European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.61 No.3 (2011), pp.328-340

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2011
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among

Vehicle Operators
K. R. Leelavathy
Department of Civil Engineering, University College of Engineering Tindivanam, India
E-mail: leelavathy_1977@yahoo.co.in
Tel: +91-9444158912
R. Raju
Department of Industrial Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, India
E-mail: krrajuin@yahoo.co.in
Tel: +91-9489961644
S. Gokul Raj
Department of Industrial Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, India
E-mail: gokul.raj88@gmail.com
Tel: +91-9944838774
Abstract
Millions of workers throughout the world are exposed to mechanical vibration,
transmitted to the whole body through seats of vehicles. The most frequently reported
adverse effects of Whole Body Vibration (WBV) are Low Back Pain (LBP), early
degeneration of the spine and herniated intervertebral discs. This review evaluates selected
papers that have studied exposure to whole-body vibration and Low back pain among
operators of mobile equipment. There have been only few studies that have specifically
examined the effect of exposure by developing models. Almost all findings, in the different
studies showed a strong tendency that long term exposure to WBV is deleterious to the
spinal system. Ergonomic evaluation of working environment is recommended for the
prevention of harmful exposure to vibrations and shocks.

Keywords: Whole-Body Vibration, Low Back Pain, Assessment, Measurement,

Questionnaire, Model.

1. Introduction
Various occupations expose vehicle operators to potentially hazardous levels of Whole-Body Vibration
(WBV) [(Bovenzi and Betta, 1994), (Cann et al., 2004), (Kumar, 2004), (Rehn et al., 2002) and
(Village and Morrison, 1989)]. Back pain is a common complaint of many vehicle operators and
individuals exposed to occupational WBV. This occupational WBV increase their risk of experiencing
this discomfort [(Bovenzi and Betta, 1994), (Rehn et al., 2002) and (Schwarze et al., 1998)]. Heavy
equipment operation often involves maintaining awkward postures (including static sitting) for
extended periods of time, which can also lead to a variety of musculoskeletal disorders [(Bovenzi and
Betta, 1994) and (Kittusamy and Buchholz, 2004)].

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among Vehicle Operators

329

There is evidence that suggests that long-term exposure to WBV containing multiple shocks
can lead to adverse effects on the lumbar spine (International Organization for Standardization, 2004).
Various structures in the low back including the intervertebral discs, paraspinal ligaments and muscles
are at risk of injury in WBV environments containing multiple shocks for several reasons including (1)
increased mechanical stress caused by seated postures, (2) changes to the way the body responds to
multiple loads caused by various postures, (3) pressure changes, tearing, buckling, or softening of the
intervertebral disc with exposure to multiple loads, (4) potential changes to the neuromuscular control
system which will effect passive and active stabilization, (5) unexpected sudden loading can lead to an
overcompensation in the trunk mussels response, and (6) buckling events can occur due to an inability
of the neuromuscular control system to respond in a quick and coordinated fashion to sudden loading
(International Organization for Standardization, 2004 International Organization for Standardization,
ISO 2631-5 Mechanical Vibration and Shock Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-body
Vibration Part 5: Method for Evaluation of Vibration Containing Multiple Shocks, ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland (2004).International Organization for Standardization, ISO 2631-5, 2004).
Exposure to multiple mechanical shocks have either been found or hypothesized in a variety of
industries [(Alem, 2005), (Burstrom et al., 2006), (ISO, 2004), (Khorshid et al., 2007), and (Waters et
al., 2007)]. These shocks are considered to be of higher amplitude, occurring sporadically for a short
duration within the daily WBV exposure, and are associated with excessive speed, uneven terrain or
obstacles [(Hoy et al., 2005) and (Waters et al., 2007)].
Adverse health effects from a combination of both mechanical shock and vibration exposure are
thought to include an increased risk of structural and neurological injury to the lumbar spine (Hoy et
al., 2005). Disturbance to the nutrition pathways of spinal articular segments, leading to increased
degenerative and pathological processes in the lumbar spine are also speculated (Hadjipavlou et al.,
2008).
This literature is a part of a research project on the effects of the occupational vibrations on
workers health. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate epidemiological literature on different
assessment methods of Whole Body Vibration measurements, Back disorders and Models.

2. Assessment of WBV by Measurement

2.1. Assessment by ISO Standards
An early study by Village and Morrison (1989) investigating WBV levels in underground load-hauldump (LHD) vehicles was the first to reveal the potential hazards relating to WBV during the operation
of large earth moving mining equipment. In this study, WBV was measured at the seat level during
various operational tasks. In total, 22 measurements were made on 11 different LHD vehicles. The
results indicated that 20 of the 22 measurements exceeded the ISO 2631-1 (1985) recommended limits
in the vertical (z-axis) direction. Additionally, when the accelerations in all three orthogonal axes were
combined, the ISO limits were exceeded in all 22 cases.
An exploratory study by Cann et al. (2004) investigating WBV exposure and dose in the
construction industry involved measurements from 67 vehicles representing 14 different types of heavy
equipment. The findings indicated that operators of haulage truck vehicles were exposed to WBV in
excess of ISO 2631-1 health limits for 8 hrs of daily exposure.
Kumar (2004) measured WBV exposure during the operation of heavy haulage trucks to
determine if ISO 2631-1 standards were exceeded. Measurements were made on 240 ton (n = 2) and
320 ton (n = 2) haulage trucks during various work phases. The wRMS (weighted Root Mean Square)
vibration acceleration in the z-axis (vertical direction) ranged between 0.30 and 2.72 ms2 (lower limit < 0.45 ms2 and upper limit > 0.9 ms2). Unloaded travel was associated with the highest vibration
accelerations followed by loaded travel, loading, and dumping respectively. The investigator concluded
that speed of travel and driving terrain had a great affect on the magnitude of the vibration exposure

330

K. R. Leelavathy, R. Raju and S. Gokul Raj

and that the decreased vehicle mass and increased driving speeds associated with unloaded travel
contribute to the high vibration accelerations.
In a study conducted by Johanning et al.,(2006) assessed the US locomotive operator related
and ergonomic seating design factors that may have confounding or mitigating influence on WBV
exposure, shocks and its effects. Vibration exposure was measured according to international
guidelines (ISO 2631-1; 1997). The calculated SEAT ratios (seat/floor transfer function) indicated that
the seats magnified the floor input vibration, particularly in the horizontal directions. Almost all of the
calculated Crest Factor (CF), Maximum Transient Vibration Value (MTVV) and Vibration Dose Value
(VDV) values were above the critical ratios given in ISO 2631-1, which suggested that relatively high
and frequent irregular shocks on the seat level were common throughout routine work cycles.
Smets et al., (2010) measured Whole body vibration (WBV) on eight surface haulage trucks in
three size classes (35, 100, 150 ton haul capacities). Vibration was measured at the seat/operator
interface in accordance with the ISO 2631-1 standard. Assessment was carried out using ISO 2631-1
and 2631-5. Operators of surface haulage trucks are regularly exposed to WBV levels that exceed
safety limits as dictated by the ISO 2631-1 standard. However, according to ISO 2631-5 the probability
of an adverse health effect remains low.
Stephan et al., (2010) measured Whole body vibration (WBV) and mechanical shock in 12 New
Zealand farmers during their daily use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as per the ISO guidelines. The
daily VDV of 16.6 m/s1.75 was in excess of the 9.1 m/s1.75 action limit set by ISO guidelines suggesting
an increased risk of low back injury from such exposure. However, the mean shock factor R,
representing cumulative adverse health effects, was 0.31 which was below 0.8 (lower limit of adverse
health effects) indicating that these farmers were not exposed to excessive doses of mechanical shock.
A similar study measuring shock and impact during operation of locomotives saw similar
discrepancies between the health predictions of the two standards (Cooperrider and Gordon, 2006).
Specifically, although the VDV values measured exceeded the lower health guidance boundary, all
lumbar compression dose values were well below the boundary for a low probability of adverse health
effect with daily exposure over a lifetime of work (Cooperrider and Gordon, 2006). Same result was
concluded in the work by Eger et al. (2008), in which the WBV associated with the operation of 7
LHD vehicles, used in underground mining environments, was measured and assessed using both the
ISO 2631-1 and -5. The ISO 2631-1 predicted moderate to high health risks while the ISO 2631-5
predicted low health risks across all vehicles based on the R-Factor.
Some studies have also been undertaken and yielded opposite results. Hsieh-Ching Chen et al.
(2009) explored WBV exposure in motor cycle riders, and concluded that the ISO 2631-5 criteria
predicted higher health risks than ISO 2631-1. Alem (2005), also reported the same for army vehicles.
The disagreement between the results of Hsieh-Ching Chen et al. (2009) and Eger et al. (2008) may be
due to the different vehicles evaluated. A rational explanation is that a four-wheel vehicle typically has
better suspension than a motorcycle, and the driver sits far from the wheel lines. This design dampens
and decreases shocks introduced by the wheels. In contrast, a motorcycle rider always sits on the line
of the wheels, and is thus confronted with larger shocks introduced from the wheels than a four-wheel
car driver at the same speed. As for army vehicles results reported by Alem (2005), higher ISO 2631-5
results and relatively lower ISO 2631-1 value may result from short daily exposure under high jolt
conditions.
A large array of variables affects the outcome of a vibration measurement and its extrapolation
to a daily dose measure: e.g. variability in driving style, road surface roughness and loading. The
variability in vibration emission is an inherent property for most vibrating environments and there is a
risk that a vibration measurement might not be representative of the long-term exposures. Six different
track-type loaders were measured by Newell et al., (2006) at four different work sites. The vibrations
were measured at the operators seat in three translational axes (x-,y-, and z-axis) in accordance with
ISO 2631-1 (1997). The lateral (y-axis) produced the greatest amount of variability between work
cycles (coefficient of variation up to 20%). It was concluded that the inherent variability between work
cycles and tasks reinforces the requirement to perform a full task analysis prior to measuring WBV

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among Vehicle Operators

331

exposures to ensure that all tasks were measured and that adequate cycles were measured to obtain a
reliable indication of the vibration emission. This study indicates the worst axis of vibration for the
track-type loaders was predominantly the fore-and-aft (x-axis). Normally highest acceleration readings
were observed in the Z-axis (vertical) [(Smets et al., 2010), (Village and Morrison, 1989), (Kumar,
2004), (Johanning, 2011) and (Salmoni, 2008)].
2.2. Assessment by ISO and British Standards
Paddan and Griffin (2002) measured, evaluated and assessed the vibration of 100 different vehicles
according to British Standard BS 6841 (1987) and International Standard ISO 2631 (1997). In each
vehicle, the vibration was measured in five axes: vertical vibration beneath the seat, fore-and-aft,
lateral and vertical vibration on the seat pan and fore-and-aft vibration at the backrest. BS 6841 (1987)
suggests that an equivalent acceleration magnitude is calculated using vibration measured at four
locations around the seat (x -, y -, z -seat and x -backrest); ISO 2631 (1997) suggests that vibration is
measured in the three translational axes only on the seat pan but only the axis with the most severe
vibration is used to assess vibration severity. Assessments made using the procedure defined in ISO
2631 tend to underestimate any risks from exposure to whole-body vibration compared to an
evaluation made using the guidelines specified in BS 6841; the measurements indicated that the
vibration dose value of 17 m/s1.75 health guidance caution zone in ISO 2631 was less likely to be
exceeded than the 15 m/s1.75 action level in BS 6841. A comparison of the two evaluation methods
has revealed that the ISO 2631-1 has a tendency to underestimate the risk due to WBV (by about 12%)
relative to the British Standard. Consequently, ISO 2631 allows appreciably longer daily exposures
to whole-body vibration than BS 6841.
2.3. Assessment by ISO and European Union Standards
Birlik (2009) assessed Whole body vibration exposure of the train drivers working for State Railway
Lines by referring to ISO standard 2631 -1 and EU directive 2002/44/EC. The vibration measurements
were done in the cabins of suburban and intercity train drivers. Suburban train driver performs his job
usually in standing posture. Whereas intercity train driver works generally in seated (bending forward)
posture and exposed to longer periods of continuous vibration, compared to suburban train drivers.
Daily exposure action values suggested in EU directive are exceeded in case of intercity train drivers
and their exposure falls within the health caution zone of ISO 2631-1.
2.4. Assessment by ISO and American Standards
Johanning (2011) investigated and compared the vibration and shock measurements of maintenanceof-way vehicles used in the railroad industry for track maintenance and construction. Critical ratios in
the majority of measurements given by the ISO 2631-1 (1997) and American industry guidelines by
the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH-TLV) were exceeded.

3. Questionnaire Assessment Method

Anderson (1992) reported for a sample of motor coach company workers that 66.4% of the bus drivers
experienced Low Back Pain (LBP) compared to 44.8% of the non-drivers and that most of these
persons experienced mild pain (i.e., not interfering with work or customary levels of activity). Indeed,
the drivers were found to suffer more from postural syndromes (involving no true anatomical
abnormality and correctable by a simple change in posture/movement) than mechanical disorders
(associated with definite injury of the musculoskeletal system).
Bovenzi and Zadini (1992) investigated the prevalence of self-reported low back symptoms by
a postal questionnaire in a group of 234 urban bus drivers exposed to whole-body vibration and
postural stress and in a control group of 125 maintenance workers employed at the same bus municipal

332

K. R. Leelavathy, R. Raju and S. Gokul Raj

company. After controlling for potential confounders, the prevalence odds ratios for the bus drivers
compared to the controls significantly exceeded 1 for several types of low back symptoms (leg pain,
acute low back pain, and low back pain). The highest prevalence of disc protrusion was found among
the bus drivers with more severe whole-body vibration exposure. Frequent awkward postures at work
were also related to some types of low back symptoms. The average vertical whole-body vibration
magnitude measured on the seat pan of the buses was 0.4 m/s2, which is lower than the lower limit of
health caution zone value (Lower limit of the health caution zone is 0.45m/s2). The findings of this
study also indicated that among the bus drivers low back symptoms occurred at whole-body vibration
exposure levels that were lower than the health-based exposure limits proposed by the International
Standard ISO 2631/1.
In a study of LBP risk in agricultural tractor drivers, Bovenzi and Betta (1994) found that
vibration exposure and perceived postural load contributed independently to the increased risk for
LBP. Workers in the group with the highest exposure to WBV and postural load had a three-fold
increase in LBP prevalence, compared to the group in the lowest WBV and postural load category.
Moreover, the odds ratios for the combined effect of total vibration dose in years and postural load
(mild, moderate, hard, very hard) were examined (after adjusting for age, body mass index, education,
sport activity, car driving, marital status, mental stress, climatic conditions, and back trauma). The
highest odds ratio (4.58) occurred for the highest level of total vibration dose (40 years m2/s4) and
postural load (very hard), whereas the odds ratio associated with the lowest vibration dose (5 years
m2/s4) and lowest postural load (mild) was only 1.29. Interestingly, the odds ratio associated with the
lowest postural load (mild) and the highest total vibration dose (40 years m2/s4) was only slightly
higher (1.70), whereas the highest postural load (very hard) and the lowest total vibration dose (5 years
m2/s4) had an odds ratio of 3.48, showing that both vibration and posture contribute to injury risk. This
study was one of the first to suggest that duration of exposure was more highly correlated with low
back pain than the vibration magnitude alone, suggesting a possible dose relationship. The
investigators identified a significant increase in the likelihood of low back symptoms with an increase
in total tractor driving hours. Although there have been other studies that also hint at this relationship, a
systematic review of the epidemiological literature reveals that a quantitative dose-response can not yet
be determined (Bovenzi and Hulshof, 1998). Review of the literature reveals that the cause of back
pain in these environments is likely multi-factorial in nature involving both WBV and postural
requirements of the work task (Kittusamy and Buchholz, 2004).
Magnusson et al. (1996) reported 60.0% prevalence of LBP for their group of American and
Swedish bus drivers, which required on average, 18 days of sick leave period. Compared to a
complementary group of truck and sedentary workers, the bus drivers experienced far more mild
episodes of back pain than non drivers.
Benavides et al. (2003) found during a 2-year surveillance of workers at a bus company, higher
proportion (78.0%) of sickness absence spells from non-work related diseases than from work related
diseases (including LBP), and significant association between sickness absence and non-work related
disease for bus drivers.
Krause et al. (1997) carried out a cross-sectional study of 1449 urban transit workers. Drivers in
the highest category for self-reported ergonomic risk factors had a four-fold increased risk of
developing back/neck pain. The contribution was highly significant as the odds ratio associated with
greater than 10 years of driving exposure was reduced to 2.55 from 3.43 when ergonomic risk factors
were included in the multivariate analysis.
Kumar et al., (2001) evaluated the effect of whole-body vibrations on degenerative changes in
the spine of 50 tractor-driving farmers by comparing them with a control group of 50 non-tractordriving farmers matched for age, sex, ethnic group, land holding and work routine. All participants
were interviewed in detail for occurrence of low back pain, examined clinically and a magnetic
resonance image (MRI) of the lumbar spine region was obtained. Evaluation of data revealed that the
tractor-driving farmers complain of backache more often than non-tractor-driving farmers but there

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among Vehicle Operators

333

was no significant objective difference in clinical or magnetic resonance imaging between the two
groups.
But, Waddell (2001) have emphasised the fact that the evidence of the link between the
physical demands of work (WBV included) and LBP does not necessarily imply a causative effect.
Battie (2002) also has found no causal link between the lifetime occupational driving and lumbar disc
generation.
Bovenzi and colleagues (2003) examined the association between low back disorders, WBV
exposure and perceived postural load amongst straddle carrier operators, fork-lift operators, crane
operators and a control group of port maintenance workers. These authors reported a significantly
higher 12-month prevalence rate of low back symptoms among fork-lift operators who had the highest
WBV exposure level and postural loading stress, when compared to a non-exposed control group.
Palmer et al., (2003) studied the impact of occupational exposure to whole body vibration
(WBV) on low back pain (LBP) in the general population and to estimate the burden of LBP
attributable to occupational WBV in comparison with that due to occupational lifting. A questionnaire
including sections on WBV at work, LBP, and potential risk factors was mailed to a community
sample of 22 194 men and women of working age. Sources and durations of exposure to occupational
WBV were ascertained for the past week and personal vibration doses (estimated Vibration Dose
Value - eVDV) were estimated. Analysis was confined to subjects reporting exposures in the past week
as typical of their work. Associations of LBP with eVDV, driving industrial vehicles, and occupational
lifting were explored by logistic regression and attributable numbers were calculated. Significant
associations were found between daily lifting of weights greater than 10 kg at work and LBP,
troublesome LBP (which made it difficult to put on hosiery), and sciatica (prevalence ratios 1.3 to1.7);
but the risk of these outcomes in both sexes varied little by eVDV and only weak associations were
found with riding on industrial vehicles. Assuming causal associations, the numbers of cases of LBP in
Britain attributable to occupational WBV were estimated to be 444,000 in men and 95,000 in women.
This compared with an estimated 940,000 male cases and 370,000 female cases of LBP from
occupational lifting. The burden of LBP in Britain from occupational exposure to WBV is smaller than
that attributable to lifting at work.
A few other population surveys provide estimates of risk from WBV. In one such study a crude
Odds Ratio (OR) of 2.1 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.3 to 3.5) was observed for LBP in 2872
Swedish men and women with exposure to WBV. (Saraste et al., 1987). In a large Canadian study,
Liira and colleagues (1996) found that the OR for long term back problems in blue collar workers was
1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking history, but not for physical job
demands. Xu and colleagues (1997) examined the risks of LBP in 5185 working aged Danish
employees. In an analysis which adjusted for arduous physical work, frequent bending or twisting, and
heavy lifting, they reported an OR of 1.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) for vibration affecting the whole body for
more than a quarter of the working time. In a population survey from Norrtalje, Sweden, the relative
risk (RR) of care seeking for LBP among men who drove for more than six hours per day and had
spent 50% or more of their time driving five years previously was 1.1 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.5) in
comparison with those who drove for less than 5% of the time and were little exposed to other physical
risk factors. (Vingard et al., 2000).
Hoy et al. (2005) reported increased LBP prevalence in forklift drivers who adopted twisted
and bent forward driving postures while exposed to vibration levels above ISO 2631-1 health guidance
caution zone limits.
In a cross-sectional study conducted by Hagberg et al., (2006) in Sweden found that exposure
to whole body vibration (WBV) was prevalent among agricultural, forestry, fishery workers and
among plant and machinery operators based on a sample of 40,000 employed persons. Approximately,
9798 persons answered both the interview and the questionnaire for the analysis of exposureresponse.
Exposure to WBV at least half the working time was associated with prevalence ratios above two for
musculoskeletal symptoms in the low back, neck, shoulder/arm and hand among workers. When the
exposure factors lifting and frequent bending were added to a multivariate analysis, surprisingly the

334

K. R. Leelavathy, R. Raju and S. Gokul Raj

magnitude of association was low between low back symptoms and WBV exposure. Interestingly, the
relation between WBV exposure and symptoms in the neck, shoulder/arm and hand had the same or
higher magnitude of association even when the possible confounders were in the model. For the neck,
low back and shoulder/arm there was a visible increase in prevalence ratio (as high as 5 times) when
combined exposures of WBV, lifting, frequent bending, twisted posture and noise were included in the
analysis.
The ergonomic work place factors and vibration effects were studied by Johanning et al.,
(2006) with a cross-sectional survey instrument distributed to a randomly selected group of USAmerican and Canadian railroad engineers and a control group. Railroad engineers rated their seats
mostly unacceptable regarding different adjustment and comfort aspects (3.023.51; scale 1=excellent
to 4=unacceptable), while the control group rated their chairs more favorably (1.963.44). In a logistic
regression analysis, time at work being bothered by vibration (h/day) was significantly associated with
an increased risk of low back pain, shoulder and neck pain, and sciatic pain among railroad engineers.
Existing cab and seat design in locomotives can result in prolonged forced awkward spinal posture of
the operator combined with WBV exposure. The prevalence of serious neck and lower back disorders
among locomotive engineers was found to be nearly double that of the sedentary control group without
such exposure. Similar results were found for North-American railroad (RR) engineers by Johanning et
al.,(2004), although the basic vibration levels appear to be lower compared to some road and off-road
vehicles with high vibrations levels and back disorder risks [(Hulshof et al., 1987) and (Bovenzi et al.,
1999)]. Helicopter operators with relatively low and similar vibration levels as described in the rail
bound vehicles (locomotives) were also found to have a high rate of back (including neck) disorders,
possibly due to combined effects of vibration and forced awkward spinal posture (asymmetric) because
of seat and cab design features [(Hulshof et al., 1987),( Lopez-Lopez et al., 2001), (Colak et al., 1992)
and (Froom et al., 1984)].
Okunribido et al., (2007) has conducted a cross sectional study to investigate worker exposure
to posture demands, Manual Materials Handling (MMH) and whole body vibration as risks for low
back pain (LBP). Using validated questionnaire, information about driving experience, driving (sitting)
posture MMH, and health history was obtained from 80 city bus drivers. Twelve drivers were observed
during their service route driving (at least one complete round trip) and vibration measurements were
obtained at the seat and according to the recommendations of ISO 2631 (1997), for three models of bus
(a mini-bus, a single-decker bus, a double-decker bus). The results showed that city bus drivers spend
about 60% of the daily work time actually driving, often with the torso straight or unsupported,
perform occasional and light MMH, and experience discomforting shock/jerking vibration events.
Transient and mild LBP (not likely to interfere with work or customary levels of activity) was found to
be prevalent among the drivers and a need for ergonomic evaluation of the drivers seat was suggested.
Birlik (2009) used a questionnaire similar to Nordic Questionnaire and the suburban drivers
were interviewed in order to find out their spinal complaints associated with (waist, back), (neck,
shoulder), (hip, knee, ankle, feet) and (hand, wrist). The results indicated that neck-shoulder problems
must be treated as equally contributing, as LBP, in decreasing the quality of the work life of the drivers
(Hagberg et al., 2006). The blood analysis was performed in 9 male passengers showed that after a total
of 5h of travel Creatine Phosphokinase (CPK), Creatinin and lactic acid values increased whereas
cortisol and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) values decreased. These results can be interpreted
not only as an indication of the fatigue of the passengers muscles but also as an indication of the
increased vulnerability of their spine to postural loads. It is however to be noted that the observed
muscle fatigue of the passengers was not due solely to WBV but instead to the combined effect of
prolonged sitting and WBV (Birlik G and Sezgin OC, 2000).
Smets et al., (2010) surveyed the Equipment operators of haulage trucks with a categorical
questionnaire to gather information on anthropometrics, work experience, and any existing
musculoskeletal disorders. Discomfort in various body regions was rated by the operator on a 4-point
scale ranging from mild (score of 1) to very severe (score of 4). The Musculoskeletal discomfort
associated with vehicle operation, 14% of operators reported neck pain of moderate severity, 14%

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among Vehicle Operators

335

reported upper back pain of mild severity, 29% reported low back pain of moderate severity, and 14%
reported knee pain of moderate severity.
Stephan et al., (2010) carried out a spinal pain survey among New Zealand farmers and found
low back pain was the most commonly reported complaint for both 7 day (50%) and 12 month
prevalence (67%), followed by the neck (17% and 42%) and the upper back (17% and 25%)
respectively. This is consistent with the high prevalence of low back pain and musculoskeletal
disorders observed in occupations using ATVs [(Firth et al., 2002), (Rehn et al., 2002) and (WalkerBone and Palmer, 2002)]. It was concluded that as the shock doses for these farmers were low, it is
more likely that the high doses of WBV, and not shock are the risk factor for the development of low
back pain. Other factors such as the sustained flexed and seated postures used while driving the ATV,
and frequent heavy-lifting work tasks associated with farming and often taken in series with ATV
riding, are also likely to account for the high prevalence of low back pain among farmers. Bovenzi et
al., (1998) in their work on tractor drivers have shown that in the first 4 yr the prevalence odd ratio for
back pain did not change with respect to WBV dose, whereas thereafter a linear relationship was
observed. The slope after 10 yr was much steeper compared to 410 yr range. Schwarze et al., (1998)
has noted that posture dominant period coincides with 3040 yr of age which is considered to be most
crucial for developing lumbar degenerations due to vibration.
McCallig et al., 2010 carried out a study in the engineering services and maintenance
departments of a construction and property management company to compare objective and subjective
methods of collecting exposure time data for hand arm vibration (HAV) and whole-body vibration
(WBV), and to evaluate the impact of inaccurate exposure times on the calculation of the average
vibration exposure over an 8 h working day A(8). Worker exposure time data was collected using three
methods, questionnaire surveys, daily worker interviews and 8 h direct workplace observations.
Results from the study showed that self-reported exposure time estimates from the questionnaire
survey were a factor of 9.0 (median value) times greater for HAV and a factor of 6.0 (median value)
times greater for WBV when compared with direct observation estimates. Exposure times reported in
interview were higher, than those observed, but more reliable than those self reported in the
questionnaire; a factor of 2.1 (median value) times greater for HAV and a factor of 1.4 (median value)
times greater for WBV. Acceleration values calculated using questionnaire exposure times were up to
66% and 75% greater for sources of HAV and WBV respectively when compared to acceleration
values calculated using observed exposure times.
Results from this study indicate that direct measurements of worker exposure time are
recommended over questionnaires especially where work is highly variable for example in construction
and property management. Worker interviews or direct workplace observation methods were found to
be reliable alternative methods for collecting exposure time.

4. Assessment by Models
Kumar et al., (2001) has studied the Measurements of vibrations on tractors of different sizes under
varying terrain conditions. Analysis has been done in terms of root mean square (rms) accelerations in
one-third-octave band and International Standard Organisation (ISO) weighted overall rms. The values
were compared with ISO 2631-1, 1985 and 1997 standards. The comparisons reveal that measured
vibrations exceed the 8 h exposure limit in one-third-octave frequency band procedure of ISO 2631-1
(1985) on both farm and non-farm terrains. In the overall ISO-weighted rms acceleration procedure of
ISO 2631-1 (1997) in all farm and non-farm terrains working time of 3 h exceeded the upper limit of
health guidance caution zone. A tractor-operator mathematical model was adapted for prediction of
the rms accelerations on the ISO 5008 track. This model gave results for vibration exposure similar to
measured values.
Fritz et al., (2005) developed a biomechanical model which simulates the forces transmitted in
the joints of the human body in the standing and the sitting posture. The vibration properties of the
model were adapted to the transfer function provided in the standards and the literature. With the

336

K. R. Leelavathy, R. Raju and S. Gokul Raj

model, the compressive forces at the driving point of the body, in the leg joints, and in two motion
segments of the spine were simulated under a vertical pseudo random vibration. Transfer functions
between the accelerations of the ground or of the seat and the forces were computed. Furthermore,
based on the transfer function between seat acceleration and compressive force in the spinal motion
segment L3L4 weighting factors were derived. By means of these factors characteristic vibration
values were computed for 57 realistic vibration spectra measured on 17 machines and vehicles. The
consideration of the forces resulted in a stronger weighting of low-frequency vibrations compared to
the weighted acceleration as suggested by ISO 2631-1. In order to enable an assessment of the health
risk a force-related guidance value was derived which amounts to 0.81 ms2 (rms).
Seidel et al., (2008) developed a set of 50 finite element (FE) models based on human anatomy
and adapted to different typical postures of European drivers and their anthropometric parameters.
Three-dimensional matrices of transfer functions simulate these models and permit a practicable
routine computation by a Matlab program with graphical user interface to predict intraspinal
compressive and shear forces caused by WBV-input in x-, y- and z-directions at the seat, backrest, feet
and hands, measured on mobile machinery. The effects of posture and stature on predicted WBVrelated internal loads were demonstrated, for example, of numerous WBV-measurements under field
conditions. The predicted static and vibration-related peak-to-peak dynamic compressive forces were
processed with a method of risk assessment based on cumulative fatigue failure and implemented as a
Matlab-program. The resulting risk factors of the new assessment method are compared with existing
evaluation procedures of ISO 2631-1 and ISO 2631-5. They reveal significant differences.
The effect of whole-body vibration on proprioception and dynamic stability was examined by
Lu Li et al., (2008). Subjects exposed to 20 min of vertical, seated, whole-body vibration were found to
have a 1.58-fold increase in position-sense errors after vibration relative to controls exposed to 20 min
of the same seated posture without vibration exposure. To understand the potential effect of a sensory
loss on dynamic low back stability, a lumped parameter model of the trunk and neuromotor response
was created. Using this model, an increase in the threshold of the sensory system was predicted to
increase trunk flexion and delay neuromotor response with a sudden, unexpected perturbation. These
predictions were demonstrated in a second experiment where subjects exhibited both an 11.9%
increase in trunk flexion and an 11.2% increase in time to peak paraspinal muscle response (measured
using integrated electromyographic activity) after exposure to 20 min of vertical, seated, whole-body
vibration.
Johanning (2011) investigated and compared the vibration and shock measurements of
maintenance-of-way vehicles used in the railroad industry for track maintenance and construction.
Comparing the ISO 2631-5 model and VibRisk models for prediction of vibration shock risk for parts
of the lumbar spine, different risk predictions and inconsistencies were found. The VibRisk model
generally suggests different and higher risk of vertebral endplate failure for individual lumbar levels,
whereas the ISO 2631-5 model indicated generally lower risks and did not differentiate between
different disk levels and driver posture.

5. Conclusion
This review evaluated selected papers that have studied exposure to whole-body vibration and Low
back pain among operators of mobile equipment. There have been only few studies that have
specifically examined the effect of exposure by developing models. Almost all findings, in the different
studies showed a strong tendency that long term exposure to WBV is harmful to the spinal system.
Thus, it is imperative that information be gathered to assist in designing better working conditions for
these operators, which will enhance their health and well being, productivity, morale, and efficiency in
performing their jobs. Work modifications and adequate suspension seats would be beneficial for
primary prevention of unnecessary exposure to vibration and shocks. Hence, there is a current need to
do research focusing on ergonomic exposure data that might contribute to the knowledge of the
development of lumbago among these operators.

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among Vehicle Operators

337

References
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

Alem. N., 2005. Application of the new ISO 2631-5 to health hazard assessment of repeated
shocks in U.S. army vehicles, Industrial Health 43, pp. 403412.
Anderson, R, 1992. The back pain of bus drivers, Spine 17, pp. 14811488.
Battie, MC, Videman T, Gibbons LE, Manninen H, Gill K, Pope M, Kaprio J, 2002.
Occupational driving and lumbar disc generation: a case-control study, Lancet 360, pp.
13691374.
Benavides, F.J., J. Benach, M. Mira, M. Saez and A. Barcelo, 2003. Occupational categories
and sickness absence certified as attributable to common disease, European Journal of Public
Health 13, pp. 5155.
Birlik, G, Sezgin, O.C, 2000. Railway passengers complain about the increase in their
musculoskeletal pains during voyage Human Response to Vibration 35th Meeting of the UK
Group, UK, pp. 317328.
Birlik, G., 2009. Occupational Exposure to Whole Body Vibration-Train Drivers, Industrial
Health 47, pp. 510.
Bovenzi, M, Hulshof CTJ, 1998. An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the
relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain, Journal of Sound
and Vibration 215, pp. 595611.
Bovenzi, M, Zadini A, 1992. Self-reported low back symptoms in urban bus drivers exposed
to whole-body vibration, Spine 17, pp.1048-1059.
Bovenzi, M and A. Betta, 1994. Low-back disorders in agricultural tractor drivers exposed to
whole-body vibration and postural stress, Applied Ergonomics 25, pp. 231241.
Bovenzi, M. and C.T. Hulshof, 1999. An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the
relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain (19861997),
International Archive of Occupational and Environmental Health 72, pp. 351365.
Bovenzi, M, I. Pinto and N. Stacchini, 2003. Low back pain in port machinery operators,
Journal of Sound and Vibration 253, pp. 320.
Burstrom, L., L. Lindberg and T. Lindgren, 2006. Cabin attendants exposure to vibration and
shocks during landing, Journal of Sound and Vibration 298, pp. 601605.
Cann, A., A. Salmoni, P. Vi and T. Eger, 2004. An exploratory study of whole body vibration
exposure and dose while operating heavy equipment in the construction industry, Applied
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 18, pp. 9991005.
Colak, S., S. Jovelic and J. Manojlovic, 1992. Back ache in helicopter pilots, Vojnosanitetski
pregled 49, pp. 529532.
Cooperrider, N.K., Gordon, J.J, 2006. Shock and impact on North American locomotives
evaluated with ISO 2631 parts 1 and 5, First American Conference on Human Vibration,
Morgantown, WV.
Eger, T., J. Stevenson, P.E. Boileau, A. Salmoni and VibRG, 2008. Predictions of health risks
associated with the operation of load-haul-dump mining vehicles: Part 1analysis of wholebody vibration exposure using ISO 2631-1 and ISO 2631-5 standards, International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 38, pp. 726738.
European Union, 2006. European Union, Guide to Good Practice on Whole Body Vibration.
Directive 2002/44/EC on Minimum Health and Safety, European Commission Directorate
General Employment (2006) Social Affairs and equal Opportunities.
Firth, H., P. Herbison, D. McBribe and A.-M. Feyer, 2002. Low back pain among farmers in
Southland, New Zealand, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New
Zealand 18, pp. 167171.
Fritz, M., Siegfried Fischer, Peter Brode, 2005. Vibration induced low back disorders
comparison of the vibration evaluation according to ISO 2631 with a force-related evaluation,
Applied Ergonomics 36, 481- 488.

338

K. R. Leelavathy, R. Raju and S. Gokul Raj

[20]

Froom, P., J. Froom, D. Van Dyk, Y. Caine, J. Ribak, S. Margaliot and Y. Floman, 1984.
Lytic spondylolisthesis in helicopter pilots, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 55,
pp. 556557.
Hadjipavlou, A.G., M.N. Tzermiadianos, N. Bogduk and M.R. Zindrick, 2008. The
pathophysiology of disc degeneration: a critical review, The Journal of Bone and Joint
Surgery 90, pp. 12611270.
Hagberg, M., Lage Burstrom, Anna Ekman and Rebecka Vilhelmsson, 2006. The association
between whole body vibration exposure and musculoskeletal disorders in the Swedish work
force is confounded by lifting and posture, Journal of Sound and Vibration 298, pp. 492498.
Hoy, J., N. Mubarak, S. Nelson, M. Sweerts de Landas, M. Magnusson, O. Okunribido and M.
Pope, 2005. Whole body vibration and posture as risk factors for low back pain among forklift
truck drivers, Journal of Sound and Vibration 284 , pp. 933946.
Hsieh-Ching Chen, Wei-Chyuan Chen, Yung-Ping Liu, Chih-Yong Chen and Yi-Tsong Pan,
2009. Whole-body vibration exposure experienced by motorcycle riders An evaluation
according to ISO 2631-1 and ISO 2631-5 standards, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 39, 708-718.
Hulshof, C. and B.V. van Zanten, 1987. Whole-body vibration and low-back pain, A review of
epidemiologic studies, International Archive of Occupational and Environmental Health 59,
pp. 205220.
International Organization for Standardization, 2004. International Organization for
Standardization, ISO 2631-5 Mechanical Vibration and Shock Evaluation of Human
Exposure to Whole-body Vibration Part 5: Method for Evaluation of Vibration Containing
Multiple Shocks, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 2631-1, 1997. ISO 2631-1, Mechanical Vibration and Shock Evaluation of Human
Exposure to Whole-body Vibration Part 1: General Requirements, International
Organization for Standardization ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johanning, E, P. Landsbergis, S. Fischer and R. Luhrman, 2004. Back disorder and ergonomic
survey among North American Railroad Engineers, Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board 1899, pp. 145155.
Johanning, E, Landsbergis, P., Fischer, S., Christ, E., Gores and B., Luhrmn, R,, 2006. Wholebody vibration and ergonomic study of US railroad locomotives. Journal of Sound and
Vibration 298, pp. 594600.
Johanning, E., 2011. Vibration and shock exposure of maintenance-of-way vehicles in the
railroad industry, Applied Ergonomics 42, pp. 555-562.
Khorshid, E., F. Alkalby and H. Kamal, 2007. Measurement of whole-body vibration exposure
from speed control humps, Journal of Sound and Vibration 304, pp. 640659.
Kittusamy, N.K. and B. Buchholz, 2004. Whole body vibration and postural stress among
operators of construction equipment: a literature review, Journal of Safety Research 35, pp.
255261.
Krause, N., D. Ragland, B. Greiner, J. Fisher, B. Holman and S. Selvin, 1997. Physical
workload and ergonomic factors associated with prevalence of back and neck pain in urban
transit operators, Spine 22, pp. 21172126.
Kumar, A., Puneet Mahajan, Dinesh Mohan and Mathew Varghese, 2001. Information
Technology and the Human Interface: Tractor Vibration Severity and Driver Health: a Study
from Rural India, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 80, pp. 313-328.
Kumar, S, 2004. Vibration in operating heavy haul trucks in overburden mining, Applied
Ergonomics 35, pp. 509520.
Liira, J.P, Shannon. H. S, Chambers. L.W, 1996. Long-term back problems and physical work
exposures in the 1990 Ontario Health Survey, Journal of Public Health 86, pp. 382387.

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]
[31]
[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]
[36]

Whole Body Vibration and Back Disorders among Vehicle Operators

[37]

[38]
[39]
[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]
[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]
[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]
[53]

[54]

339

Lopez-Lopez, J.A., P. Vallejo, F. Rios-Tejada, R. Jimenez, I. Sierra and L. Garcia-Mora, 2001.

Determination of lumbar muscular activity in helicopter pilots: a new approach, Aviation,
Space and Environmental Medicine 72, pp. 3843.
Lu Li, Farhana Lamis and Sara E. Wilson, 2008. Whole-body vibration alters proprioception
in the trunk, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38, pp. 792-800.
Magnusson, M.L., M.H. Pope, D.G. Wilder and B. Areskoug, 1996. Are occupational drivers
at an increased risk for developing musculoskeletal disorders?, Spine 21, pp. 710717.
McCallig, M, M, Gurmail Paddan, Eric Van Lente, Ken Moore and Marie Coggins, 2010.
Evaluating worker vibration exposures using self-reported and direct observation estimates of
exposure duration, Applied Ergonomics 42, pp. 37-45.
Newell, G.S, Neil J. Mansfield and Luca Notini, 2006. Inter-cycle variation in whole-body
vibration exposures of operators driving track-type loader machines, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 298, pp. 563-579.
Okunribido, O.O., M. Magnusson and M.H. Pope, 2007. Low back pain in drivers: The
relative role of whole-body vibration, posture and manual materials handling Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 298, pp. 540-555.
Paddan, G. S. and M. J. Griffin, 2002. Evaluation of whole-body vibration in vehicles,
Journal of Sound and Vibration 253, pp.195-213.
Palmer, K.T., M J Griffin, H E Syddall, B Pannett, C Cooper, D Coggon, 2003. The relative
importance of whole body vibration and occupational lifting as risk factors for low-back pain,
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60, 715721.
Rehn, B, A. Bergdahl, C. Ahlgren, C. From and B. Jarvholm, 2002. Musculoskeletal
symptoms among drivers of all-terrain vehicles, Journal of Sound and Vibration 253, pp. 21
29.
Salmoni, A.W., Adam P. Cann, E. Kent Gillin and Tammy R. Eger, 2008. Case studies in
whole-body vibration assessment in the transportation industryChallenges in the field,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38, pp. 783-791.
Saraste, H. and Hultman, G., 1987. Life conditions of persons with and without low-back
pain, Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 19, pp. 109113.
Schwarze, S, G. Notbohm, H. Dupuis and E. Hartung, 1998. Doseresponse relationship
between whole-body vibration and lumbar disk disease a field study on 388 drivers of
different vehicles, Journal of Sound and Vibration 215, pp. 613628.
Seidel, H., B. Hinz, J. Hofmann and G. Menzel, 2008. Intraspinal forces and health risk caused
by whole-body vibrationPredictions for European drivers and different field conditions,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38, pp. 856-867.
Smets, M.P.H., Tammy R. Eger and Sylvain G. Grenier, 2010. Whole-body vibration
experienced by haulage truck operators in surface mining operations: A comparison of various
analysis methods utilized in the prediction of health risks, Applied Ergonomics 41, pp. 763770.
Stephan, M., Frida Bergmanb, Borje Rehnb and Allan B. Carmana, 2010. All-terrain vehicle
use in agriculture: Exposure to whole body vibration and mechanical shock, Applied
Ergonomics 41 (2010) 530535
Village, J and J. Morrison, 1989. Whole body vibration in underground load-haul-dump
vehicles, Ergonomics 32, pp. 11671183.
Vingard, E., Alfredsson, L. and Hagberg, M., 2000. To what extent do current and past
physical and psychosocial occupational factors explain care-seeking for low back pain in a
working population? Results from the Musculoskeletal Intervention Center-Norrtalje Study,
Spine 25, pp. 493500.
Waddell, G., Burton, A.K., 2001. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low
back pain at work: evidence review. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 51, pp. 124
135.

340

K. R. Leelavathy, R. Raju and S. Gokul Raj

[55]

Walker-Bone, K. and K.T. Palmer, 2002. Musculoskeletal disorders in farmers and farm
workers, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 52, pp. 441450.
Waters. T., C. Rauche, A. Genaidy and T. Rashed, 2007. A new framework for evaluating
potential risk of back disorders due to whole body vibration and repeated mechanical shock,
Ergonomics 50, pp. 379395.
Xu, Y., Bach, E., Orhede, E., 1997. Work environment and low back pain: the influence of
occupational activities, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 54, pp. 741745.

[56]

[57]