Evaluation of Whole-Body Vibration (WBV) of Dozer Operators Based on Job Cycle

  • Sandeep Kumar JeripotulaEmail author
  • Aruna Mangalpady
  • Govinda Raj Mandela
Original Contribution


Dozer operators are frequently exposed to high levels of occupational vibration. So far, no study reported component wise evaluation of dozer cycle of operation. In the present study, WBV data were collected by placing the trial accelerometer at operator’s seat-surface and at seat-back. Frequency-weighted root mean square (RMS), vibration dose value (VDV) and crest factor were collected for each dozer for two phases’ forward motion and return motion. All the dozers under study were found to be in severe zone with respect to measured RMS, during forward motion and return motion, irrespective of type of measurements (i.e., seat-surface and seat-back). As per VDV, out of eight dozers three dozers were found to be in caution zone during forward motion and three in return motion. According to EU Directive 2002 (as per RMS), all the dozers under study have reported exposure action value above 0.5 m/s2. Further, out of eight dozers, four dozers have shown exposure limit value above 1.15 m/s2 for seat-surface measurements and three dozers for seat-back measurements. Vibration mitigation strategies should be adapted not just based on intensity of vibration but also with respect to dominant axis of vibration. Considering the severe health risk due to the translational vibration (i.e., in x-direction), the vibration risk in the forward x-direction can be reduced by using seat belt; similarly in rear x-direction it can be attenuated by placing lumber-assisted back rest.


Whole-body vibration Surface mine Mine safety Occupational hazard 



  1. 1.
    G.P. Slota, K.P. Granata, M.L. Madigan, Effects of seated whole-body vibration on postural control of the trunk during unstable seated balance. Clin. Biomech. 23, 381–386 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Wickstrom, A. Kjellberg, U. Landstrom, Health effects of long-term occupational exposure to whole-body vibration: a review. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 14, 273–292 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Bovenzi, C.T. Hulshof, An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain. J. Sound Vib. 215, 595–611 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Bovenzi, C.T. Hulshof, An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain (1986–1997). Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 72, 351–365 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.W. Martin, T.J. Martin, T.P. Bennett, K.M. Martin, Surface Mining Equipment, 1st edn. (Martin Consultants, Colorado, 1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Organization for Standardization, Mechanical Vibration and Shock-Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration-Part 1: General Requirements (The Organization, London, 1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. U., & Provisions, G. E. N. E. R. A. L. (Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), Off. J. Eur. Communities L 117(13), 6–7 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institution of Engineers (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mining EngineeringNational Institute of Technology, KarnatakaMangalore, DKIndia

Personalised recommendations