-2-6:1997 ............................................ 51
Die grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997.................................................................................... 52
Impact wrenches - BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 .............................................................................. 52
Saws and files - BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 ................................................................................ 53
Sanders and Polishers - BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997, BS EN 60745-2-4:2003............................... 53
Nibblers and shears - BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998, BS EN ISO 50144-2-8:1996......................... 54
Breakers - BS EN ISO 8662-5:1995 ........................................................................................... 54
Cut-off saws – BS EN ISO 1454................................................................................................. 55
Fastener driving tools – ISO 8662-11:1999 ................................................................................ 55
Angle grinders - BS EN 60745-2-3:2007.................................................................................... 56
Reciprocating saws - BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 .......................................................................... 56
Hammers - BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009............................................................................ 57
Lawn mowers - BS EN 836:1997 ............................................................................................... 57
Hedge trimmers - BS EN ISO 10517:2009................................................................................. 58
Drills – BS EN ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 .......................................................................... 58
Scaling hammers and needle scalers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009.............................................. 59
Chisel scalers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 ................................................................................. 59
Scabblers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009........................................................................................ 60
Percussive drills, hammers and breakers - BS EN ISO 28927-10:2009 ..................................... 60
Stone hammers - BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011............................................................................. 61
56
ANGLE GRINDERS - BS E N ISO 8662-4:1995 [5]
DEMOLITION HAMMERS - BS EN 28662-5:1995 [6]
57
ROAD BREAKERS - BS E N 28662-5:1995 [6]
CHIPPING HAMMERS - BS E N 28662-2:1995 [3]
58
ROCK DRILLS AND ROTARY H AMMERS - BS EN 28662-3:1995 [4]
IMPACT DRILLS - BS E N ISO 8662-6:1995 [7]
59
BRUSH CUTTERS – ISO 7916:1989 [62]
RAMMERS - BS E N ISO 8662-9:1996 [9]
60
DIE G RINDERS - BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 [15]
IMPACT WRENCHES - BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 [12]
61
SAWS AND FILES - BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 [14]
SANDERS A ND POLISHERS - BS E N ISO 8662-8:1997 [13]
62
NIBBLERS AND SHEARS - BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 [17]
BREAKERS - BS E N ISO 8662-5:1995 [6]
63
CUT OFF SAWS – BS EN ISO 1454:1997 [11]
FASTENER DRIVING TOOLS – ISO 8662-11:1999 [63]
64
ANGLE GRINDERS - BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 [24]
RECIPROCATING SAWS - BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 [22]
65
HAMMERS - BS E N 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 [28]
LAWN MOWERS - BS EN 836:1997 [10]
66
HEDGE TRIMMERS - BS E N ISO 10517:2009 [25]
DRILLS – BS E N ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 [27]
67
SCALING HAMMERS AND NEEDLE SCALERS - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 [31]
68
PERCUSSIVE DRILLS, HAMMERS & BREAKERS – BS E N ISO 28927-10:2011 [34]
69
STONE HAMMERS – BS E N ISO 28927-11:2011 [35]
70
ANNEX B
EMISSION DATA AS AN INDICATOR OF REAL USE RISK Note that the number of machines tested for each tool category is included after the tool
description and report date.
Figure B.1 Percentage of emission data reflecting upper quartile of field (in-use) data based on a emission values
71
Figure B.2 Percentage of emission data reflecting upper quartile of field data (in-use) based on a+K emission values
72
ANNEX C
EMISSION VALUES AS INDICATORS OF RISK - RATIO GRAPHS
In Figures C1a to C5b, a ratio of less than 1 indicates that the emission value is lower than the
upper quartile of the vibration in-use. A ratio of greater than 1 indicates that the emission value
exceeds the upper quartile of vibration when in-use. BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 specifies
that new test codes should be developed to produce vibration emission values, which reflect the
upper quartile of in-use values. Therefore the upper quartile of in-use vibration can be seen as
the target value for the measured a emission to achieve. The target is however affected by the
statistical confidence in the upper quartile and the emission value. To take account of these
sources of variability, the a emission values have an associated K value and the upper quartiles
have an associated 95% confidence interval. The K value is indicated on the graph by an error
bar.
73
Figure C1a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers
74
Figure C1b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers
Note: In Figures C1a and C1b, the data are displayed in ascending order of emission value on
the horizontal axis. The a emission value is the figure in brackets after the tool description.
Figure C2a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for percussive hammers and stone hammers
75
Figure C2b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for percussive hammers and stone hammers
76
Figure C3a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers with rotary action
Figure C3b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers with rotary action
77
Figure C4a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use for reciprocating saws, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and impact drills
Figure C4b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use for reciprocating saws, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and impact drills
78
Figure C5a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for needle scalers, chisel scalers and scabblers
Figure C5b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for needle scalers, chisel scalers and scabblers
79
80
4
Published by the Health & Safety Executive 10/20
5
Standard test codes for the declaration of vibration emission: a review of research carried out by the Health and Safety Executive
Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a painful and disabling disorder of the blood vessels, nerves and joints, caused by exposure to hand transmitted vibration, often from using power tools. HAVS is preventable, but once damage is done, it is irreversible.
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 require manufacturers to minimise machinery vibration risk and declare vibration emission. British standard test codes can be used for this declaration. Manufacturers must provide information to enable risk from vibration (after minimisation by the manufacturer) to be assessed and effectively managed; they should draw attention to any gap between the risk indicated by the declared vibration emission and the likely actual risk during use.
This report gives an overview of HSE research carried out up to 2013 to investigate vibration emission information from standard test codes for 31 different power tool categories.
Results showed that vibration emission data measured according to the latest test codes are useful for identifying low or high vibration power tools in some, but not all, cases. Typically, in-use vibration is under-estimated, rendering the data unsuitable for risk assessment.
Employers and users of power tools should seek corroboration of data they intend to use for risk assessment to assure the data are reliable for estimating hand-arm vibration exposures. ion exposures. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
RR1162
www.hse.gov.uk