Journal of Terramechanics

Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573 www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Whole-body vibration: Evaluation of emission and exposure levels arising from agricultural tractors
A.J. Scarlett
a

a,*

, J.S. Price a, R.M. Stayner

Silsoe Research Institute, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedforfshire MK45 4HS, UK b RMS Vibration Test Laboratory, UK

Abstract A study was conducted to quantify whole-body vibration (WBV) emission and estimated exposure levels found upon a range of modern, state-of-the-art agricultural tractors, when operated in controlled conditions (traversing ISO ride vibration test tracks and performing selected agricultural operations) and whilst performing identical tasks during on-farm use. The potential consequences of operator WBV exposure limitations, as prescribed by the European Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive:2002 (PA(V)D), upon tractor usage patterns were considered. Tractor WBV emission levels were found to be very dependent upon the nature of eld operation performed, but largely independent of vehicle suspension system capability (due to the dominance of horizontal vibration). However, this trend was reversed during on-road transport. Few examples (9%) of tractor eld operations approached or exceeded the PA(V)D Exposure Limit Value (ELV) during 8 h operation, but this gure increased (to 27%) during longer working days. However virtually all (95%) on-farm vehicles exceeded the Exposure Action Value (EAV) during an 8-h day. The PA(V)D is not likely to restrict the operation of large, stateof-the-art tractors during an 8-h day, but will become a limitation if the working day lengthens signicantly. Further on-farm WBV data collection is required to enable creation of a robust, generic WBV emission database for agricultural tractor operations, to enable estimation of likely WBV exposure by employers. 2006 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tractors; Agricultural; Whole-body vibration; Emissions; Exposure; Limit; Physical agents (vibration) directive

1. Introduction It is widely recognised that tractor operators are exposed to high levels of whole-body vibration (WBV) during typical farm operations [13]. Low-frequency tractor ride vibration, the resultant problem of driver discomfort and the possibility of spinal injury, became recognised issues during the 1960s, but only recently has legislation been introduced to limit worker exposure to vibration [4], be it whole-body or hand-arm. Although the majority of agricultural tractors incorporate design features that attempt to reduce WBV levels experienced by the operator, the (low) level of WBV exposure limitation proposed by the PA(V)D prompted widespread concern that typical agricul*

tural vehicle usage patterns would be restricted. A pilot study [5] was undertaken to quantify Whole-Body Vibration (WBV) emission levels found upon a limited range of agricultural tractors operating in controlled conditions, but the limitations of this initial study (performed entirely upon articial test surfaces and with a limited range of vehicle types) were recognised. To address these shortfalls a further investigation was undertaken to:  Quantify WBV emission levels found upon modern, state-of-the-art agricultural tractors, both when traversing ISO ride vibration test tracks and whilst performing a range of typical eld operations.  Estimate operator daily WBV exposure levels during typical on-farm tractor operation and consider the consequences of prescribing operator WBV exposure level limits upon tractor usage patterns.

Corresponding author. E-mail address: andy.scarlett@bbsrc.ac.uk (A.J. Scarlett).

0022-4898/$20.00 2006 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2006.01.006

66

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

2. Methodology A range of modern, medium/large (90130 kW) fourwheel-drive tractors, embodying dierent levels of suspension system capability, were kindly loaned by their respective manufacturers. Whilst all incorporated high-specication suspension seats, the vehicles were classied by the additional suspension features they embodied, namely:  Unsuspended.  Suspended cab.  Suspended front axle and cab.  Fully suspended (front and rear axle). WBV emission levels were recorded upon both the drivers seat and the cab oor (close to the seat mounting) of these machines (see Fig. 1) whilst: (i) Test tractors were driven at a range of speeds over articial [6] ride vibration test tracks. (ii) Test tractors performed selected agricultural operations in controlled in-eld conditions at Silsoe Research Institute (SRI). (iii) Identical on-farm tractors performed similar operations in normal day-to-day use. Agricultural tractor WBV emission levels are normally measured in accordance with the ISO 5008:2002 [6] methodology, where the vehicle is driven over dened 100 m (smoother) and 35 m (rougher) test tracks at a prescribed range of speeds. During each pass acceleration levels are measured simultaneously in three perpendicular directions (X longitudinal, Y transverse and Z vertical) upon the surface of the operators seat (see Fig. 1). The recorded values are then normalised (to remove zero osets) and frequency-weighted in accordance with ISO 2631-1:1997 [7] procedure, before derivation of root mean square (r.m.s.) acceleration values. Additionally, the horizontal (X and Y) axis values are each multiplied by a factor of 1.4, to make allowance for the sensitivity of the human body to vibration in these directions. In this investigation the same data acquisition and treatment techniques were used for

SRI in-eld and on-farm measurements, the only modications being: (i) Simultaneous measurement of cab oor acceleration values (to assess variability introduced by operator weight, suspension seat setup and condition) (see Fig. 1). (ii) Measurement of vehicle forward speed during SRI in-eld and on-farm work. 3. ISO test track WBV emission measurement For the purposes of this investigation the ISO 5008:2002 test methodology was extended, in terms of the range and increments of vehicle forward speed used upon the ISO 100 m (smoother) test track, the original levels possibly being too low to adequately stress the test tractors embodying suspension features. Consequently oor and seat acceleration levels were recorded whilst the tractors were driven at 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 30 km/h over the ISO 100 m track, and 4, 5, 6 and 7 km/h over the ISO 35 m track (see Fig. 2). Acceleration data was acquired and analysed in accordance with the recommendations of ISO 2631-1:1997 [7]: the resultant frequency-weighted r.m.s. seat acceleration levels are depicted in the line graph sections of Figs. 36 inclusive. ISO test track WBV emission levels were found to increase in proportion with forward speed, irrespective of the suspension system capability of the test vehicles. Upon the 35 m (rougher) track, seat WBV emission levels in the longitudinal (X) and transverse (Y) axis were of similar magnitudes, irrespective of the vehicle suspension system, and signicantly greater than vertical (Z) axis WBV levels. This is a reection of the severity of the test surface and the general inability of the vehicle suspension systems (be they seat, cab or axle) to attenuate low frequency, high amplitude acceleration in the horizontal (X and Y) axes. Upon the 100 m (smoother) track, horizontal (X and Y) axes seat WBV emission levels were also frequently dominant, but by nothing like the substantial margin exhibited on the 35 m track. Once more WBV levels increased markedly with increasing forward speed (see Figs. 36), but the

Fig. 1. Cab oor (left) and operators seat (right) WBV measurement instrumentation.

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

67

Fig. 2. ISO 35 m (rougher) (left) and 100 m (smoother) (right) ride vibration test tracks.

Speed (km/h) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s2)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 ISO 35m Test Track ISO 100m Test Track

Ploughing Plough Cultivating Spraying Trailer transport transport Field Task

Task Longitudinal (X) Track Longitudinal

Task Transverse (Y) Track Transverse

Task Vertical(Z) Track Vertical

Fig. 3. Unsuspended tractor: seat WBV (1.4 multiplier).

Speed (km/h) 0 2.5 Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s2) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 ISO 35m Test Track ISO 100mTest Track

Ploughing Plough Cultivating Spraying Trailer transport transport Field Task

Task Longitudinal (X) Track Longitudinal

Task Transverse (Y) Track Transverse

Task Vertical (Z) Track Vertical

Fig. 4. Suspended cab tractor: seat WBV (1.4 multiplier).

68

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

Speed (km/h) 0 2.5 Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s )
2

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 ISO 35m Test Track ISO 100mTest Track Ploughing Plough Cultivating Spraying Trailer transport transport Field Task Task Longitudinal (X) Track Longitudinal Task Transverse (Y) Track Transverse Task Vertical (Z) Track Vertical

Fig. 5. Suspended front axle and cab tractor: seat WBV (1.4 multiplier).

Speed (km/h) 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Weighted r.m.s.A cceleration( m/s2)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 ISO 35m Test Track ISO 100m Test Track Ploughing Plough Cultivating Spraying Trailer transport transport Field Task Task Longitudinal (X) Track Longitudinal Task Transverse (Y) Track Transverse Task Vertical (Z) Track Vertical

Fig. 6. Fully suspended (front and rear axle) tractor: seat WBV (1.4 multiplier).

rate of increase was moderated to an extent by the degree of suspension system complexity present. To this end the suspended cab tractor (Fig. 4) slightly out-performed the unsuspended tractor (Fig. 3) (at comparable forward speeds), but in turn was out-performed by the suspended front axle and cab tractor (Fig. 5). However, all of these vehicles demonstrated slightly higher WBV emission levels (on the 100 m track) than those of the fully suspended (front and rear axle) tractor (Fig. 6). It must be emphasised, however that the dierences recorded were small and perhaps not entirely reective of vehicle in-eld

WBV levels, particularly when tted with mounted implements. 4. SRI in-eld WBV emission measurement A detailed programme of agricultural tractor in-eld WBV emission measurement was performed upon the SRI estate, utilising the same test tractors as used previously upon the ISO test track (see Section 3). A range of eld tasks was selected to reect typical agricultural usage of modern four-wheel-drive tractors in the chosen power

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

69

range; these being ploughing, plough transport, cultivating (see Fig. 7), spraying/top dressing and trailer transport (see Fig. 8). Acceleration time histories were recorded simultaneously upon the operators seat and the tractor cab oor, by use of the vehicle-mounted instrumentation described in Section 2: additionally, vehicle forward speed was recorded (derived from a Doppler radar sensor mounted upon each vehicle). Each tractor performed each eld operation for a sampling period of 2530 min, to encompass and minimise task or operating condition-related variations. Two replicates of each task were performed, the same individual operating each vehicle in turn. The range of average seat WBV emission levels recorded across the range of test tractors during each in-eld task/ operation are depicted in Fig. 9. It is immediately evident that greater dierences in WBV emission levels exist between the target operations than between the dierent tractors (suspension systems) performing each task. In terms of WBV magnitude, spraying and plough transport generated low WBV emission levels, ploughing generated moderate levels, trailer transport generated moderate to high levels and cultivating generated high WBV levels. Transverse (Y) axis acceleration was dominant during all true eld operations (spraying, ploughing and cultivating) and plough transport, whereas longitudinal (X) axis acceleration was dominant during trailer transport; probably a result of vertical force input to the tractor pickup hitch (from the trailer drawbar) accentuating vehicle pitch. Also, it appeared that WBV levels generated during moderate to

high speed operations were highly dependent upon surface (roughness) conditions. WBV emission levels recorded upon the operators seat during the SRI in-eld investigation (see Fig. 9) suggest that cultivating and trailer transport operations will exceed the proposed PA(V)D Exposure Limit Value (ELV) during an 8-h working period. Ploughing may also exceed the ELV, but only if the work period extends to approx. 12 14 h. The PA(V)D stipulates use of the ISO 2631-1:1997 Eect of Vibration on Health evaluation methodology, i.e., selection of largest-single-axis weighted r.m.s. acceleration and use of 1.4 multiplying factors upon the longitudinal (X) and transverse (Y) axes. This undoubtedly accentuates and arguably distorts the dominance of the X and Y-axis WBV values reported in this investigation and possibly results in certain departures from operator-perceived dierences in vehicle ride comfort during each eld task. Nonetheless, even use of alternative data evaluation methods (point vibration total value (root-sum-ofsquares)) returned the same relative (WBV emission level) ranking and distribution of both individual eld operations and the vehicles (suspension systems). However, this approach did serve to conrm that the relative dierences between tractor suspension system performance were small during spraying and plough transport; moderate during ploughing and trailer transport; and large during cultivating: a case of the more extreme the application, the greater the dierence between the vehicle suspension systems. Unfortunately, there appeared to

Fig. 7. SRI in-eld operations: ploughing (left) and cultivating (right).

Fig. 8. SRI in-eld operations: spraying (left) and trailer transport (right).

70
1.60

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

Y-axis

1.40 Weighted r.m.s. acceleration (m/s )

2

X-axis

1.20 ELV

1.00 Y-axis

0.80

Y-axis Y-axis

0.60

0.40 Spraying Plough in transport Ploughing Tasks Trailer transport Cultivating

Fig. 9. Range of tractor seat r.m.s. acceleration levels recorded during SRI in-eld investigation (dominant axis denoted upon each bar), plus PA(V)D ELV.

be no particularly superior vehicle/suspension system for all the eld operations investigated. 5. On-farm WBV exposure measurement Following the measurement of tractor WBV emission levels in controlled, in-eld conditions at SRI, a programme of on-farm WBV exposure level measurement was performed upon a range of agricultural tractors across East Anglia. This was undertaken to:  Verify the practical applicability of the WBV emission data derived from the SRI in-eld and (possibly) ISO Test Track measurement programmes.  Explore the variation/magnitudes of WBV emission and exposure levels encountered upon on-farm agricultural tractors during typical half-day (4 h) work periods.  Enable limited investigation of typical usage patterns of on-farm examples of selected test tractor designs included in the overall investigation. The on-farm investigation targeted examples of two of the previously-tested vehicles, namely the suspended front axle and cab tractor, and the fully suspended (front and rear axle) tractor. These were selected as being, respectively, typical of state-of-the-art conventional tractor design, and (arguably) the ultimate/most complex suspended agricultural tractor currently available on the UK market and in common use. To ensure comparability with the SRI in-eld WBV emission measurement programme, an identical range of

eld tasks (eld/road trailer transport, ploughing, cultivating, spraying/fertiliser application) was targeted, albeit in on-farm situations. During the period December 2001 March 2002 attempts were made to record WBV acceleration time histories (thereby permitting derivation of WBV emission and exposure levels) upon 3 separate examples of each tractor/eld task combination, using identical instrumentation/methods to those used at SRI. The range of largest-single-axis, average energy-equivalent weighted r.m.s. (Aeq) seat acceleration levels recorded upon onfarm tractors, performing the above-mentioned operations, is presented in Fig. 10. At this point it is appropriate to consider the nature of the EU Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive and the practicalities of its implementation. The PA(V)D species an employee daily WBV Exposure Action Value (EAV), standardised to an 8-h period. If a worker is likely to receive exposure to WBV at or above the EAV, specied actions must be taken by the employer including, consideration of alternative working methods, selection of (vibrationreducing) work equipment, implementation of equipment maintenance programmes and, particularly, limitation of duration/intensity of vibration exposure. The specied daily (8-h) employee WBV Exposure Limit Value (ELV) must not be exceeded. These values are not simply acceleration values, but rather daily (8-h) vibration exposure values. Consequently, the compliance of a given machine (and its particular use) with the PA(V)D is dependent both upon its average r.m.s. vibration emission level and its period of use during a given working shift/day.

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

1.6

71

1.4 Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s2)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Tractor Aeq ELV

Fig. 10. Range of average energy-equivalent r.m.s. (Aeq) seat acceleration levels recorded upon on-farm tractors.

The exact method of implementation of the Directive is the subject of a consultation exercise within the UK, but it is proposed that the EAV will be implemented as a Vibration Dose Value (VDV) of 9.1 m/s1.75, whereas the ELV will be an 8-h energy-equivalent, frequency-weighted r.m.s. acceleration (A(8)) value of 1.15 m/s2. EU Member States have been given the option of implementing the Directive using either the A(8) or VDV methods of vibration exposure evaluation, the levels of which have been chosen to (supposedly) ensure a degree of equality. However, an important dierence between the methods is as follows.

The root-mean-square (r.m.s.) or A(8) evaluation method produces a value which is an average vibration exposure adjusted to represent an 8-h working day (the ocial day length dened by the Directive), whereas the Vibration Dose Value (VDV) represents cumulative exposure to vibration over the working day. The practical signicance of this is clearly depicted by Fig. 11. If, over a given period of work, frequency-weighted r.m.s. acceleration levels recorded upon the operators seat are relatively consistent, the resultant Aeq value (only A(8) if duration = 8 h) changes little, having once reached an average plateau value. However, in the same circumstances, the

2.5

20.0

Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s2)

2.0

16.0

1.0

8.0

0.5

4.0

0.0 0:00

0.0 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 Elapsed Time (hrs) Transverse (Y) Aeq VDV

Fig. 11. On-farm seat r.m.s acceleration time history (Y-axis) of fully suspended tractor cultivating, plus running average r.m.s. (Aeq) and 15-min vibration dose values (VDV).

VDV (m/s

1.75

1.5

12.0

72

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

VDV increases throughout the work period in a cumulative manner. Additionally, the A(8) method represents steady levels of vibration with reasonable accuracy, but gives poor representation of shocks and jolts, whereas the VDV method performs well in both instances. This investigation primarily utilised the A(8) method but, during on-farm exposure measurement, vibration dose values were also derived. An important aspect of
1.6

results interpretation when using the A(8) method is that, whilst approximately 4-h measurement periods were used on-farm, if the data acquired were characteristic of the operation in question (extremely likely), then the resultant average frequency-weighted r.m.s. acceleration values (Aeq) are equivalent to the daily occupational vibration exposure value (A(8)) for that operation, if the vehicle were to be driven for 8 h. Consequently the Aeq values gener-

1.4 Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s )

2

1.2

0.8 0.6

0.4

0.2 0 Spraying (Y-axis) Ploughing (Y-axis) Tasks Seat Floor ELV Trailer transport (X-axis) Cultivating (Y-axis)

1.6

1.4
Weighted r.m.s. Acceleration (m/s )
2

1.2

0.8 0.6

0.4

0.2 0 Spraying (Y-axis) Ploughing (Y-axis) Tasks Seat Floor ELV Trailer transport (X-axis) Cultivating (Y-axis)

Fig. 12. Range of (cab oor and seat) Aeq values recorded upon on-farm examples of suspended front axle and cab tractors (above) and fully suspended tractors (top).

A.J. Scarlett et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 6573

73

ated by this investigation may be compared with the A(8) EAV and ELV gures stipulated by the PA(V)D. This, however, is not the case for the VDV: its cumulative nature requires a value for non-8-h periods to be re-calculated to estimate the VDV after 8 h exposure, this being performed by assuming subsequent WBV emission levels are similar to those recorded during the (4 h) measurement period. Virtually all (95%) of the on-farm tractors/operations surveyed exceeded the PA(V)D 8-h Exposure Action Value (EAV), but few examples (9%) exceeded the Exposure Limit Value (ELV) within 8-h operation (see Fig. 10). However, if the working day length were to increase to 15 h, up to 27% of the vehicles surveyed would exceed the ELV. Putting this into context, the majority (57%) of tractors surveyed were operated for more than 8-h per day; a number being operated for up to 16 h per day. On-farm tractor/operation combinations were found to generate WBV emission levels similar to those experienced during the SRI in-eld measurement programme, seat acceleration levels being higher than those recorded upon the tractor cab oor in all instances (see Fig. 12). Transverse (Y) axis acceleration levels were dominant during the majority of on-farm operations, with the exception of trailer transport when the longitudinal (X) axis took precedence. Cultivating and trailer transport generated the highest WBV emission levels upon the fully suspended (front and rear axle) tractors (see Fig. 12), as found at SRI. During certain operations (cultivating and trailer transport) on-farm examples of the suspended front axle and cab tractor generated lower WBV emission levels than the comparable SRI in-eld tractor and the on-farm fully suspended (front and rear axle) tractors (see Fig. 12): this was deemed to be due to disparate operating conditions and intensity of machine operation. It was considered that, in general, the on-farm fully suspended (front and rear axle) tractors were operated at higher forward speeds, over rougher surface conditions, than the suspended front axle and cab tractors. This may, however, be a consequence of a greater proportion of farm contractor rather than owneroperator ownership of these machines. 6. Discussion and conclusions The PA(V)D is not likely to restrict the operation of large, modern, state-of-the-art tractors during an 8-h day, but it will become a limitation if the working day lengthens signicantly. The VDV-specied EAV was found to be a signicantly lower (operating period) threshold than the corresponding A(8) EAV in all instances. Arguably this disparity oers greater overall protection to the vehicle operator, but the degree of dierence is possibly greater than originally envisaged when the PA(V)D was conceived.

The comparison of ISO test track and in-eld operation WBV emission levels is fraught with diculty, mainly due to dierences in vehicle mass, weight distributions, tyre ination pressures and external force systems between the test conditions. Nonetheless, dened, repeatable WBV test conditions and methodologies are required for agricultural tractors and other o-road vehicles. There is scope for further analysis of the results obtained from this investigation and development/renement of test methodologies. Variation in WBV exposure levels was found between examples of similar on-farm tractors/operations. The relatively small number of individual tractor/ operation combinations investigated may have contributed to this; the 3 replicates performed being adequate to indicate on-farm WBV levels, but insucient to determine the degree of WBV emission variability between supposedly identical tractors/operations. A more detailed study of similar on-farm format, but comprising a larger number of measurement replications, is therefore required to enable creation of a robust database of generic WBV emission data for modern agricultural tractor operations, to enable estimation of likely on-farm WBV exposure by employers. Acknowledgements Silsoe Research Institute gratefully acknowledges the nancial support of the Health and Safety Executive (whose policy and views this report does not necessarily reect), and the assistance of the Agricultural Engineers Association, CNH (UK) Ltd., JCB Landpower Ltd., John Deere (UK) Ltd. and Renault Agriculture Ltd., regarding provision of test vehicles. We are also indebted to the farmers who participated in the study: without whose assistance this investigation would not have been possible. References
[1] Matthews J. Ride comfort for tractor operators: II analysis of ride vibrations on pneumatic tyred tractors. J Agr Eng Res 1966;9(2):14758. [2] Stayner RM, Bean AGM. Tractor ride investigations: a survey of vibrations experienced by drivers during eld work. NIAE Departmental Note No. DN/E/578/1445 (unpublished), Silsoe, UK; 1975. [3] Lines JA, Stiles M, Whyte RT. Whole body vibration during tractor driving. J Low Freq Noise Vib 1995;14(2):87104. [4] EEC. Council Directive on the minimum health safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (89/391/EEC). J Eur Commun; 2002. [5] Scarlett AJ, Price JS, Stayner RM. Whole-body vibration: initial evaluation of emissions originating from modern agricultural tractors. HSE Contract Research Report 413/2002. HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 2276 2; 2002. p. 18. [6] ISO. ISO 5008:2002 Agricultural wheeled tractors and eld machinery measurement of whole-body vibration of the operator; 2002. [7] ISO. ISO 2631-1:1997 Mechanical vibration and shock evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration part 1: general requirements; 1997.