A Guide to Hand-arm Vibration

2nd Edition

Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC)

PERC
Off-highway Plant and Equipment
Research Centre
With the exception of research, private study, or review, the contents of this document cannot be
reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the written permission of the
copyright owner: Dr David J. Edwards. All copyright requests should be made via email, to Dr Edwards
at OPERC: [email protected].

The material contained within this document constitutes general guidelines only and is not at the time
of publication, mandatory. The Guide does not replace any legal obligations upon employers to provide,
or upon employees to undertake, any necessary health and safety training (or satisfy any other
mandatory requirements placed upon such parties under relevant health and safety legislation).

Readers are advised to obtain professional health and safety advice as appropriate (for example, from
the Health and Safety Executive, or other similar national enforcement agencies if this publication is
being used outside of the UK), before acting upon any recommendations contained within this text.

Published by:
The Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC),
Department of Building and Civil Engineering,
Loughborough University,
Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.operc.com

Distributed by:
IRAS Group, PO Box 3258, Wolverhampton,
West Midlands, WV3 7YT, UK

Tel/Fax: +44(0) 1384 356202

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.irasgroup.net

ISBN: 978 0 947974 54 1

Authors: David J. Edwards and Gary D. Holt

Editor: Philippa G. Spittle

© 2007 Dr David J. Edwards, Loughborough University

Supported by Loughborough University
Preface

OPERC’s first edition of A Guide to Hand-arm Vibration, came about initially in response to Directive
2002/44/EC of the European Parliament on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding
exposure of workers to the risks of physical agents (vibration). It was published in timely fashion to
coincide with the UK’s health and safety legislation resulting from that Directive, known as the
Control of Vibration at Work Regulations (2005).
Since publication, the Guide has become an integral part of the health and safety literature in the
field; whilst feedback from health and safety practitioners has confirmed that it also enjoys a place of
prominence in the ‘armoury’ of reference material that employers look to, in supporting their legal
obligations of the said Regulations. This success is most satisfying because any contribution that can
be made to help mitigate the risks to workers from hand-arm vibration (and the often irreversible host
of medical conditions that can result from ongoing exposure to them) is a worthy cause indeed.
OPERC has made noteworthy progress in furthering the science of hand-arm vibration (HAV) over the
last few years. This progress has been evidenced in numerous complementary products and services,
including: published practical workplace guidance, training materials (in DVD, paper and electronic
formats), a free web-based HAV database and free online and downloadable HAV calculator and risk
assessment aids. A significant amount of academic publications have also resulted directly from
OPERC’s applied hand-arm vibration research initiatives, along with the field-testing of tools and
equipment using leading-edge science and methods.
This seems a timely juncture therefore to revise this document based on that progress, as a
mechanism to disseminate these advancements in knowledge, products and services, for the benefit
of all who may gain from them. Accordingly, OPERC is pleased to offer you A Guide to Hand-arm
Vibration (2nd Edition).

Mr Graham Eaves
President, The Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC), 2007-2008
Welcome to OPERC
The Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC) has gained an enviable reputation as
the leading international centre of excellence for plant and equipment science. OPERC represents all
who are employed in the off-highway plant and equipment industries, including practitioners and
academics working in the field. This combination of experience, knowledge, and academic research
ensures that information produced by the co-operative is of the highest quality and of relevance to
all stakeholders.
OPERC is a non-partisan and non-profit making organisation. Its main objective is to advance
off-highway plant and equipment knowledge and share this knowledge among all interested parties.
Funds generated by the association are used to help research, author, publish and make available
information (such as this Guide), that would otherwise be too time consuming and / or expensive for
any single member to produce in isolation.
There are many benefits to be gained from becoming an OPERC member including access to free
information and publications; access to teaching, learning and assessment materials; excellent
networking opportunities; and attendance at OPERC events. More comprehensive description of these
benefits, along with information on how you can join OPERC, can be found on the official OPERC
website at: www.operc.com
Alternatively, if you have any queries regarding OPERC, then please do contact our administration team
who will be happy to assist you:

Telephone +44 (0)1384 356202

Email [email protected]
Web www.operc.com
.

Acknowledgement
The authors extend a thank you to Brian Coles of the Noise and Vibration Programme Unit, Injuries
Reduction, Policy Group, Health and Safety Executive, for being an invaluable source of information
during compilation of the first edition of this Guide. A thank you is also extended to the Major
Contractors Group (MCG) and all of those tool manufacturers who have helped broaden the
knowledge base of tool vibration magnitude data, through their participation in research and testing
with the Hand-arm Vibration Test Centre at Loughborough University. Finally, acknowledgement is
extended to the Major Hire Companies Group (MHCG) within OPERC, for actively encouraging this
second revision of the Guide.
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Appendices
List of Acronyms Used
Introduction 1
What is the Aim of this Guide? 1

Why is the Subject of HAV Important? 2

A Description of Hand-arm Vibration and Hand-arm Vibration Syndrome 3

Hand-arm Vibration (HAV) 3

Hand-arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) 4

Potential Negative Health Effects from Exposure to HAV 5

A Note About Cause and Effect 5

The Vascular Component 5

The Neurological Component 6

The Muscular and Soft Tissue Component 6

Classification and Diagnosis of HAVS Symptoms 7

Standards, Legislation and HAV 10

British and International Standards 10

Legislation 10
How to Identify and Assess HAV Risks 13
Rationale 13

Risk Assessment 13

Worked Example 1: Calculating A(8) and Assessment of Risk 20

Where Only One Vibrating Tool is Used in a Day

Worked Example 2: Calculating A(8) and Assessment of Risk 22

Where More Than One Vibrating Tool is Used in a Day

Employee Health Surveillance 23

How to Minimise HAV Risks 26

Overview 26

Selecting the Right Equipment 26

Encouraging Good Maintenance 27

Isolating the Vibration 28

Changing Work Processes 28

Operative Good Practice 29

Training and Education on HAV 29

Conclusion 31
References and Bibliography 34
Appendix A 40
Appendix B 42
List of Figures
Figure 1. Some relationships between HAVS symptoms 7
and their effects
Figure 2. Graphical summary of employers’ responsibilities 12
under the CVWR
Figure 3. Screenshot of the HAVTEC register showing partial 16
listing of electric breakers and chipping hammers
Figure 4. Calculation of maximum trigger times and exposure points 20
for the angle grinder in worked example (1) using HAVCalc
Figure 5. Calculation of average daily exposure for the angle grinder 21
in worked example (1) using HAVCalc
Figure 6. Calculation of average daily exposure for the three tools 22
used in worked example (2) using HAVCalc
Figure 7. The tiered system of operative health surveillance 24

List of Tables
Table 1. Indicative prevalence of VWF among certain industrial 4
sectors 2003-2005 (with dermatitis and occupational
deafness shown for comparison).
Table 2. The Stockholm Workshop Scales and additional guide 8
to staging, for classifying HAVS symptoms
Table 3. Examples of vibration magnitudes for a range of tools 17
Table 4. Maximum trigger-times for a range of vibration 18
magnitudes, before the CVWR exposure action and
limit values would be reached

List of Appendices
Appendix A. Comparison of some different manufacturers’ tools: 40
Amounts of work that can be done before EAV is reached
Appendix B. Formulae for calculation of daily and weekly HAV 42
exposure [A(8)]
List of Acronyms Used
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
BSI [The] British Standards Institution
CTS Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
CVWR [The] Control of Vibration at Work Regulations (2005)
and / or
[The] Control of Vibration at Work Regulations
(Northern Ireland) (2005)
EAV Exposure Action Value
ELV Exposure Limit Value
HAV Hand-arm Vibration
HAVCalc [OPERC’s] Hand-arm Vibration Calculator
[and Risk-assessment Aid]
HAVTEC [OPERC’s] Hand-arm Vibration Test Centre
HAVS Hand-arm Vibration Syndrome
H&S Health and Safety
HSE [The] Health and Safety Executive
HSC [The] Health and Safety Commission
ISO [The] International Organization for Standardization
MCG [The] Major Contractors Group
MHCG [The] Major Hire Companies Group
SWS [The] Stockholm Workshop Scales
VWF Vibration White Finger

In order that the reader may follow-up specific aspects of the discussion as and if required, the text
within this Guide has been referenced throughout using the Harvard convention of author family name,
year of publication, and (if applicable) page number(s). For example, (Smith, 2004, p3). Full
bibliographic details of each reference cited, along with other useful references and additional
sources of information, may be found in the References and Bibliography.
Introduction 1

What is the Aim of this Guide?

A Guide to Hand-arm Vibration (2nd Edition) aims to provide a clear but succinct overview of the
primary issues concerning workplace hand-arm vibration (HAV) and its management, particularly in
the context of employers’ duties under the UK’s Control of Vibration at Work Regulations (2005)1. Its
intended readership is principally company owners and senior management who, by nature of their
role, need to embrace an awareness of the subject, but who thereafter will typically delegate the
implementation of workplace HAV management issues to appropriate health and safety personnel.
In addressing this aim, the discussion that follows will include:
■ a definition of HAV and the nature of its sources;
■ a description of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS);
■ an indication of the negative-health effects that can present as a result of ongoing
exposure to HAV;
■ an overview of health and safety legislation relating to the subject;
■ direction for identifying and assessing HAV risks; and
■ guidance on controlling, mitigating or removing said risks.

This Guide is but one tool in a suite of facilities offered by OPERC relating to the subject of hand-arm
vibration at the workplace. Complementary tools in this suite include:
■ a practical guide (in booklet form) aimed at those directly responsible for managing hand-arm
vibration exposure (Edwards and Holt, 2007A);
■ a digital versatile disc for self-study, or for teaching and learning about HAV in groups (idem,
2006A);
■ a self-study learning and self-assessment module available as downloadable PDF (OPERC, 2006);
■ an online HAV register (‘HAVTEC’) (idem, 2007A), holding vibration data for a range of tools tested
to ISO 5349 ( ISO, 2001A; 2001B);
■ an online (and downloadable version) of ‘HAVCalc’ (OPERC, 2007B), this being a unique HAV
exposure calculator and risk assessment aid; and
■ an online HAV knowledge and competency (multiple-choice) test facility (idem, 2007C).

OPERC has also developed a new risk-management ‘traffic light’ classification system for hand tools,
in conjunction with the Construction Confederation, the Major Contractors Group (MCG) and the
Major Hire Companies Group (MHCG). Under this new system, hand tools will be labelled with a colour
code showing for how long they can be used before defined limits, as set out in the Control of
Vibration at Work Regulations (CVWR), are reached or exceeded.
Combined, this suite of OPERC tools offers employers a means to assist with training and education
of employees on the subject of hand-arm vibration, while also serving to help manage HAV risks at
the workplace.

1
Note the slight difference in title for the Northern Ireland version, known as The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations
(Northern Ireland) (2005) – see References and Bibliography for full listings.
2 Why is the Subject of HAV Important?
Put succinctly, HAV is concerned with the transmission of vibration into an operative’s2 hands and
(typically, lower) arms (HSE, 2003A, p27). Usually, though not exclusively, this vibration results from
using mechanical hand-held tools at work such as drills, saws and grinders. These tools impart such
energy as a result of oscillatory motions (Griffin, 2004), normally emanating from their power source.
The ultimate risk to operatives from regular, frequent or ongoing exposure to HAV is negative health
effects. These effects tend to be related (but are not limited) to impaired blood circulation (vascular
damage), damage to nerves (neurological damage) and muscular or soft tissue damage (HSE, 2003B,
p3; HSE, 2005A, §5) particularly, in the hands and arms. More specific medical symptoms resulting
from HAV exposure are described under the section Potential Negative Health Effects from Exposure
to HAV, but the most commonly ‘recognised’ conditions in this context are ‘Vibration White Finger’
(VWF) (Hughes and Ferret, 2003, p 283) and ‘Carpal Tunnel Syndrome’ (CTS) (HSE, 2005B).
VWF – or Secondary Raynaud’s Phenomenon to use its medical name – was first linked to the use
of pneumatic (i.e. vibratory) tools in the early 1900s. Subsequently, general ‘awareness’ of VWF
and its causes grew in line with the increasing use of electrical power (tools) and other forms of
mechanisation, through the early part of the 20th Century (HSE, 2004A). Knowledge of HAV in
particular increased throughout the Century and in 1985, VWF became a reportable disease under
the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations [as amended by
RIDDOR, (1995)].
A survey later carried out by the Medical Research Council (1997-1998) estimated that 288,000
people suffered from VWF in Great Britain (HSE, 2004B). It may be that not all of these cases were
directly attributable to contact with HAV but equally, VWF is but one of a much larger list of medical
conditions that can result from HAV exposure. More detailed statistics on the extent of negative
health associated with vibration exposure will be presented later.
Vibration is now considered such a serious workplace physical agent, that the European Community
issued a health and safety Directive in 2002 (EC, 2002), requiring that member states incorporate
into their relevant health and safety law the legislation to formally manage it. As a result, the CVWR
(2005A) and their Northern Ireland equivalent (2005B) have done just that within the UK. Note that
in addition to HAV, the CVWR also relate to the management of whole-body vibration3 (WBV) but the
subject of WBV is similarly very specific and therefore beyond the scope of this Guide on HAV. A
separate OPERC publication on whole-body vibration (Edwards and Holt, 2005A), along with a digital
versatile disc on the subject (idem, 2005B), offer a good first point of information and guidance in
this respect.
In view of the increased HAV ‘awareness’ outlined above, and more recently its ‘formalisation’ under
the umbrella of UK workplace health and safety law by the said Regulations, this Guide explains how
HAV issues affect both employers and employees who may use, or come into contact with, vibration-
emitting hand-held or hand-guided tools and processes.
In summary, A Guide to Hand-arm Vibration (2nd Edition) provides a concise overview of current HAV
knowledge combined with practical indications for meeting the requirements of the Control of
Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 (hand-arm vibration).

2
For ease of reading, the term operative is used throughout this Guide to describe any person who through the use of
tools, equipment or processes might be subject to HAV exposure at work. The term may therefore be considered to
include similar descriptors such as ‘person’, employee’, ‘worker’ and so on.
3
The CVWR define ‘whole-body vibration’ as mechanical vibration which is transmitted into the body, when seated or
standing, through the supporting surface, during a work activity. In practice, such activities tend to involve operating or
driving self-propelled machinery and vehicles, such as off-highway plant and equipment.
A Description of Hand-arm Vibration 3
and Hand-arm Vibration Syndrome
Hand-arm Vibration (HAV)
Hand-arm vibration is the term used to describe vibration that is transmitted into the hands and arms;
typically, of operatives that are using mechanical hand-held power tools or processes while carrying
out work activities.
Although such description means that this kind of vibration might emanate from an almost infinite
range of tools and processes employed to perform work, the types of tool most associated with HAV
tend to include:
■ percussive metal-working tools, such as powered riveting hammers or hammers used for caulking,
clinching and flanging;
■ percussive construction tools, such as (electric, pneumatic, hydraulic) breakers, hammers,
vibrating pokers and drills;
■ percussive tools used in stoneworking and stone quarrying;
■ rotary tools such as disc cutters, disc grinders, polishers of various configurations or burring tools;
and
■ wood cutting and machining tools such as chain saws, cutters, circular saws, planers, sanders and
powered screwdrivers (cf. HSE, 2003B, p5; 2005A).

In addition to these types of tool, HAV exposure may also result from using hand-guided (vis-à-vis
held) equipment, such as:
■ powered lawn mowers;
■ floor polishers and floor sanders;
■ garden strimmers of various types and sizes;
■ vibrating compaction plates; and
■ pedestrian operated compaction rollers.

The remaining potential source of exposure is associated with operatives that need to hold (or guide)
materials in (or with) their hand(s), that are being worked upon by a mechanical process. Some
examples of this include:
■ offering a metal casting up to a grinding wheel;
■ holding a component against a pedestal polisher;
■ placing and holding steel in a stamping machine;
■ guiding logs through a barking machine; and
■ feeding timber into a table saw (cf. HSC, 2003, p30; Edwards and Holt, 2006B).

It is now a well accepted fact that prolonged, ongoing or repeated exposure to HAV causes negative
health. However, it is extremely important to clarify that the use of vibration-emitting tools or
processes at work does not automatically mean that negative health will result. This is because the
presentation of symptoms from HAV exposure is a function of many influencing factors including:
■ the magnitude of the vibration at source to which an operative is exposed;
■ the duration of exposure (where, as a rule-of-thumb, the longer the exposure in any given operation
or cumulatively over time, the greater the risk);
■ whether the exposure is continuous or intermittent (where generally, more continuous exposure
with minimal breaks presents higher risk);
 ■ the frequency of the exposure (the more frequent, the greater the risk);
4
■ the way a tool is held (for example, a tighter hand-grip can exacerbate exposure and increase risk);
■ the particular area of the hand(s) exposed to vibration (for example, see Dong et al, 2004A,
2004B; 2005A); and
■ numerous ‘other’ factors, such as environmental temperature, operative anthropometry and
operative posture during tool use (see Edwards and Holt, 2006B; 2007B).

An operative’s personal susceptibility can also influence matters. Indeed, the vascular symptoms of
HAV (Raynaud’s Phenomenon) occur spontaneously in the general population at proportions of
approximately 3 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women (Anon, 2007, p12).
With exception to this latter point regarding spontaneity, the influencing factors listed above and
ways to remove, control or mitigate their impact are looked at in more detail in the section How to
Minimise HAV Risks.

Hand-arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS)

The negative health effects resulting directly from HAV exposure can be grouped under three
components – these being vascular, neurological and ‘other’ – where the latter tend to be concerned
with muscular or soft tissue damage. (The next section of this guide discusses these components in
more detail).
Combined or singularly, these components are often referred to as ‘Hand-arm Vibration Syndrome’
(HAVS) (HSE, 2003B, p23; 2005A). That is, under certain conditions, exposure to HAV can lead to
HAVS; which is considered to exist if (after such exposure) involvement of the vascular and / or
peripheral nervous system occurs, with or without musculoskeletal involvement (ibid.).
As mentioned in the introduction, two quite specific medical conditions associated with HAVS are
VWF and CTS. Noteworthy, VWF is the most common prescribed disease under the Industrial Injuries
Scheme over recent years (HSE, 2004B). Table 1 indicates the prevalence of this condition, as
reported among workers within certain industrial sectors for the period 2003-2005, thereby
confirming that the extractive and utility industries continue to host the most cases. Note that for
comparison purposes, the Table also contains similar statistics for dermatitis (a skin disorder) and
occupational deafness. For all sectors, VWF is quite evidently more prevalent among workers than are
the other two forms of occupational ill health.
With respect to CTS, the number of new cases assessed for disablement benefit rose from 267 in
1993-1994 to 797 cases in 2001-2002 and 1,035 in 2002-2003 (ibid.). However, the recent trend is
downward with 820 reported cases during 2003-2004 and 680 cases in 2004-2005.

Table 1. Indicative prevalence of VWF among certain industrial sectors 2003-2005 (with dermatitis
and occupational deafness shown for comparison)

Industry Sector Rank* Number of cases reported per 100,000 workers

VWF Dermatitis Deafness
Extraction, energy and water supply 1 178.3 7.3 9.8
Construction 2 11.0 1.2 4.1
Manufacturing 3 6.8 2.5 5.0
Transport and communication 4 1.5 0.5 0.6
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 5 1.3 0.3 0.3
Distribution, hotels and restaurants =6 1.1 0.3 0.5
Public, administration and education =6 1.1 0.1 0.1
All reported sectors combined n/a 5.1 0.7 1.4

*Rank: Based on prevalence of VWF in workforce

Source: Derived from HSE published statistics
Potential Negative Health Effects 5
from Exposure to HAV
A Note about Cause and Effect
The relationship between an operative’s exposure to HAV (in terms of the magnitude and duration of
the vibration) and any resulting negative health effects is far from definitively understood (cf. BOMEL,
2003, pviii). That is, the cause-effect relationship between hand-arm vibration exposure and negative
health cannot be accurately stated, at least not without reference to other influencing factors such as
those identified in the last section. In particular when considering the operative, account should be
taken of issues such as:
■ personal susceptibility;
■ posture and style [when performing work tasks or using tools]; and
■ vibration exposure history [which may be complex and difficult to consider objectively]
(ibid.) [comments in square brackets by present authors].

It should also be borne in mind that certain types of negative health in hands, wrists and arms might
result from factors totally divorced from HAV exposure. These factors can include things such as
previous injuries or illness, earlier medical intervention, strain resulting from physical social activities,
onset of other medical conditions not associated with vibration exposure and so on. Further, in that
Raynaud’s Phenomenon can occur in the general population independently of vibration exposure (HSE,
2004B), these matters must all be viewed holistically in any assessment of the mentioned cause-
effect relationship. That is, under no circumstances should one automatically assume that negative
health in the hands and arms is entirely a result of HAV exposure.
While operatives might not want to admit to having symptoms of HAVS (for example, for fear of
affecting their employment status), it is important that they are made aware that it is not just their
ability to perform work tasks that could be affected. HAVS can also have a degenerative effect on all
other (non-work) activities, such as when performing hobbies (especially outside in lower
temperatures) or when attempting to do anything that requires dexterous finger and / or hand
manipulation (cf. HSE, 2003C, p4; 2005C). The latter can apply to simple everyday tasks like
buttoning-up clothing or counting out money.
The ‘characteristics’ of hand-arm vibration syndrome are generally, broadly classified under three
medical components. These are:
■ the vascular component;
■ the neurological component; and
■ the muscular and soft tissue component (HSE, 2005A, p87).

Each of these is now discussed in a little more detail.

The Vascular Component

This generally relates to damage of the vessels that circulate blood; in this instance, to the hands
and fingers. Perhaps the best known of vascular problems in this context is the episodic finger
blanching termed Vibration White Finger (VWF), which results from impaired blood circulation and is
aptly named due to its characteristic ‘blanching’ of the fingers and / or parts of the hand. [Medical
definition of VWF: Raynaud’s disease especially when caused by severe vibration as in prolonged and
repeated use of a chain saw (Anon, 2004A)]
Early VWF symptoms may be mild, for example an initial sign is when the fingertips become white
(HSE, 2003D; 2005C). Continued HAV exposure will almost certainly lead to progression of the
condition and may be evidenced by an increased area of the hand being affected by the blanching and
 increased frequency of such occurrence (HSC, 2003, p31; HSE, 2005A). VWF symptoms are typically
6 triggered by exposure of the hand to cold and / or wet conditions. During an attack the fingers might
feel ‘numb’ and a sensation of ‘pins-and-needles’ may also be experienced.
A more progressed state of VWF can be triggered by a less significant reduction in temperature and if
left to progress even further (through ongoing HAV exposure and / or no medical intervention) the
condition will ultimately lead to increased numbness, increased tingling and a significant decrease in
manual dexterity of the hands (HSC, 2003, p31). In the most severe cases, damage to blood
circulation may become permanent (HSE, 2005A, p87) causing fingers to turn ‘blue-black’ in colour.
In the most exceptional of cases, gangrene may result (HSE, 2003B, p4).

The Neurological Component

This is concerned with damage caused to the peripheral nervous system; in this instance, relating to
the hands and arms. It is characterised by numbness and tingling, a reduction of strength in the hand
(e.g. lower grip strength) and reduced sensitivity (e.g. a reduced sense of touch and sensitivity to
temperature) (HSE, 2003B, p3). Sensory nerve damage may also lead to permanent numbness and
tingling in the fingers (HSE, 2003D), making it difficult to feel and work with small objects (HSE,
2005A, p87).
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is another, separate kind of disorder, related to this component. It can
cause tingling, numbness and weakness, particularly in the wrist of the hand. Pain and night waking
(disturbed sleep) are also CTS symptoms (ibid.). [Medical definition of CTS: Chronic pain and
paresthesia in the hand in the area of distribution of the median nerve, caused by compression of the
median nerve by fibres of the flexor retinaculum and associated with repetitive motion (Anon, 2004B)].

The Muscular and Soft Tissue Component

‘Other’ negative health effects (and their contributing factors i.e. their cause-effect relationship), are
less well understood than their vascular and neurological counterparts (HSE, 2003B, p3). Generally,
such effects give rise to symptoms that include pain and stiffness in the fingers, hands, wrists, lower
arms and shoulders (HSE, 2005A). These HAVS muscular and soft tissue effects have also been
described as resulting from damage to muscles, bones and joints, leading to general loss of strength
and increased prevalence of pain in the wrists and arms (HSE, 2003D).
Combined, the above HAVS symptoms may be summarised as affecting the:
■ fingers;
■ hands;
■ wrists;
■ lower arms; and
■ in some cases, upper arms and shoulders.

HAV symptoms may be summarised as being characterised by:

■ pain;
■ numbness;
■ blanching;
■ pins-and-needles;
■ loss of senses (touch / temperature);
■ loss of strength (grip / wrist);
■ loss of manual dexterity; and
■ VWF and CTS.

The aspects discussed above are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Some relationships between HAVS symptoms and their effects
7
HAVS Symptoms
Work Activities Other Activities
Pins and needles Aches and pains
Work that requires General levels of
vibrating tools Permanent health disability comfort and
and processes can affect... uninterrupted sleep

Numbness Blanching
Work in cold Outdoor activities
and/or wet Blanching attacks and pain like washing the
conditions can affect... car and gardening

Strength loss Stiffness

Safe working Activities like golf,
where grip Loss of grip and do-it-yourself
is important hand strength can affect... and fishing

Loss of dexterity Sensitivity loss

Detailed tasks like Everyday tasks like
assembly or Loss of manual dexterity fastening buttons
handling small can affect... and sorting money
components

Classification and Diagnosis of HAVS Symptoms

The medical interpretation and / or diagnosis of HAVS symptoms is a matter for health professionals
only, so this section of the Guide is provided solely to furnish the reader with a degree of
‘background’ knowledge to the subject.
Vibration white finger classification (i.e. the vascular aspect alone) was in the past assessed using
the Taylor-Pelmear Scale. However, HAVS comprises not one, but two principal components, i.e.
vascular and neurological – the latter sometimes also being defined as the sensorineural aspect.
Since these two components can progress separately, use of the Stockholm Workshop Scales (SWS)
has now generally replaced the Taylor-Pelmear scale and is the preferred method of classifying
vascular and neurological HAVS symptoms (HSE, 2003B, p26; 2005A, pp101-104).
Using the SWS, the two hands are assessed individually (for classifying both vascular and neurological
aspects). The vascular component is assessed against five stages (designated 0, 1V, 2V, 3V and 4V)
and the sensorineural component against four stages (designated 0SN, 1SN, 2SN and 3SN). Previous
criticism of these scales has included the fact that they lack precise information for some of the
terms used (such as ‘frequent’ –see HSE, 2005A, p101) and that the second stages (2V and 2SN
respectively) are quite broad in their definitions. Hence, a method was developed to divide the second
stages of the scales into ‘early’ and ‘late’ (Lawson and McGeoch, 2003), thereby allowing a more
accurate diagnosis and subsequent management of stage 2 cases.
Table 2 (columns 1, 2 and 3) describes the stages in the original SWS along with their respective
grades and descriptions. The Table also lists the ‘additional’ guide to vascular and sensorineural
staging (shown in columns 4 and 5), including early and late criteria for diagnosis of the second
stages, as published in HSE guidance (HSE, 2005A, p104). Hence, vascular second stage on the
original SWS (i.e. 2V) can now be diagnosed as early or late (i.e. 2V(early) and 2V(late)); as can the
sensorineural second stage (i.e. 2SN(early) and 2SN(late)).
 Table 2. The Stockholm Workshop Scales and additional guide to staging, for classifying
8 HAVS symptoms

Stockholm Workshop Scales Additional Guide to Staging

Vascular component
Stage Grade Description Stagea Criteriab
0 n/a No attacks 0V No attacks
1V Mild Occasional attacks 1V Attacks affecting only the tips of
affecting only the tips of the distal phalanges of one or
one or more fingers more fingers (usually a blanching
score of 1-4)
2V Moderate Occasional attacks 2V (early) Occasional attacks of whiteness
affecting distal and affecting the distal and middle
middle (rarely also (rarely also the proximal)
proximal) phalanges of phalanges of one or more fingers
one or more fingers (usually a blanching score of 5-9)
2V (late) Frequent attacks of whiteness
affecting the distal and middle
(rarely also proximal) phalanges
of one or more fingers (usually a
blanching score of 10-16)
3V Severe Frequent attacks 3V Frequent attacks of whiteness
affecting all phalanges of affecting all of the phalanges of
most fingers most of the fingers all year
(usually a blanching score of 18
or more)
4V Very severe As in stage 3, with 4V As 3V and trophic changes
trophic changes in the
fingertips

Sensorineural Component
Stage Description Stagea Criteriab
0SN Vibration-exposed but no symptoms 0SN Vibration exposure but no
symptoms
1SN Intermittent numbness with or without 1SN Intermittent numbness and / or
tingling tingling (with a sensorineural, SN,
score of >3 and <6)
2SN Intermittent or persistent numbness, 2SN (early) Intermittent numbness, and / or
reduced sensory perception tingling, reduced sensory
perception (usually an SN score
of >
_ 6<9)
2SN (late) Persistent numbness, and / or
tingling, reduced sensory
perception (usually an SN score
of >
_9< _ 16)
3SN Intermittent or persistent numbness, 3SN Constant numbness and / or
reduced tactile discrimination and / or tingling reduced sensory
manipulative dexterity perception and manipulative
dexterity in warmth (and an SN
score >_ 19)

a
The schemes indicated to separate stages 2V and 2SN into ‘early’ and ‘late’ are indicative only and may require
health professionals to use their judgement in allocating an individual to either early or late stage 2 (cf. HSE,
2005A, p103).
b
The advice given regarding scores relates to specific medical tests undertaken only by health professionals.
 An additional way of assessing the vascular symptoms, to complement use of the SWS, is by using
the Griffin (1990) method to score the extent of blanching. Here, a numerical value is assigned to 9
each phalanx4 of each finger and thumb and an overall score for each hand is derived based on the
extent of the affected area (i.e. extent of affected phalanges). Further explanation of the Griffin
method and of how the scoring is carried out, may be observed in HSE (2005A, p102).

4
Phalanx: any of the long bones of the fingers (or toes) numbering 14 in total for each hand or foot and comprising two
phalanges for the thumb or big toe, and three phalanges each for the other four digits (Anon, 2004C).
10 Standards, Legislation and HAV
British and International Standards
There are many British Standards (BSI) and International Standards (ISO) that relate to, or support,
the legislative aspects of hand-arm vibration health and safety (H&S) at the workplace. Although
these would be too numerous to discuss individually in a Guide of this (limited) size, full bibliographic
listings of the most ‘prominent’ Standards are provided in the References and Bibliography; the
specific subjects of which are identifiable from their titles.
An overview of British Standards may also be viewed on the British Standards Institution website5 at:
http://www.bsonline.bsi-global.com/server/index.jsp. Similarly, the ISO website can provide
additional information, see: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage. Some of these British
and International Standards are also referred to throughout various parts of this Guide.

Legislation
Both employers’ and employees’ general H&S duties, with respect to vibration hazards at the
workplace, are defined among various UK health and safety Statutory Instruments which, following
implementation of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, remain in force. Some of these
Statutory Instruments, and their main relevance to HAV, include the following (note that this is not an
exhaustive list).

■ The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act (1974) (HASWA, 1974) – which (inter-alia) places a duty
upon employers to provide safe systems of work and this includes systems that involve the use of
plant and equipment.
■ The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) as amended (MHSWR, 1999) –
which (inter-alia) emphasises proactive and systematic health and safety management, that strives
to identify risks (through risk assessments) and eliminate them (through controls). Equally, this
applies to mechanical equipment and its use.
■ The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (1995) (RIDDOR,
1995) – that (inter-alia) classifies HAVS as a ‘reportable’ medical condition.
■ The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1998) as amended (PUWER, 1998) – which
require (inter-alia) that all equipment used in the workplace is safe, regardless of its age, condition
or origin.
■ The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations (1992) as amended (SMSR, 1994) – which
implement the European Machinery Directive and prescribe detailed requirements for the
manufacture of new machinery (work equipment).
■ The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (1992) as amended (WHSWR, 1992) –
that (inter-alia) impact upon the environmental aspects of a workplace within which, for example,
mechanical equipment might be used.

These legislative documents (except HASWA, 1974) may be viewed in full6 at:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/about_legislation.htm. HASWA (1974) may be viewed at:
http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/haswa.htm.

5
To find a specific Standard, enter the Standard number in the ‘Search’ facility. By registering with the BSI website, users
may also view a summary of each Standard showing an abstract of contents, current status (e.g. current, withheld,
work-in-hand), availability and cost etc.
6
Accessible on the website in http and in some cases also as downloadable PDF documents.
 The most comprehensive and specific legislation relating to management of HAV at the workplace is
contained within the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 (CVWR, 2005A; 2005B). The 11
principal way these Regulations govern the protection of operators from HAV7 is by reference to
defined amounts of vibration exposure called exposure Action and Limit values. These values are
fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the CVWR, and we will look next at their
definitions.
First, we need to know that the action and limit values are expressed in fundamental units of
acceleration, that is, m/s2 (metres per second, per second). Given this, then:

■ The Exposure Action Value (EAV) is a level of daily operator vibration exposure, which if exceeded,
requires specified action (i.e. control measures) to be taken to reduce the associated risk. The
daily EAV ‘normalised’ to an 8-hour reference period is defined as A(8). The action value for HAV
expressed in A(8) is 2.5. (See footnote)8.
Put another way, we may say therefore, that the EAV is equal to an average hand-arm vibration
exposure of 2.5m/s2 over a continuous eight hour period. Hence, an average exposure magnitude
which is greater than this for eight hours, or, an exposure of average magnitude 2.5m/s2 over more
than eight hours, will represent an exposure in excess of the EAV. The converse logic also applies.

■ The Exposure Limit Value (ELV) is a level of daily operator vibration exposure, that must not be
exceeded. The daily ELV normalised to an 8-hour reference period is also defined as A(8). The limit
value for HAV expressed in A(8) is 5. (See footnote)9.
We may state therefore, that the ELV is equal to an average hand-arm vibration exposure of 5m/s2
over a continuous eight hour period. Hence, an average exposure magnitude which is greater than
this for eight hours, or, an exposure of average magnitude 5m/s2 over more than eight hours, will
represent an exposure in excess of the ELV. The converse logic also applies.
The following section of this Guide (How to Identify HAV Risks) explains how the EAV and ELV are
applied in practice to manage vibration exposure. It gives examples of calculating A(8) for the
purposes of risk assessment (by comparing an operator’s derived A(8) value against the EAV and ELV)
and for the purposes of deciding upon necessary risk control measures.
Under the CVWR, application of the ELV may be deferred on items of equipment where it is not
reasonably practicable to comply and where the equipment was provided to an operative before 6 July
2007. There is a transitional period of up to 6 July 2010 for such equipment; this period being designed
to allow for the introduction of new machines, new technologies or new working methods (for that
equipment) that can (i.e. will mean the equipment will subsequently be able to) achieve the ELV.
Under such circumstances, in the event of new equipment, technologies or working methods
becoming available, then the ‘older’ equipment can no longer enjoy the transitional period and must
henceforth comply with the ELV. Note however, that the ELV applies to any new equipment that is
provided to an employee after July 6 2007.
Figure 2 gives a graphical summary of employers’ responsibilities under the CVWR. Matters here such
as risk assessment, risk controls, and employee health surveillance, will be discussed in the following
two sections of the Guide.

7
CVWR also places duties on employers with respect to whole-body vibration (WBV); but WBV is beyond the scope of
this Guide on HAV. OPERC has published separate Guidance in respect of WBV. For complete details see the References
and Bibliography – also see the OPERC online bookshop at: www.operc.com.
8
This value can be expressed as either A(8)2.5m/s2 or A(8)2.5. In this Guide, the latter convention will be given
preference for simplicity.
9
This value can be expressed as either A(8)5m/s2 or A(8)5. In this Guide, the latter convention will be given preference
for simplicity.
 Figure 2. Graphical summary of employers’ responsibilities under the CVWR
12

Assess Vibration
risk to employees
Consult Safety or
Keep written risk Employees’
assessments up-to-date Representative(s)

Decide whether vibration

exposure exceeds
predetermined levels

If above ELV take action If above EAV introduce

to achieve a level controls to reduce
below ELV levels ALARPa

Monitor and review controls as appropriate eg. for new sources

of exposure, new working practice, etc.

Provide information Provide employee health

and training surveillance or monitoring
for employees as appropriate

Key
a ALARP: As low as reasonably practicable

Denotes sequential logic

Denotes communication flow

Source: Adapted from Edwards and Holt (2007C).

How to Identify and Assess HAV Risks 13

Rationale
It is a requirement of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations that employers, who by the nature
of their work activities might be exposing employees to HAV hazards, must carry out an assessment
of HAV risks. The principal aim of this assessment is to enable valid decisions to be made about:

■ the location, extent and nature of the risks; and

■ the appropriate risk control measures that are to be designed and implemented, to remove or
mitigate them.

The overriding philosophy is one of encouraging a proactive regime. That is, identify the risks and
remove or minimise them, before they can have any negative effect on operatives’ health.

Risk Assessment
The exact nature and extent of the risk assessment will be a function of the circumstances
surrounding the work activity, or activities, under consideration. For example, where it is quite
apparent from the assessment that exposure is below and unlikely to exceed the exposure action
value (EAV), then it is sufficient to record (i.e. explain and justify) this finding within the risk
assessment report (HSC, 2003, p49). However, even in such cases where exposure does not exceed
the EAV, it is a requirement of the Regulations that exposure be reduced to levels as low as
reasonably practicable (ALARP). That is, any level of exposure must be reduced ALARP in situations
where such reduction is reasonably practicable10.
Where vibration exposure does exceed, or is likely to exceed the EAV, then a more formal and
systematic assessment of the risks(s) associated with that exposure needs to be carried out. The
control measures to be implemented as a result of this should be specifically designed to address
such increased level of exposure.
According to the HSC (2003, p73), industries where HAV is accepted as a common hazard (and
hence present the greatest degree of risk) include:

■ general engineering;
■ heavy engineering;
■ forestry and agriculture;
■ foundries;
■ construction (building and civil engineering);
■ road maintenance; and
■ utility services.

The extractive industries, such as quarrying and mining, also have a long-standing reputation for high
risk of HAV exposure – the prevalence of VWF claims in the mining industry has been well
documented in the past.
Similarly, specific work processes that tend to represent a high risk of hand-arm vibration exposure
can also be identified, and include:

■ drilling hard materials (such as plugging into masonry or drilling for service access);
■ breaking-up of hard materials (such as demolishing concrete or masonry structures);
■ consolidation or compaction of bulk materials (such as when using hand-guided vibrating rollers or
compaction plates);

10
Here, ‘reasonably practicable’ means to make a judgement: where the extent of the risk is considered against the
sacrifice (e.g. cost, time, inconvenience) needed to avert that risk. Unless there is gross disproportion between these two
considerations, then generally the risk should be averted or mitigated in order to satisfy the relevant health and safety law.
 ■ mechanical fixing methods (such as riveting);
14
■ mechanical preparation of surfaces (such as scabbling, de-scaling or cleaning);
■ surface finishing materials and components (such as grinding and sanding);
■ cutting of various materials (such as with power shears or a circular saw); and
■ manually holding or supporting materials that are being worked upon by some other mechanised
process (such as against a polisher or a grinding wheel).

Taking these ‘broad’ indicators into account, the risk assessment should identify all sources of
HAV and then, for all operatives at the workplace, make a reasoned estimate of their exposure for
comparison with the EAV and ELV. The risk assessment must be ‘suitable and sufficient’ which
means that it must:

■ identify where the hazard(s) are;

■ consider the extent of these hazards;
■ make a robust estimation of all operatives who might be exposed to the hazard(s), either now, or
at any time in the foreseeable future;
■ evaluate the extent of the risk exposure, for operatives who are (or who may become) exposed;
■ where appropriate, consider suitable and available control mechanisms; and
■ make explicit (through an ‘action plan’ produced as part of the risk assessment);
■ what control measures are to be implemented;
■ a time-line for the implementation of the control measures; and
■ how the control measures might be monitored over time.

The results of the risk assessment must be recorded along with the action plan. The assessment
must be reviewed if there is any reason to suspect that it is no longer valid. This may be because the
tools to which it referred have been replaced by different tools or there has been significant change
to the work to which it relates (e.g. where operatives’ vibration exposure times have increased as a
result of changes in working methods).
The risk assessment results should also be used as a basis for informing operatives of the risks
related to their work and considered as a starting point for the design and development of operative
HAV training and education. Guidance on undertaking health and safety risk assessments in general is
available from the HSE (2003E).
The process of determining an operative’s HAV risk can be achieved using either a ‘rule-of-thumb’
method or a more ‘objective’ risk assessment that calculates maximum exposure times (by
mathematically combining objective inputs of vibration magnitude(s) to yield objective outputs such
as daily exposure time limits).
The HSE’s rule-of-thumb guidance states that employees at ‘higher risk’ are those who regularly
operate:

■ hammer-action tools – such as pneumatic breakers – for more than about an hour each day; or
■ rotary and other non-percussive tools – such as disc-cutters, orbital sanders or chainsaws – for
more than about four hours each day.

The guidance states that employees are at ‘medium risk’ are those who regularly operate:

■ hammer-action tools for more than about 15 minutes each day; or

■ rotary or other non-percussive tools, for more than about one hour a day (HSE, 2005B).

Very often, the rule-of-thumb method will suffice but in more complex work situations, for example
where numerous different exposures occur in a working day or where exposure is considered to be
approaching (or in excess of) the EAV, then a more objective assessment may be more suitable. This
requires calculation of an operator’s average daily exposure, expressed as A(8), and comparison of
this against the CVWR action and limit values. The process to achieve this may be considered in six 15
stages which are:
1. identify the specific tool(s) or source(s) of HAV that an operative is exposed to;
2. establish a reliable and relevant ‘average’ vibration magnitude for each tool or source;
3. determine reliable estimates of the operative’s exposure duration(s) for each tool(s);
4. based on (2) and (3), determine the A(8) value;
5. compare the A(8) value against the EAV and ELV values; and
6. design appropriate control measures based on the results of this comparison.

In establishing the vibration magnitude for a tool, it should be remembered that this can vary,
sometimes quite significantly, between different operating conditions (e.g. methods of tool use),
different ‘brands’ of the same type of tool and where a particular type of tool uses different
appendages (such as drill bits with varying diameters) (Edwards and Holt, 2005C; 2006B; 2007B). In
practical terms this means that larger vibration levels at source will reduce the amount of work that a
tool can do, before its operator’s exposure reaches the EAV or ELV. Appendix A demonstrates some
examples of this by comparing amounts of work performed by different manufacturers’ breakers,
combi-hammers and battery drill tools before CVWR limits are reached (OPERC, 2005).
There are basically two types of vibration data. The first is manufacturers’ own data, which usually
results from tests performed on tools in laboratory, not real work, conditions (in accordance with the
relevant part of ISO 8662 or BS EN ISO 8662 equivalent, see full list of standards in References and
Bibliography). These kinds of data are sometimes called ‘8662 data’.
Vibration data measured according to ISO 8662 is sometimes unreliable for risk assessments because
it may not accurately represent vibration levels generated by tools when they are actually in use, for
example when taking into account the sharpness of chisels or cutting edges, the way the operator
holds or uses the tool, and so forth. For this reason, it has been stated that 8662 derived values
should be used with caution for risk assessment purposes (CEHVD, 2004). They are best used for
respective comparisons of vibration emissions between tools of the same type, for example, when
considering which brand of a certain tool to purchase.
The second type of data is field measured values, that have been measured in accordance with ISO
5349 and are therefore, sometimes called ‘5349 data’. These data are more influenced by actual
working conditions and usually better reflect ‘true’ vibration magnitudes of tools, when being used by
operators to carry out real work tasks (ibid.). Note that 5349 data are suitable for use in objective
risk assessments.
A useful source of 5349 data is the OPERC HAVTEC register. This is a web-hosted facility that makes
freely available (upon registration), vibration data that has been measured from tools while being used
to carry out real work. A comprehensive range of tools is available including angle grinders, breakers,
saws, combi-hammers, planers, scabblers and so forth. In many cases, variants of these tools as
defined by power source, are also listed such as battery, electric, pneumatic, hydraulic and
combustion engine options. Note that the HAVTEC register is constantly being expanded, so
additional tools may be listed on subsequent visits. (To register and subsequently view the HAVTEC
register in its entirety go to: http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp).
Figure 3 shows a sample screen from the HAVTEC register showing a partial listing of electric
breakers and chipping hammers, whilst Table 3 gives some examples of tool vibration magnitudes that
have been abstracted from the register (these are a small sample of what is available, included here
for information and tool comparison purposes).
When considering an operator’s vibration exposure time for a tool, this must be the time that the tool
is actually being held and in use while mechanically activated; otherwise often referred to as the
‘trigger-time’ (HSC, 2003, p79). It is not, for example, the time that an operative might have a tool
 Figure 3. Screenshot of the HAVTEC register showing partial listing of electric breakers
16 and chipping hammers

on site or on their workbench, but the duration of time that the hand is (or hands are) actually
subjected to vibration from it.
Assuming that the vibration magnitude and trigger-time have been reliably established for risk
assessment purposes, the next step is to determine the A(8) value. In doing this it is convenient to
carry out the ‘calculation’ using a device such as the HAVCalc Hand-arm Vibration Calculator and
Risk-assessment Aid. This hand-arm vibration calculator is freely available on the OPERC website (see
http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp). Examples of how to use HAVCalc’s various options
are given below.
(For the interested reader, the mathematical formulae underpinning A(8) calculation for both daily and
weekly HAV exposure values are presented in Appendix B. Note however, that it is not a requirement
to understand these formulae in order to assess HAV risks, for as the worked examples below
demonstrate, this can often be done by reference to relevant published data and / or by using a
vibration exposure calculator).
An alternative approach to assessing an operative’s risk from a tool is to compare that tool’s
vibration magnitude against maximum daily time-exposure data relating to the EAV and ELV (and in
turn compare the operative’s trigger time for this tool with these maximums). In this respect, Table 4
shows, for a range of vibration magnitudes (at source),maximum exposure (trigger) times that are
allowable before the EAV A(8) value of 2.5m/s2 and the ELV A(8) value of 5m/s2 would be reached.
An example of how to interpret this information in practice is also given below in the examples.
 17

Vibration Standard
Weight magnitude deviation
Tool type Power source (Kg) Manufacturer Nature of work Appendage (m/s*s) (m/s*s)
Angle grinder 230v electric 4.8 DeWalt Grinding steel plate 230mm grinding disc 4.3 0.6
d/o d/o d/o d/o Cutting groove in concrete 230mm cutting disc 6.6 0.9
Angle grinder 110v electric 1.6 Hilti Grinding steel pipe 125mm abrasive disc 4.0 0.4
d/o d/o d/o d/o Cutting metal pipe 125mm steel cutting disc 6.8 1.1
Breaker/chipping hammer 110v electric 32.0 Makita Breaking 40N concrete Breaking point 10.5 1.5
d/o d/o d/o d/o d/o Moil point 8.7 0.3
Breaker/chipping hammer Comp. air <6 bar 18.0 MacDonald Breaking 40N concrete Moil point 5.0 0.57
Table 3. Examples of vibration magnitudes for a range of tools

Circular saw 28V battery 4.3 Milwaukee Cutting 42mm chipboard 156mm wood blade 1.3 0.2
Floor grinder Petrol engine 76 SPE Grinding conc. surface Carborundum block 5.6 0.9
Mini hand-guided dumper Diesel engine 448 Taylor Traversing soft ground Half laden bucket 1.7 0.1
Construction plant
Hand-guided plate Petrol engine 82 Belle Compacting DTp Type 1 350x500mm plate 1.6 0.4
compactor granular sub-base
Reciprocating saw 110v electric 4.4 Makita Cutting 50mm pipe Metal blade 12.5 2.1
d/o d/o d/o d/o Cutting 90x40mm Wood blade 7.8 1.9
softwood
Hand-held sander 110v electric 4.7 Makita Sanding softwood board 40-grade abrasive paper 1.3 0.1
d/o d/o d/o d/o d/o 120-grade abrasive paper 3.4 0.6
Three-head hand scabbler Comp. air <6 bar 5.0 MacDonald Scabbling 40N concrete n/a 4.9 0.3
Source: HAVTEC database at: http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp (viewed January 2007). The above is a random selection of tools drawn from
the database for demonstration and information purposes only. Other tools of similar types may be available from alternative manufacturers and may have
different vibration characteristics to those listed here. All vibration data were measured in accordance with ISO 5349. Data are representative of measurements
taken on the day and could vary as a function of tool age and condition, appendage sharpness, operator style, ambient conditions and so on.
 Table 4. Maximum trigger-times for a range of vibration magnitudes, before the CVWR
18 exposure action and limit values would be reached

Average vibration Maximum trigger-time to reach Maximum trigger-time to reach

magnitude at source exposure ACTION value of 2.5m/s2 exposure LIMIT value of 5m/s2

(m/s2) Hrs. Mins. Hrs. Mins.

1.0 >24 >24 -

1.5 22 13 >24 -
2.0 12 30 >24 -
2.5 8 00 >24 -
3.0 5 33 22 13
3.5 4 05 16 20
4.0 3 08 12 30
4.5 2 28 9 53
5.0 2 00 8 00
6 1 23 5 33
7 1 01 4 05
8 - 47 3 08
10 - 30 2 00
15 - 13 - 53
20 - 08 - 30
25 - 04 - 19
30 - 03 - 13
35 - 02 - 09

Source: calculated using HAVCalc see http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp

20 Worked Example 1: Calculating A(8) and Assessment
of Risk Where Only One Vibrating Tool is Used in a Day

Scenario: An operative uses just one vibrating tool (an angle grinder) for approximately 3.5 hours
per day. Reference to reliable vibration magnitude data for this particular type of grinder has
established that the average vibration from it is 4.5m/s2. What is the operative’s daily exposure
A(8) and how does this relate to the CVWR?

Figure 4 is a screen shot showing Part 1 and Part 2 of HAVCalc. User input information (such as
vibration magnitude) is typed into the white cells and output information is subsequently
(automatically) provided in the yellow cells.

Figure 4. Calculation of maximum trigger times and exposure points for the angle grinder in worked
example (1) using HAVCalc

Source: http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp

So it is shown in this example, that by inserting the average vibration magnitude for the angle grinder
of 4.5 in cell E20 [cell E20], Part 1 of HAVCalc calculates the maximum trigger-time (for this tool’s
vibration magnitude) that is required to reach both the EAV and the ELV. In this example, the
operative would reach the EAV after 2 hours 28 minutes [cells G20 and H20] and the ELV after 9
hours 53 minutes [cell J20 and K20].
Part 2 of HAVCalc calculates the exposure in points, which in this example is 10.1 points per 15
minutes of use [cell H28] or 41 points per hour of use [cell K28]. These exposure points can be used 21
to facilitate an alternative way of totalling several different exposures in a working day. The
relationship between vibration magnitude and points is: points of exposure per hour = 2(vibration
magnitude)2. More complete description of the points risk assessment method along with worked
examples of how to apply it, is provided in Edwards and Holt (2007A).
The above derived maximum trigger-times with respect to EAV and ELV are similar to those shown in
Table 4. That is, if the vibration magnitude (for the angle grinder) of 4.5m/s2 is read-off along the
eighth row of Table 4, it is shown that the EAV is reached after 2 hours 28 minutes of use and the
ELV would be reached after 9 hours 53 minutes of use.
Figure 5 shows that when the vibration magnitude for the angle grinder is entered into Part 3 of
HAVCalc [cell E37], along with the trigger time of three hours 30 minutes [cell G37 and H37], then
the average daily operative exposure in this scenario is A(8)3.0 [cell K46] (or 142 points [cell J44]).
This demonstrates that use of the angle grinder for 3.5 hours a day would cause the operative to
exceed the action value (as 3 is greater than 2.5) but remain below the limit value (as 3 is less than
5). To reduce exposure below the EAV, while maintaining 3.5 hours of use, would require a lower
vibration tool or some other control measure to reduce the magnitude of vibration reaching the
operative’s hands. If the same tool were to be used (and no other control measure could be
implemented) then the operative’s exposure time to the angle grinder would need to be less than 2.5
hours per day to keep below the EAV.

Figure 5. Calculation of average daily exposure for the angle grinder in worked example (1)
using HAVCalc

Source: http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp
22 Worked Example 2: Calculating A(8) and
Assessment of Risk Where More Than One
Vibrating Tool is Used in a Day

Scenario: An operative uses three vibrating hand-held tools in a typical working day. The first has an
average vibration magnitude of 2m/s2 and is used for 3 hours, the second has a magnitude of
2.5m/s2 and is used for 1.5 hours and the third has a magnitude of 5m/s2 and is used for 45
minutes. What is the operative’s daily exposure A(8) and how does this relate to the CVWR?

The calculation for this scenario using Part 3 of HAVCalc is shown in Figure 6. As per the previous
example, the input data (the vibration magnitude and duration of exposure) is entered into the white
coloured cells for each tool respectively.

Figure 6. Calculation of average daily exposure for the three tools used in worked example (2)
using HAVCalc

Source: http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp
 The partial exposure value for each tool (in m/s2) is given at the end of each row11. These are: for
tool 1 - 1.2 m/s2 [cell K37], for tool 2 - 1.1m/s2 [cell K38] and for tool 3 - 1.5m/s2 [cell K39]. Based 23
upon these partial exposure values, the overall daily exposure A(8) for this operative is 2.2 m/s2 [cell
K46] which is below the EAV (as 2.2 is less than 2.5). Note that the total daily exposure A(8) is not
simply the sum of the partial exposure values – but this need not be of concern – because the
exposure calculator works out the total daily exposure value automatically. (Alternatively, the formula
for calculating A(8) for two or more operations is provided in Appendix B).
In practice therefore, it would be sufficient to record in the risk assessment documentation that this
operative is below the EAV and that no ‘urgent’ control measures are necessary. Nonetheless, the
Regulations require that could any control measures be implemented to lower this A(8) value (i.e. 2.2
m/s2) further, then these should be implemented in order to minimise the risk as much as reasonably
practicable (refer to discussion on ‘ALARP’ earlier).

Employee Health Surveillance

The CVWR require that in certain circumstances employers need to survey the health of operatives
exposed to HAV. The ‘general’ conditions under which such a surveillance regime should be
implemented include where the risk assessment has indicated that there is a risk to an operative’s
health from exposure to HAV and where the operative is likely to be regularly exposed above the EAV.
The issue of health surveillance is a specialist medical topic and because of this, the following
information is for background knowledge only.
The HSE advocate a tiered system of health surveillance starting with an initial baseline assessment
at tier 1, followed by annual screening, clinical assessment, formal diagnosis and finally, optional
standardised tests.
The baseline assessment (tier 1) should provide a ‘datum’ against which an operative’s future routine
health surveillance (e.g. tier 2 - annual screening) may be compared. The process might form part of
employee induction, or part of HAV education and training. It will typically be carried out using a self-
administered questionnaire.
Annual screening (tier 2) is routine health surveillance for operatives who have been identified as
being at risk, but who have not reported any symptoms suggestive of HAVS (since the last screening
or baseline assessment). A self-administered annual screening questionnaire may be used for this
purpose.
Clinical assessment (tier 3) is carried out by a qualified health professional or doctor. This will
normally follow tier 1 or tier 2 in cases where symptoms have been reported or have been noticed by
a health professional. A presumptive diagnosis may be recorded in tier 3 by a qualified person, but
formal diagnosis (tier 4) can only be made by a doctor. The formal diagnosis will be required for
certain actions, such as reporting by the employer of cases under the requirements of RIDDOR
(1995) and for employee ‘fitness for work’ recommendations.
The standardised tests (tier 5) are not compulsory under health surveillance, but may be requested
by a doctor to help with the diagnosis in tier 4. It involves the use of standardised tests for a worker
who has HAVS symptoms and can provide quantitative assessments that may also be used to monitor
progression of the condition over time.
Employers will need to maintain certain records connected with an operative’s health surveillance,
normally, for at least as long as the operative is under that surveillance regime. Note also, that the
enforcing authority, for example an HSE inspector, may ask employers for access to some of those
records as part of checks for CVWR compliance, but medical confidentiality will be respected as
appropriate. Figure 7 summarises the above issues regarding health surveillance.

11
Note that HAVCalc calculates partial and total exposures both in points and in m/s2; but the examples presented here
are using the m/s2 and A(8) values only, to avoid discussing two different methods and possibly therefore, causing
confusion. If the reader does want to learn more about using the points system for risk assessments, see Edwards and
Holt (2007A) and HSE (2005A, p78).
 Figure 7. The tiered system of operative health surveillance
24
Is there an indication of risk to
operative health from exposure?
Risk Assessment

Findings
and/or 1. sfgiassfiuahfa bjdijg sf
2. agfuishfsnfls

Will the operative be exposed at

or above the CVWR action value?

Confidential

Employee Health Record

Implement Health Surveillance jgisdgjo abfkjha ahfkh zbm
djhfgoi shs shoiw

Tier 1 Determine a baseline: new employees;

Baseline Assessment employees changing job;
self-administered questionnaire

Tier 2
Annual Screening Check for non-reported
symptoms by ‘qualified person’

Tier 3
Clinical Assessment Investigate reported symptoms
by ‘qualified person’ or doctor

Tier 4
Formal Diagnosis Formally diagnose condition;
must be done by doctor

Tier 5
Standardised tests (optional tier) Quantitative assessment;
not essential but useful to
study disease progression etc
25
26 How to Minimise the Risks
Overview
In almost all cases, HAV hazards can be controlled and their risks reduced (or eliminated) by good
management; and neither does the cost of risk controls need to be high. There are many actions that
can be taken to minimise or remove the risks from HAV and these can be conveniently grouped under
the following headings:

■ selecting (hiring / purchasing) the right equipment;

■ encouraging good (equipment) maintenance;
■ isolating the vibration;
■ changing work processes;
■ operative good practice; and
■ training and education.

In practice, there may be some overlap between these headings. For example, the introduction of a
vibration isolating mechanism on a tool may also require a slight change in the work process (to
allow the new mechanism to be used properly), additional routine inspection and maintenance (to
ensure efficiency) and an addition to the employee training and education (or induction) programme,
so that its use is adequately explained. Bearing in mind this potential for overlap, each of these
headings will now be discussed separately.

Selecting the Right Equipment

This can be considered in terms of:

■ company purchasing policy, in seeking to only purchase (or lease, hire etc.) equipment that has
been designed, engineered and manufactured to minimise vibration; and
■ ensuring that equipment selected for use is the most appropriate for the proposed work task(s) to
be performed by it.

The HSE (2003B, p17) suggest that many manufacturers offer ‘lower-vibration’ versions of certain
tools and state that when considering a purchase, prudent questions to ask manufacturers include
such things as:

■ “What is the frequency-weighted acceleration producing the highest vibration under ‘typical’
operating conditions?
■ “Under what conditions, and in accordance with what published standard, were vibration tests
made on the equipment? (Refer to Table 3 and its associated commentary regarding the variance
that may exist between laboratory determined vibration levels and actual vibration levels
experienced in ‘normal’ tool use).
■ “What additional vibration-reducing measures have been engineered-in or are available for the
equipment?
■ “What is the maximum vibration level that the equipment can be guaranteed not to exceed?”

When considering the vibration magnitude of a tool, remember that this can vary between similar
types of tool produced by different manufacturers and be sure to check whether the vibration
magnitude quoted for the tool is ‘ISO8662’ or ‘ISO5349’ (the former usually understates exposure
under real work conditions). Other questions might relate to the tool manufacturer’s advice regarding
any additional risk control(s) (that are available or desirable); or specific maintenance requirement(s)
that are required to maintain lower vibration levels or help mitigate exposure even further.
All new equipment and machinery on sale within the UK should be ‘CE’ marked – which among other
things, indicates that the machine meets the relevant health and safety requirements of Schedule 3 27
of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations (SMSR, 1994) – and this includes the manufacturer’s
duty to minimise risks by design and to provide information on vibration emissions.
Regardless of how ‘state-of-the-art’ an item of equipment is, it is important that the tool selected is
the most appropriate for the proposed work task(s) to be carried out by it. An inappropriate tool may
increase vibration exposure by:

■ taking longer to do the job (e.g. resulting in an increased exposure duration);

■ requiring an inappropriate method of being held (e.g. resulting in an increased area of the fingers or
hand being exposed);
■ requiring an inappropriate operator posture to carry out the work (which can affect vibration
exposure significantly);
■ being heavier, or vibrating more (than an appropriate tool); and
■ being unsafe in other ways (cf. HSC, 2003, p33).

Generally, an under-powered tool will take longer to do a unit of work (which extends exposure time)
and will probably encourage a tighter hand-grip and / or some ‘forcing’ of the tool. A larger or over-
powered tool will probably be heavier and possibly require greater effort to hold during use. However,
it is wrong to automatically assume that a larger or heavier tool will generate more vibration as very
often the converse is true.

Encouraging Good Maintenance

As with most mechanised processes or equipment, good maintenance is key to efficient and safe
working (Edwards et. al., 2003). An efficient, well maintained tool usually requires less time to
complete a task than does an inefficient one. For this reason it is fundamental to maintain equipment
well, especially in terms of:

■ keeping cutting discs (for example on angle grinders) or cutting blades (for example on circular
saws) sharp;
■ keeping breaking or cutting chisels sharp;
■ keeping chain saw teeth sharp and to the correct tension;
■ dressing grinding wheels correctly (to ensure concentricity and / or balance); and
■ keeping rotating components well balanced (an unbalanced component will vibrate more, this being
analogous to ‘steering-wheel shake’ when a vehicular road wheel is out of balance).

It is equally as important to keep all vibration-reducing measures fitted to equipment in good

condition too. This includes checking for things such as:

■ cracking, swelling, softening or hardening of rubber mountings;

■ deterioration of ‘anti-vibration’ or suspended handles; and /or
■ any other physical damage to any component of the equipment, especially anything used to hold or
guide it with the hands when it is being used.

Where there might be any doubt about maintenance methods or regimes, ask! Equipment
manufacturers or suppliers should be able to advise as appropriate and / or supply (for example,
‘fixed-time-to’) maintenance schedules. It is also good practice (in any event, not just in the context
of vibration), to encourage operatives to report damaged or suspect aspects of their work equipment,
for example, as part of their vibration training and education (see below).
28 Isolating the Vibration
Isolation of the vibration can be achieved in part from process change and this is discussed under the
next heading. Isolation generally refers to the use of anti-vibration handles, mounts, tension chains,
jigs or other accessories that reduce (or remove) the magnitude of vibration reaching the hand(s), or
help remove the need to grip, hold or guide vibrating surfaces (HSE, 2003B, p19).
The selection and use of isolation equipment must be undertaken with care. This is because the
retrospective fitting of anti-vibration accessories can sometimes exacerbate the vibration if the
accessory is not carefully matched to (or specifically designed for) the tool or process to which it is
fitted. For this reason it is preferable that anti-vibration accessories are an integral or ‘engineered-in’
aspect of a tool. (Alternatively, refer to the advice of discussing specific requirements with
manufacturers as mentioned above).
The retrospective application of resilient materials (like rubber or foam) to parts such as tool handles
is also uncertain in terms of effectiveness. Such materials might reduce high-frequency vibration but
generally do little to reduce transmission of vibration to the operator at the frequencies associated
with causing HAVS (HSE, 2003B, p19). The efficiency of anti-vibration gloves is also somewhat open
to question (HSE, 2005A, p57). It has been suggested that in some instances these gloves may even
increase vibration reaching the hand (HSE, 2003B, p20). However, gloves can help to keep hands
warm which in turn helps maintain better blood circulation, so their use in colder environments is
beneficial in ‘vascular’ terms.

Changing Work Processes

The basic aim in changing a process must be to remove the need for hand-held vibration-emitting
tools or work methods in order to avoid operative vibration exposure. The use of automation or
mechanisation for work processes previously or commonly performed by hand-held tools, removes the
risk altogether (HSE, 2003B). Such an approach requires careful review of the work tasks, perhaps by
asking questions such as “How can the process be changed to remove the need for hand tools?” or,
“How can the activity be done differently to minimise the need for hand guiding or holding?”.
For instance, in the case of stonemasons, the use of automated planing machines to shape stone or
the use of auto-lettering machinery in preference to hand-held tools for the same purpose, have been
cited as practical examples (HSE, 1998). Regarding hand-held processes, then the use of guides or
jigs to present work materials up to vibrating machinery (such as a grinder or a cutting tool) can
reduce, or if fully automated remove, vibration transmission into operatives. Another recent innovation
involves ‘fly-by-wire’ compaction tools, that take away completely the requirement for an operative to
hold and guide vibrating (roller, or compaction plate) equipment with their hands.
Due, for example, to practical or technological constraints, there may be instances where the tool(s)
used, method of working or work process itself cannot be changed or where such change (due to
similar reasons) is limited in scope. In these conditions a degree of exposure will remain, so the
‘process’ might be adjusted by introduction of ‘constraints’ or new working ‘parameters’, such as:

■ limiting the amount of time that an operative can use a particular vibrating tool, or carry out a
particular process, for example in any working day; or
■ implementing a timed rota scheme for hazardous activities whereby operatives perform other
(non-vibration exposure) work tasks at all other times in the working day; or
■ requiring that a particularly hazardous tool or process can only be used under very specific
circumstances, such as following issue of a permit-to-work.
Operative Good Practice 29
The way in which operatives use their equipment can significantly influence the amount of HAV
produced from it (Edwards and Holt, 2006B; 2007B). Good operative practice results mainly from
applying ‘common sense’ which in turn is encouraged by adequate training and education. Good
practice includes the following:
■ Many of the issues mentioned elsewhere in this Guide relate to the operative taking some
responsibility for vibration risk mitigation. This means adhering to some very basic rules such as
selecting the right tool for the job, using low vibration options when they are available, checking
tools regularly (vibration may occur from faults or simple wear-and-tear), not using faulty tools,
reporting faults in equipment instantly and ensuring that all cutting tools or other appendages are
sharp / and or appropriate for the intended use.
■ Tools should be stored in such a way that they do not get cold handles (this is especially relevant
to operatives working outside). Using tools with cold handles magnifies the problems of HAVS.
■ The hand-grip of a tool should always be just adequate to safely support the tool and perform the
task. A grip that is too tight can especially place extra strain on the hands and arms and make the
problems of HAV exposure worse.
■ Correct operative posture is important to avoid placing extra strain on the hands and /or arms. Not
using tools that are ‘over-rated’ or too heavy for the task or using tension chains to support heavier
bench tools might also help here. It may be useful for employers to discuss the latter with
operatives, to solicit opinions or suggestions from those that most regularly operate such tools.
■ It is important that operatives try to maintain good blood circulation in their hands. Good
circulation can be helped by keeping warm and dry and by the wearing of gloves where possible,
especially when working outside or in cold environments. An operative giving up, or cutting down,
on smoking also helps, because smoking reduces blood flow. It may also help if the fingers are
massaged and exercised during periods of rest as a means to helping maintain blood circulation in
them.
■ Operatives have a duty under health and safety law to comply with any vibration control measures
that the employer has put in place.

Training and Education on HAV

It has been highlighted that the use of untrained, or inadequately trained, operatives is a major cause
of accidents (Edwards, 2002). It follows therefore, that if operatives possess an understanding of HAV
as a result of training and education, then that can help them to look for the risks and try wherever
possible to avoid, or minimise them. Operatives should at least understand the level of HAV risk to
which they might be exposed, how that risk is caused and what the possible negative health effects
might be (HSC, 2003, p65).
Where the EAV is exceeded, the CVWR places a duty on employers to provide suitable and sufficient
training for employees such that work equipment may be used correctly and safely in order to
minimise their exposure to vibration (CVWR, 2005).
Training can be delivered via any mix of oral explanations, computer-based training, counselling,
leaflets, handouts, films and other recordings, or short dedicated training sessions (HSC, 2003, p66).
OPERC has a self-study module on HAV (OPERC, 2006) and hosts a dedicated HAV competence test
facility (OPERC, 2007C). More comprehensive guidance on the design and delivery of training,
specifically for plant operators, is provided in Edwards (2003).
 The specific content of training material will reflect the actual work setting and industry sector, but
30 should include reference to:
■ identification of vibration-emitting work processes;
■ operatives’ personal daily exposure levels as determined by the EAV and ELV;
■ description of HAVS and its symptoms;
■ negative-health reporting systems;
■ HAV control measures and their use; and
■ operatives’ general health and safety duties (HSC, 2003).

The importance of operatives reporting any HAVS symptoms to their employer should represent a
particularly important part of training and education schemes. This is because operatives may be
reluctant to highlight symptoms for fear of losing their job, but the progression of unreported HAVS
and its often irreversible medical effects needs to be highlighted, in helping workers appreciate why
reporting is so important.
Conclusion 31

Hand-arm vibration (HAV) is concerned with the transmission of vibration into operatives’ hands and
arms. This may come about through any combination of:

■ contact with vibrating hand-held tools;

■ use of hand-guided mechanical equipment; and
■ holding or guiding raw materials, that are being subjected to vibration-emitting work processes.

Prolonged or repeated exposure to HAV can cause negative health, particularly in the hands and lower
arms; although the cause-effect relationship between exposure and ill-health is a complex one and
exposure does not automatically mean that ill-health will result.
The negative health effects of HAV are sometimes generically referred to as hand-arm vibration
syndrome (HAVS). The medical symptoms of HAVS present in the hands and arms and tend to be any
combination of:

■ vascular (related to blood circulation);

■ neurological (related to the nervous system); or
■ musculoskeletal (which includes damage to muscles and soft tissue) symptoms.

Probably the most well known medical conditions associated with HAVS are vibration white finger
(VWF) and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Severe pain, finger blanching, tingling, pins-and-needles and
general loss of sensitivity and manual dexterity are also symptoms associated with HAVS.
Health and safety legislation relating to HAV is defined among several health and safety statutory
instruments, the most relevant of which is the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005. Among
other things, CVWR places duties on employers in managing, reducing or removing HAV hazards, in
the main by reference to an exposure action value (EAV) and exposure limit value (ELV).

■ The EAV is a level of daily operator exposure, which if exceeded, requires specified action to be
taken to reduce the risk. The daily EAV normalised to an 8-hour reference period is defined as A(8).
The action value for HAV expressed in A(8) is 2.5m/s2.
■ The ELV is a level of daily operator exposure that must not be exceeded. The daily ELV normalised
to an 8-hour reference period is also defined as A(8). The limit value for HAV expressed in A(8) is
5m/s2.

Under CVWR, the ELV may in certain circumstances be deferred (by up to July 2010) on items of
equipment supplied to operatives before 6 July 2007, but it applies to any new equipment provided
after that date. The CVWR also requires employers to assess HAV hazards via an appropriately
administered risk assessment process; and subsequently take all reasonably practicable steps to
control or remove identified HAV risks.
Objective risk assessment involves determination of operatives’ daily vibration exposure levels by
considering exposure (trigger) times and vibration magnitude data for any tool(s) or process(es) used
by workers. Typically the latter can be done by reference to published data but caution is necessary
in considering that often, vibration levels measured ‘in the field’ are greater than those measured
under controlled conditions.
 A useful source of ‘real life’ data appropriate for risk assessment purposes, may be found within the
32 OPERC’s online HAVTEC register. Similarly, OPERC’s HAVCalc tool can be useful in helping to conduct
objective risk assessments and to generate (assessment) reports for record keeping purposes.
HAV hazards can usually be controlled by good management and this need not necessarily incur high
cost. Control measures can be conveniently grouped under the headings of:

■ selecting the right equipment;

■ encouraging good (equipment) maintenance;
■ isolating the vibration;
■ changing work processes;
■ operator good practice; and
■ training and education.

In practice, a well designed and managed HAV risk control system, will mean that many aspects of
these listed control measures will most probably overlap to some extent.
34 References and Bibliography
Aldien, Y., Marcotte, P., Rakheja, S. and Boileau, P. É. (2006A). Influence of hand forces and handle
size on power absorption of the human hand-arm exposed to zh axis vibration. The Journal of Sound
and Vibration. (March) Vol. 290, No. 3-5, pp 1015-1039. Elsevier.
Aldien., Y., Marcotte, P., Rakheja, S. and Boileau, P. É. (2006B). Influence of hand-arm posture on
biodynamic response of the human hand-arm exposed to zh axis vibration. The International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics. (January) Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 45-59. Elsevier.
Anon (2004A). Definition of VWF from Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster,
Inc. Accessed via: http://dictionary.reference.com/ (viewed November 2004).
Anon (2004B). Definition of CTS from Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. Accessed via: http://dictionary.reference.com/ (viewed November 2004).
Anon (2004C). Definition of Phalanx from Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Published by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Accessed via: http://dictionary.reference.com/ (viewed November 2004).
Anon (2007). Health surveillance: Guide for occupational health professionals. Guidance published by
the Health and Safety Executive. PDF document accessed via the HSC website at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav/advicetoemployers/havocchealth.pdf (viewed January 2007).
Åström, C., Rehn, B., Lundström, R. Nilsson, T., Burström, L. and Sundelin, G. (2006). Hand-arm
vibration syndrome (HAVS) and musculoskeletal symptoms in the neck and the upper limbs in
professional drivers of terrain vehicles—a cross sectional study. Applied Ergonomics. Elsevier.
Beaumont, D., Noeuveglise, M. and Vibert, M. L. (1995). Screening of vibration-induced disorders in
the building industry using digital tactilometry. Results of a Field Study. Central European Journal of
Public Health. Vol. 3, suppl. 103-106.
BOMEL (2003). Hand-arm vibration syndrome – underlying causes and risk control in the construction
industry. Research report ref. 114, prepared by BOMEL Ltd., for the Association of British Insurers,
(represented by the Building Research Establishment) in conjunction with the Health and Safety
Executive 2003. ISBN: 0-7176-2219-3.
BSI (1993). British Standard BS EN 28662-1: 1993. Hand-held portable power tools – measurements
of vibrations at the handle. Part 1: General. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-21252-1.
BSI (1995A). British Standard BS EN 28662-2: 1995. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 2: Chipping hammers and riveting hammers. British
Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-23685-4.
BSI (1995B). British Standard BS EN 28662-3: 1995. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 3: Rock drills and rotary hammers. British Standards
Institution. ISBN: 0-580-23686-2.
BSI (1995C). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-5: 1995. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 5: Pavement breakers and hammers for construction
work. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-23687-0.
BSI (1995D). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-6: 1995. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 6: Impact drills. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-
580-24874-7.
BSI (1997A). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-7: 1997. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 7: Wrenches, screwdrivers and nut runners with
impact, impulse or ratchet action. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-27831-X.
BSI (1997B). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-8: 1997. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 8: Polishers and rotary, orbital and random orbital
sanders. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-28086-1.
BSI (1997C). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-9: 1997. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 9: Rammers. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0- 35
580-26657-5.
BSI (1997D). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-12: 1997. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 12: Saws and files with reciprocating action and saws
with oscillating or rotating action. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-28085-3.
BSI (1997E). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-13: 1997. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 13: Die grinders. British Standards Institution. ISBN:
0-580-27830-1.
BSI (1997F). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-14: 1997. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 14: Stone-working tools and needle scalers. British
Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-27448-9.
BSI (1997G). British Standard BS EN ISO 10819: 1997. Hand-arm vibration – method for the
measurement and evaluation of the vibration transmissibility of gloves at the palm of the hand. British
Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-26498-X.
BSI (1997H). British Standard BS EN ISO 12096: 1997. Mechanical vibration – declaration and
verification of vibration emission values. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-28928-1.
BSI (1998). British Standard BS EN ISO 8662-10: 1998. Hand-held portable power tools –
measurements of vibrations at the handle. Part 10: Nibblers and shears. British Standards Institution.
ISBN: 0-580-30381-0.
BSI (2001). British Standard BS EN ISO 5349-1: 2001. Mechanical vibration – measurement and
evaluation of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration. Part 1: General requirements. British
Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-38603-1.
BSI (2002). British Standard BS EN ISO 5349-2: 2002. Mechanical vibration – measurement and
evaluation of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration. Part 2: Practical guidance for
measurement at the workplace. British Standards Institution. ISBN: 0-580-38426-8.
Burke, F. D., Lawson, I. J., McGeoch, J. N., Miles, V. and Proud, G. (2005). Carpal tunnel syndrome in
association with hand-arm vibration syndrome: a review of claimants seeking compensation in the
mining industry. The Journal of Hand Surgery: Journal of the British Society for Surgery of the Hand.
(May) Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 199-203. Elsevier.
Construction Confederation (2004). Hand arm (sic) vibration. A new approach to managing the risks
for employers. Hire Association Europe. Health and Safety Briefing. Construction Confederation, July &
August.
CEHVD (2004). The Centralised European Hand-arm Vibration Database. Accessed via:
http://umetech.niwl.se/eng/havhome.lasso. (viewed January 2004).
Chetter, I. C., Kent, P. J. and Kester, R. C. (1997). The hand arm [sic] vibration syndrome: a review.
Cardiovascular Surgery. (December) Vol. 6, No. 1, pp 1-9. Elsevier.
CIP (2007). Construction health and safety manual. Section 13 Portable Tools, page 13-8 Vibration.
Construction Industry Publications Ltd., for The Construction Confederation. ISBN: 1-85263-002-7
(print). Accessed via: http://www.cip-books.com/ (viewed January 2007).
CITB (2001). Construction site safety. health, safety and environmental information. Chapter 8,
Vibration. Bircham Newton: The Construction Industry Training Board. ISBN: 1-85751-006-2 (print).
Construction Confederation (2004). Hand arm (sic) vibration. A new approach to managing the risks
for employers. Health and Safety Briefing. Hire Association Europe. Construction Confederation, July/
August 2004.
CRNVD (2005). Catalogue of Representative Noise and Vibration Data at Workplaces. Accessed via:
http://www.las-bb.de/karla/. (viewed January 2005).
 CVWR (2005A). The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations. Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1093.
36 ISBN: 0-1107-2767-3 (print) or via the web at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ (viewed January 2007).
CVWR (2005B). The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland). Statutory Rule 2005
No. 397. ISBN: 0-3379-6143-3 (print) or via the web at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ (viewed January
2007).
Dong, R. G., Schopper, T. W., McDowell, T. W., Welcome, D. E., Wu. J. Z., Smutz, W. P., Warren, C.
and Rakheja, S. (2004A). Vibration energy absorption (VEA) in human fingers-hand-arm system.
Medical Engineering and Physics. (July) Vol. 26, No. 6, pp 483-492. Elsevier.
Dong, R. G., Welcome, T. W., McDowell, T. W. and Wu, J. Z. (2004B). Biodynamic response of human
fingers in a power grip subjected to a random vibration. The Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,
(August) Vol. 126, No. 4, pp 447-457.
Dong, R. G., McDowell, T. W. and Welcome, D. E. (2005A). Biodynamic response at the palm of the
human hand subjected to a random vibration. Industrial Health. Vol. 43, pp 241-255. The National
Institute of Industrial Health, Japan.
Dong, R. G., Wu, J. Z. and Welcome, D. E. (2005B). Recent advances in biodynamics of human hand-
arm system. Review Article. Industrial Health. Vol. 43, pp 449-471. The National Institute of Industrial
Health, Japan.
Dong, R. G., McDowell, T.W., Welcome, D.E and Smutz, W. P. (2005C). Correlations between
biodynamic characteristics of human hand-arm system and the isolation effectiveness of anti-vibration
gloves. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. (March) Vol. 35, No. 3, pp 205-216. Elsevier
Science.
EC (2002). Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th June 2002
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure to workers to the risks arising
from physical agents (vibration). In: The Official Journal of the European Communities, L177 Vol 45,
pp 13-19, 06-07-2002.
Edwards, D. J. (2002). Voluntary code of practice for plant and equipment operator training. Produced
by the Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK. ISBN: 0-
947-974-06-7.
Edwards, D. J. (2003). A best practice guide for plant instructors. Produced by the Off-highway Plant
and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK. ISBN: 0- 947-974-14-8.
Edwards, D. J., Harris, F. C. and McCaffer, R. (2003). Management of off-highway plant and
equipment. London: Spon Press. ISBN: 0-415-25128-1.
Edwards, D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2005A). A guide to whole-body vibration. Loughborough: The Off-
Highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK. ISBN: 0-947-97431-8.
Edwards D. J. and Holt G. D. (2005B). An introduction to whole-body vibration. Digital Versatile Disc.
Loughborough: The Off-Highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK
(in association with the Health and Safety Executive). (Run time 25 mins.). November.
Edwards D. J. and Holt G. D. (2005C). Exposure to hand-arm vibration: implications of new statutory
requirements. Building Research and Information, The International Journal of Research, Development
and Demonstration. Vol. 33, No. 3, pp 257 – 266. London: Routledge. ISSN: 0961-3218 (print).
Edwards, D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2005D). A guide to hand-arm vibration. Loughborough: The Off-Highway
Plant and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK. ISBN: 0-947-97432-6.
Edwards D. J. and Holt G. D. (2006A). An introduction to hand-arm vibration. Digital Versatile Disc.
Loughborough: The Off-Highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK
(in association with the Health and Safety Executive). (Run time 25 mins.). March.
Edwards D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2006B). Hand-arm vibration exposure from construction tools: results
of a field study. Construction Management and Economics, (February) Vol. 24, pp 209-217. London:
Routledge. ISSN: 0144-6193 (print).
Edwards, D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2006C). Hand-arm vibration controls: A perspective based on
performance and cost dimensions. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction. 37
Vol. 11, No. 1, pp 147-158. (March). ISSN: 1366 – 4387.
Edwards, D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2007A). A manager’s guide to hand-arm vibration. Loughborough:
The Off-Highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre, Loughborough University.
ISBN: 978-0-947974-55-8.
Edwards, D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2007B). Construction hand tools: vibration emissions from alternative
inserts. Building Research and Information, The International Journal of Research, Development and
Demonstration. London: Routledge. ISSN: 0961-3218 (print). [In press as at 01-07].
Edwards, D. J. and Holt, G. D. (2007C). Perceptions of vibration hazards among a small sample of UK
construction professionals. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Oxford:
Blackwell Science. ISSN: 0969 9988 (print). [In press as at 01-07].
Fridén, J. (2001). Vibration damage to the hand: clinical presentation, prognosis, and length of
severity of vibration required. The Journal of Hand Surgery: Journal of The British Society for Surgery
of the Hand. (October) Vol. 26, No.5, pp 471-474. Elsevier.
Gerhardsson, L., Balogh, I., Hambert, P., Hjortsberg, U. and Karlsson, J. (2005). Vascular and nerve
damage in workers exposed to vibrating tools. The Importance of Objective Measurements of Time.
Applied Ergonomics. (January) Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 55-60. Elsevier.
Griffin, M. (1990). Handbook of human vibration. Academic Press. ISBN: 0-12-303040-4.
Griffin, M. J. (2004). Minimum health and safety requirements for workers exposed to hand-
transmitted vibration and whole-body vibration in the European union; a review. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 61, pp 387-397. London: BMJ Publishing Ltd.
HASWA (1974). The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. (Elizabeth II 1974 Chapter 37). 18th
Impression August 1991. London: HMSO. ISBN: 0-1054-3774-3.
Hilti, (2004). Reduce hand arm [sic] vibration health risks. Marketing and information brochure
produced by Hilti (GB) Ltd. Document ref: 03081708. Accessed via: www.hilti.co.uk (viewed October
2005).
HSC (2003). Proposals for new control of vibration at work regulations implementing the physical
agents (vibration) Directive (2002/44/EC) hand-arm vibration. Consultative document. Published by
the Health and Safety Executive, document ref. CD190 C 11/03.
HSE (1998). Reducing the risk of hand-arm vibration injury among stonemasons. The Health and
Safety Executive, information sheet, document ref. MISC112.
HSE (2003A). Essentials of health and safety at work. The Health and Safety Executive. ISBN: 0-
7176-0716-X.
HSE (2003B). Hand-arm Vibration. The Health and Safety Executive, document ref: HSG88. ISBN: 0-
7176-0743-7.
HSE (2003C). Health risks from hand-arm vibration. Advice for employers. The Health and Safety
Executive, document ref: INDG175(rev1). ISBN: 0-7176-1553-7.
HSE (2003D). Health risks from hand-arm vibration. Advice for employees and the self-employed. The
Health and Safety Executive, document ref: INDG126(rev1). ISBN: 0-7176-1554-5.
HSE (2003E). Five steps to risk assessment. The Health and Safety Executive, document ref.
INDG163(rev1). ISBN: 0-7176-1565-0.
HSE (2003F). Hand-arm vibration syndrome. Pocket card for employees. The Health and Safety
Executive, document ref: INDG296P. ISBN: 0-7176-2454-4.
HSE (2004A). A brief history of hand-arm vibration. The Health and Safety Executive. Accessed via:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/history.htm. (viewed October 2004).
 HSE (2004B). Hand-arm vibration syndrome. The Health and Safety Executive. Accessed via:
38 http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/vibrate.htm. (viewed October 2004).
HSE (2004C). Hand-arm vibration exposure calculator. Located on the HSE accessed via:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav.xls (viewed October 2004).
HSE (2005A). Hand-arm vibration. The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005. Guidance on
Regulations. The Health and Safety Executive. Document ref: L140. ISBN: 0-7176-6125-3.
HSE (2005B). Control the risks from hand-arm vibration. Advice for employers on the Control of
Vibration at Work Regulations 2005. The Health and Safety Executive, document ref: INDG175(rev2).
ISBN: 0-7176-6117-2 (print).
HSE (2005C). Hand-arm vibration. Advice for employees. The Health and Safety Executive, document
ref: INDG296(rev1). ISBN: 0-7176-6118-0 (print). Accessed via:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/information.htm (viewed October 2005).
HSE (2005D). The tiered system of health surveillance. Brief guidance for employers and health
professionals. The Health and Safety Executive. Interim short guide available as PDF accessed via:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/tieredsystem.pdf (viewed October 2005).
HSE (2007). Hand-arm vibration syndrome. Summary statistics on related medical conditions given on
the Health and Safety Executive website, accessed via:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/vibrate.htm (viewed January 2007).
Hughes, P. and Ferrett, E. (2003). Introduction to health and safety at work. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann. ISBN: 0-7506-5730-8.
INVC (2005). The Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre Website, Hand-arm Vibration Sub-domain.
Accessed via: http://www.invc.co.uk/ (viewed October 2005).
ISO (22867). ISO 22867. Forestry machinery – vibration test code for portable hand-held machines
with internal combustion engine – measurement of vibration at the handles. Under publication as at
11-04. [Revises: ISO 7505: 1986. Forestry machinery – chain saws – measurement of hand-
transmitted vibration and ISO 7916: 1987. Forestry machinery – portable brushsaws – measurement
of hand-transmitted vibration]. The International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.
ISO (2001A). ISO 5349-1: 2001. Mechanical vibration – measurement and evaluation of human
exposure to hand-transmitted vibration – Part 1, General requirements. International Organisation for
Standardisation, Geneva.
ISO (2001B). ISO 5349-2: 2001. Mechanical vibration – measurement and evaluation of human
exposure to hand-transmitted vibration – Part 2, practical guidance for measurement at the
workplace. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva.
Lawson, I. J. and McGeoch, K. L. (2003). A medical assessment procedure for a large number of
medico-legal compensation claims for hand-arm vibration syndrome. Occupational Medicine. Vol. 53,
pp 302-308.
McDowell, T. W., Wiker, S. F., Dong, R. G., Welcome, D. E. and Schopper, A. W. (2006). Evaluation of
psychometric estimates of vibratory hand-tool grip and push forces. The International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics. (February) Vol. 36, No. 2, pp 119-128. Elsevier Science.
McGeoch, K. L. and Gilmour, W. H. (2000). Cross sectional study of a workforce exposed to hand-arm
vibration: with objective tests and the Stockholm workshop scales. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, (January) Vol. 57, No. 1, pp 35-42. London: BMJ Publishing Ltd.
MHSWR (1999). The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Statutory
Instrument No. 3242.
MRC (1999). Medical Research Council and the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research: Hand
transmitted vibration: occupational exposures and their health effects in great Britain. The Health and
Safety Executive, Contract Research Report Ref: CRR 232/1999.
Neely, G. and Burström, L. (2006). Gender differences in subjective responses to hand-arm vibration.
The International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. (February) Vol. 36, No. 2, pp 135-140. Elsevier. 39
OCA (2002). HAVS Guidance notes for good practice within the oil and gas industry. Hand-arm
vibration syndrome in the workplace. Aberdeen: The Offshore Contractors Association.
OPERC (2005). Hand-arm vibration information paper. Loughborough University: The Off-Highway Plant
and Equipment Research Centre. Document ref: IP1005.
OPERC (2006). OPERC health and safety study module. Module ref: OPERC-SM-009. Hand-arm
vibration. Loughborough University: The Off-Highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre.
OPERC (2007A). HAVTEC: The hand-arm vibration test centre register. Sub-domain of the Off-highway
Plant and Equipment Research Centre website, accessed via:
http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp (viewed January 2007). [Free registration required for
full user access].
OPERC (2007B). HAVCalc: Online vibration exposure calculator and risk assessment aid. Sub-domain
of the Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre website, accessed via:
http://operc.com/pages/havtecwelcome.asp (viewed January 2007). [Free registration required for
full user access and / or download facility].
OPERC (2007C). Online hand-arm vibration knowledge and competence test. Modular component of
the Safetynet testing facility, sub-domain of the Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre
website, accessed via: http://operc.com/HSTest/ (viewed January 2007). [Subscription required for
full user access].
Palmer, K. T., Griffin, M. J., Syddall, H., Pannett, B., Cooper, C. and Coggon, D. (2001). Risk of hand-
arm vibration syndrome according to occupation and sources of exposure to hand-transmitted
vibration: a national survey. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. (April) Vol. 39, No. 4, pp 389-
396. Wiley.
PUWER (1998). The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. Statutory Instrument
No. 2306.
RIDDOR (1995). The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995.
Statutory Instrument No. 3163.
SMSR (1994). The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 as amended 1994. Statutory
Instrument No. 2063.
VIBGUIDE (2006). Guide to good practice on hand-arm vibration. non-binding guide to good practice
with a view to implementation of directive 2002/44/EC on the minimum health and safety
requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents directive.
(Draft V.5.3). In production under EU Contract No. VC/2004/0341, Co-ordinated by The University of
Southampton. Accessed via: http://www.humanvibration.com/EU/VIBGUIDE.htm (viewed March
2006).
WHSWR (1992). The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Statutory Instrument
No. 3004.
Wu, J. Z., Dong, R. G., Rakheja, S. and Schopper, W. (2002). Simulation of mechanical responses of
fingertip to dynamic loading. Medical Engineering and Physics, (May) Vol. 24, No. 4, pp 253-264.
40 Appendix A
Comparison of some different manufacturers’ tools:
Amounts of work that can be done before EAV is
reached

Tools: breakers
Work (kg) to reach A(8) 2.5

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tool A Tool B Tool C

This chart shows how many kilograms of concrete can be broken from the edge of a 200mm thick
35N concrete block, by each of three different manufacturers’ breakers of similar configuration,
before reaching the exposure action value.

Tools: combi-hammers and battery drills

Work (no. of holes) to reach A(8) 2.5

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tool A Tool B Tool C
Manufacturer

The shorter columns on the left of each pair show how many 25mm diameter holes can be drilled
using three different manufacturers’ combi-hammers, before reaching the exposure action value.
Similarly, the taller columns on the right of each pair show how many 12mm diameter holes can be
drilled using three different manufacturers’ battery drills, before reaching the exposure action value.

Source: OPERC (2005)

Test parameters 41
Vibration measurements made in the field to ISO 5349-1. Each tool measured using three different
subjects with a minimum of five repeat measurements each. Performance assessed for breakers by
measuring mass of concrete broken in 10 minutes using three different subjects. Performance of
combi-hammers and drills measured by time taken to drill 100mm deep hole of stated diameter using
three different subjects and five repeat measurements each. Results presented above from combining
vibration (m/s2) and performance (kg/no./sec) data. Note that repeat results could vary from those
shown based on for example, different tools (e.g. manufacturing tolerances, wear and tear,
sharpness), different base materials (e.g. hardness) and different operators (e.g. operating
techniques).
42 Appendix B
Daily vibration exposure [A(8)]
The daily personal vibration exposure level referred to as A(8) is expressed in metres per second
squared (m/s2) and is derived from the formula:

where:
ahv is the vibration magnitude, in metres per second squared (m/s2);
T is the duration of exposure to the vibration magnitude ahv; and
T0 is the reference duration of 8 hours (28,800 seconds).

To avoid confusion between vibration magnitude and daily exposure to vibration, it is conventional to
express daily exposure to vibration in m/s2 A(8).

The vibration magnitude, ahv, is ascertained using the formula:

where:
ahwx, ahwy and ahwz are the root-mean-square acceleration magnitudes, in m/s2, measured in three
orthogonal directions, x, y and z, at the vibrating surface in contact with the hand, and frequency-
weighted using the weighting Wh.

The definition for the frequency weighting Wh is given in British Standard BS EN ISO 5349-1: 2001
(BSI, 2001).

Where both hands are exposed to vibration, the greater of the two magnitudes ahv is used to
ascertain the daily exposure.

If the work is such that the total daily exposure consists of two or more operations with different
vibration magnitudes, the daily exposure (A(8)) for the combination of operations is ascertained using
the formula:
where:
43
n is the number of individual operations within the working day;
ahvi is the vibration magnitude for operation i; and
Ti is the duration of operation i.

Weekly vibration exposure [A(8)week]

The exposure to vibration averaged over one week (A(8)week) is the total exposure occurring within a
period of seven consecutive days, normalised to a reference duration of five 8-hour days (40 hours). It
is ascertained using the formula:

where:
A(8)j is the daily exposure for day j.
 A Guide to Hand-arm Vibration
2nd Edition

Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC)

PERC
Off-highway Plant and Equipment
Research Centre
With the exception of research, private study, or review, the contents of this document cannot be
reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the written permission of the
copyright owner: Dr David J. Edwards. All copyright requests should be made via email, to Dr Edwards
at OPERC: [email protected].

The material contained within this document constitutes general guidelines only and is not at the time
of publication, mandatory. The Guide does not replace any legal obligations upon employers to provide,
or upon employees to undertake, any necessary health and safety training (or satisfy any other
mandatory requirements placed upon such parties under relevant health and safety legislation).

Readers are advised to obtain professional health and safety advice as appropriate (for example, from
the Health and Safety Executive, or other similar national enforcement agencies if this publication is
being used outside of the UK), before acting upon any recommendations contained within this text.

Published by:
The Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC),
Department of Building and Civil Engineering,
Loughborough University,
Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.operc.com

Distributed by:
IRAS Group, PO Box 3258, Wolverhampton,
West Midlands, WV3 7YT, UK

Tel/Fax: +44(0) 1384 356202

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.irasgroup.net

ISBN: 978 0 947974 54 1

Authors: David J. Edwards and Gary D. Holt

Editor: Philippa G. Spittle

© 2007 Dr David J. Edwards, Loughborough University

Supported by Loughborough University
Distributor: IRAS Group
Email: [email protected]
Loughborough University Leicestershire LE11 3TU UK Tel: +44 (0)1509 222630 Fax: +44 (0)1509 223981