*Corresponding author. Tel.

: (316) 978 3426; fax: (316) 978

3742; e-mail: jefernan@imfge.twsu.edu.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
The eects of rivet guns on hand-arm vibration
Bheem P. Kattel*, Jerey E. Fernandez
Great American Insurance Companies Japanese Loss Prevention, 49 East Fourth Street, Suite 500 (Dixie Terminal South),
Cincinnati, OH 45202, USA
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0035, USA
Received 1 February 1998; received in revised form 3 August 1998; accepted 4 August 1998
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the eects of rivet guns on hand-arm vibration. Vibration data were
collected from ve male and ve female subjects using 12 rivet guns (from four dierent manufacturers depicted here as
types 1, 2, 3, and 4 with large, medium, and small sizes in each type) at three dierent postures (neutral,

maximum
exion, and

maximum ulnar deviation) and two dierent levels of applied force (8 and 12 lbs). The results of analysis
indicated that the level of vibration entering the hand was signicantly higher for type 4 and large size than for other
types and sizes. Comparing with the ISO standard, type 4 rivet guns could be used for less than 30 min in a day. Results of
detailed analysis and the ergonomic ramications as well as practical applications of this nding are discussed in the
body of the paper.
Relevance to industry
The results of this study would assist the manufacturers producing the rivet guns to devise methods of reducing the
vibration at the production stage itself. Similarly, these results would help the user industries to take necessary
precautionary measures so as to reduce the risk of injury to the employees. 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Rivet gun; Vibration white nger (VWF); CTD; Accelerometer; Hand-arm vibration
1. Introduction
Improper use of hand tools has been found to
cause a variety of problems. The main eects of
improper use would be felt in the upper-extremity.
Prolonged use of vibrating tools presented risk of
vibration syndrome, which is characterized by re-
current episodes of nger blanching due to com-
plete closure of the digital arteries (Putz-Anderson,
1988). It is also known as vibration white nger or
Raynauds phenomenon.
Risk factors can be controlled through realloca-
tion of work, balancing of tools, selection of alter-
native tool designs, work relocation, selection of
0169-8141/99/$ see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 7 4 - 2
suitable hand protection, and elimination of hand
exposure to low temperature and vibration (Arm-
strong et al., 1986).
Symptoms in the arm and hand associated with
prolonged and repeated vibration exposure are col-
lectively referred to as hand and arm vibration
syndrome. These include vascular disorders, joint
deformations, soft tissue damage, and neurological
disturbances. Vibration white nger (VWF) is
a vascular disorder, resulting in episodic vaso-
spasms in the ngers of occupational origin, caus-
ing them to appear white when exposed to a cold
environment. Highly repetitive work can aect vi-
bration exposure through accumulated doses of
repeated vibration exposure. Also forceful exertion,
which improves coupling between the handle and
hand, increases vibration transmission. Wasserman
et al. (1981) found from a study that the prevalence
of vibration syndrome was greater among incentive
workers than among hourly workers, making work
standards an additional risk factor for vibration
transmission (Radwin and Smith, 1995).
In a study to determine the course of vibration
white nger (VWF), Ekenvall and Carlsson (1987)
concluded that subjective improvement in VWF
could be observed in persons only three and half
years after the work was changed from vibrating
tool to non-vibrating environment.
Whole body vibration has been reported to cause
dierent symptoms without any known pathology.
Vibration resonance in the internal organs has been
measured, but so far no disease has been linked
to whole body vibration. However, there is a pos-
sibility of a vibration induced carpal tunnel syn-
drome with muscle weakness without VWF, which
might also be included in the vibration syndrome
complex (Farkkila, 1986).
Burdorf and Monster (1991) investigated riveters
and controls in an aircraft company for the eect of
vibration exposure and health complaints. The re-
sults of the cross-sectional study provided some
evidence that the use of impact power tools could
result in neurovascular symptoms and damage of
bones and joints in the hand-arm system.
Musson et al. (1989) concluded from a survey in
The Netherlands that use of impact power tools,
either alone or in combination with ergonomically
bad working conditions, exposed an estimated
30 000 workers in The Netherlands to a vibration
intensity of 1040 m s\. Fredericks (1995), who
conducted an experiment to investigate the eect of
vibration on maximum acceptable frequency
(MAF) for a riveting task, concluded that wrist
posture and applied force had signicant eect on
vibration response variables.
In a study to investigate if the dynamic response
was dependent on the type of exposure and/or the
frequency of the vibration, Kihlberg (1995) con-
cluded that at constant grip and push forces the
dynamic responses were the same for both impact
and harmonic exposure (the tools used for generat-
ing impact and harmonic exposure were impact
hammer and grinder). Increasing grip as well as
push forces increased the impedance, both in reson-
ance frequency and in magnitude. Thus, dissipated
power depended on both the frequency content of
vibration and forces (grip and push).
Poor design combined with excessive use makes
the hand tools a potential causative factor for the
development of cumulative trauma disorders
(CTDs) of the hand, wrist, and arm (Aghazadeh and
Mital, 1987; Armstrong, 1983). A concerted eort is
required to devise methods of preventing CTDs at
workplace. Therefore, the aim of this study is to
investigate the eects of rivet guns used in aircraft
manufacturing on hand-arm vibration.
2. Methods and procedure
Five male and ve female students, aged between
21 and 35 (mean of 26.2 and SD of 6.42), from
Wichita State University, volunteered to be sub-
jects for the study. They were tested for any history
of upper extremity CTDs through subjective as well
as objective measures. All of them were found to be
free from any such disorders.
2.1. Equipment
The following equipment were used in the experi-
ment for collecting data on vibration:
2.1.1. Simulated workstation for measuring vibration
An adjustable workstation with a jig capable
of replicating the wrist postures encountered in
596 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
Table 1
Specications of the rivet guns used in the experiment
Activation Type Size Blows/min. Stroke
(mm)
Weight
(Kg)
L 1440 137 1.4
Push-to-start 1 M 2160 102 1.3
S 3960 40 1.0
L * * 2.0
Trigger-start 2 M * * 1.3
S 3960 41.3 0.99
L 1725 102 1.35
Push-to-start 3 M 2000 76.2 1.3
S 3000 58.8 1.2
L * * 1.3
Trigger-start 4 M * * 1.2
S * * 1.6
Note: * denotes information not supplied by the manufacturer.
real-life operations was designed and constructed.
The workstation also had the capability of allowing
the user to set required work load (coupling and
applied force). The adjustable jig contained a BI-
MBA stainless steel air cylinder (1

in dia. ;8

in
long) behind a bucking bar. One end of the air
cylinder had a straight air tting attached to a hose,
which ran to an Omega pressure transducer pow-
ered by a 5 V power source and operated within
a range of 050 psi range. The output from the
pressure transducer was input to a Keithley Met-
rabyte MIA-16 analog input board, which was ex-
ternally connected to a PC. A psychophysical
software installed in the PC provided visual cue for
adjusting the applied force to the required level.
Same principle was utilized in adjusting the coup-
ling force to the required level through two force
sensing resistors mounted on the handle of the tool.
2.1.2. Rivet guns
Altogether 12 rivet guns were used. Table 1 pro-
vides the specications for the rivet guns used in the
experiment. The rivet guns were categorized into
four types (typically, four manufacturers) 14. Each
of the types had three dierent sizes large (L), me-
dium (M), and small (S). All the available specica-
tions and the unavailable ones, which could be
measured, have been tabulated. The entire rivet
guns had pistol-type grip (for more detail, please
refer to Kattel, 1998; Kattel et al., 1998). Eorts
were made to match the corresponding sizes of each
of the types of rivet guns.
2.1.3. Accelerometers
Three tri-axial Endevco 23 accelerometers were
used to measure the amplitude of vibration in three
orthogonal axes, x, y, and z. The accelerometers
were attached directly on a mounting to be held in
the hand, and on bracelets to be put around wrist
and the forearm. The mounting procedures were
followed according to the information obtained
from Hempstock and OConnor (1977), Reynolds
et al. (1984), Wasserman et al. (1981), and Wasser-
man (1987). An Endevco Mod D133 series signal
conditioner was used in conjunction with each of
the accelerometers to compensate for the loss in
signal over a long cable connection. Since the ex-
perimental setup was capable of handling both
impact and non-impact types of tools, acceler-
ometers specially designed and previously used on
impact tools were used for the study. A Keithley
Metrabyte DAS 16F A/D board housed in a PC
was used to convert the vibration signal from ana-
log to digital. One accelerometer was glued to the
transducer mount (Rasmussen, 1982) to measure
vibration transmitted to the hand. Of the other two,
one was glued to the wrist mount while the other
was glued to the forearm mount (Farkkila, 1978) to
measure vibration entering the wrist and the fore-
arm, respectively. The vibration signal was ana-
lyzed using SnapMaster signal processing software.
2.1.4. Hand grip dynamometer
An adjustable Jamar hydraulic hand grip dyna-
mometer was used for measuring the grip strengths
of the subjects.
2.1.5. Anthropometric kit
A Siber Hegner and Co., Inc., anthropometric kit
was used for taking anthropometric measures.
2.1.6. Electromyography (EMG)
Motion Control, Inc., ML-220 preamplied sur-
face electrodes were used to record electromyogra-
phy activities of the muscles of the forearm (exor
digitorum and extensor radialis). Data translation
DT-2814 A/D board housed in a PC was used for
B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608 597
converting EMG signal from analog to digital.
Labtech Notebook software was used for process-
ing EMG signal. A Tektronix 2430 A digital os-
cilloscope was used in conjunction with the EMG
signal-recording device to monitor EMG signal to
ensure proper functioning of the system.
2.1.7. Heart rate monitor
A C.I.C. Instruments telemetric heart rate moni-
tor was used for recording the heart rate.
2.2. Procedure
All the tasks were performed with the subjects
preferred hand. All anthropometric measures of the
hands and wrists were taken using the preferred
hand as well.
2.2.1. Anthropometric measures
Several anthropometric measures of the subjects
were taken. These measures included stature and
weight, hand length (measured from the wrist
crease to distal end of third nger), circumference of
wrist, thickness of wrist, width of wrist, breadth at
metacarpals, and thickness of metacarpal.
2.2.2. Range of motion and strength
Maximum exion and ulnar deviation were mea-
sured using hand/wrist mechanical goniometer.
These measurements were taken in the transverse
and sagittal planes, respectively. Maximum volunt-
ary contraction (MVC) for grip strength was as-
sessed in the neutral posture of the wrist. Caldwell
et al. (1974) protocol was followed while taking the
grip strength measurement. The highest value ob-
tained from two dierent trials was recorded as the
MVC for the posture.
2.2.3. Wrist posture and applied force
Three wrist postures (neutral,

maximum
exion, and

maximum ulnar deviation) and two

applied forces (8 and 12 lb) were examined in this
study. The standard neutral posture for the study
was assumed to be standing erect, arm adducted,
elbow exed at 90, forearm parallel to the oor
and mid-pronated with wrist in neutral angle.
2.2.4. Familiarization period
Each subject was familiarized with the experi-
mental conditions and procedures. The familiar-
ization period lasted approximately two hours for
each subject and consisted of screening and intro-
duction session and a minimum of six training
sessions.
2.2.5. Testing regimen
Six combinations of three wrist postures (neutral,

maximum exion, and

maximum ulnar devi-

ation) and two applied forces were examined for
each of the 12 rivet guns. Altogether there were 72
dierent experimental sessions for each subject.
These combinations were presented to the subjects
in random order. A rest period of 5 min was pro-
vided between each testing session to reduce the
eect of fatigue on the experiment.
2.2.6. Experimental variables
PROC PLAN utility of SAS mainframe package
was used for generating randomization schemes for
each subject.
2.2.7. Procedure for measurement
Each subject was presented with an intermittent
riveting task lasting 1 min. Vibration data were
collected for the last 15 s of each session. This
constituted approximately 10 riveting cycles in ac-
tual operations. The testing sequence was random-
ized. The testing sessions were conducted at or
around the same time of the day to avoid any
circadian eect.
2.2.8. Analysis of vibration data
Three tri-axial accelerometers attached to each
subject (hand, wrist, and forearm) during the ex-
periment resulted in a collection of 32 760 samples
of data for each experimental session. MSExcel and
SnapMaster software were used to obtain a root-
mean-square (RMS), unweighted acceleration and
median frequency of the vibration signal. The data
collected for 15 s was converted to frequency do-
main from time domain by running each axis data
through the software. For more detail, please refer
to Kattel (1998) and Kattel et al. (1998).
598 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for subject population
Variable (N"10) Mean STD Range
Age (years) 25.00 5.2 1935
Height (mm) 1695.6 101.62 15871880
Weight (kg) 68.7 13.36 5595
Hand length (mm) 178.1 8.72 164192
Wrist circumference (mm) 159.8 10.58 142175
Wrist thickness (mm) 41.75 5.26 3454
Wrist width (mm) 56.4 5.45 5168
Breadth at metacarpal (mm) 80.3 6.14 6690
Thickness at metacarpal (mm) 27.9 2.02 2431
Grip strength right hand (kg) 26 8.64 1745
Maximum exion right hand (deg.) 79.15 11.57 6090
Maximum Ulnar deviation right hand (deg.) 50.8 8.82 3060
2.2.9. Experimental design
A randomized complete block design with sub-
jects as blocks and postures, applied force, rivet gun
type, and rivet gun size as factors was used for the
analysis of collected data. SAS statistical analysis
package on an IBM 3081 mainframe computer was
used for the analysis of data.
3. Results and discussion
Data for the male and female subjects were ana-
lyzed separately. The results and the trend were
similar to the data of the combined genders. Hence,
a combined analysis of data from all the subjects
was performed and the results of the combined
analysis have been presented.
Unweighted root-mean-square (RMS) acceler-
ation in x, y, and z axes and in the three basicentric
orthogonal axes at the coupling, wrist, and forearm
locations were the objective measures used to in-
vestigate the eects of rivet guns on hand-arm vi-
bration.
3.1. Descriptive statistics
Anthropometric, range of motion, grip strength,
and physiological measures of the subjects in-
volved in the experiments have been presented in
Table 2.
Some of the anthropometric, range of motion,
and strength measures were compared to the corre-
sponding average values for the US population
(Pheasant, 1986; Woodson et al., 1992). This was
done to ascertain whether the subject population
constituted a representative sample of the US
population at large. The results of t-test used for the
comparison show that except for grip strength, the
female subjects were not signicantly dierent from
the US female population. Male subjects were sig-
nicantly dierent from average US male popula-
tion in grip strength, breadth at metacarpal and
thickness at metacarpal measures, however, there
was no signicant dierence between the two in
other measures.
3.2. Comparison of student subjects with real users of
rivet guns
For the results of the experiment to be applicable
to the working population, it was necessary to
compare the results of the experimental group with
the working population group. Two male and two
female employees from a local aircraft company in
Wichita volunteered to participate in the experi-
ment. Vibration data from these employees at all
the wrist postures and 12 lb of applied force for all
the rivet gun type and size combinations were col-
lected. Overall results from both the groups were
compared. The results showed no signicant dier-
ence between the industrial and student groups.
B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608 599
Table 3
Descriptive statistics for RMS acceleration value at the three axes at the coupling at dierent posture, applied force, rivet gun type, and
rivet gun size combinations
Wrist posture RGT RGS RMS acceleration (gs) RMS acceleration (gs) RMS acceleration (gs)
In X-axis [Mean (SD)] in -axis [Mean (SD)] in Z-axis [Mean (SD)]
Applied force (lb) Applied force (lb) Applied force (lb)
8 12 8 12 8 12
L 2.93 (1.3) 4.26 (3.2) 7.31 (4.0) 5.62 (1.7) 5.21 (1.1) 4.75 (1.8)
1 M 6.24 (4.3) 6.24 (2.6) 6.88 (4.5) 6.00 (1.2) 5.52 (0.4) 5.79 (1.5)
S 3.29 (2.1) 4.34 (2.9) 7.17 (4.0) 5.68 (1.7) 5.50 (0.6) 5.20 (2.2)
L 4.47 (3.5) 4.96 (3.4) 7.37 (3.9) 6.77 (4.4) 5.17 (1.1) 5.06 (1.3)
2 M 6.16 (4.7) 5.82 (3.4) 7.24 (4.4) 5.34 (1.5) 5.46 (0.5) 4.95 (1.8)
Neutral S 2.92 (2.7) 4.53 (4.9) 6.06 (3.1) 5.54 (1.8) 5.42 (0.7) 4.74 (1.1)
L 5.16 (4.9) 4.71 (4.9) 6.86 (4.2) 4.23 (2.4) 5.63 (0.8) 4.89 (1.8)
3 M 5.08 (3.0) 4.96 (3.5) 7.01 (4.1) 6.55 (4.8) 5.52 (0.8) 5.22 (1.6)
S 5.19 (3.1) 5.29 (2.9) 7.27 (4.0) 6.79 (4.4) 5.34 (1.1) 5.24 (1.1)
L 16.46 (4.9) 13.74 (4.5) 7.39 (3.6) 7.36 (4.6) 5.71 (0.8) 4.67 (2.5)
4 M 28.61 (11.8) 24.46 (8.9) 7.16 (4.2) 6.98 (3.9) 5.81 (0.9) 5.44 (1.8)
S 25.19 (20.2) 27.41 (17.8) 7.09 (3.6) 6.67 (3.5) 5.48 (1.0) 5.29 (1.8)
L 3.55 (3.1) 3.23 (2.7) 6.15 (2.1) 5.42 (2.1) 5.81 (1.7) 4.99 (1.9)
1 M 3.88 (1.6) 5.45 (2.7) 5.89 (1.8) 5.29 (2.3) 5.64 (2.4) 5.05 (1.9)
S 2.87 (1.8) 2.66 (1.6) 5.29 (2.8) 5.31 (2.5) 5.29 (2.7) 5.05 (2.3)
L 1.26 (0.8) 1.83 (1.9) 5.67 (2.1) 5.50 (2.2) 5.45 (2.3) 5.30 (2.3)
2 M 5.64 (4.8) 5.58 (4.4) 6.13 (2.0) 5.35 (2.4) 5.75 (2.3) 4.98 (2.0)
1/3 S 4.55 (3.4) 3.05 (1.7) 5.68 (2.4) 5.38 (2.1) 5.54 (2.1) 5.24 (2.6)
Max. L 4.42 (3.2) 3.16 (2.8) 5.76 (2.3) 5.29 (2.4) 5.44 (1.4) 5.11 (2.6)
exion 3 M 3.27 (1.1) 4.24 (1.6) 5.67 (1.7) 5.47 (2.2) 5.77 (1.7) 4.92 (2.1)
S 5.57 (3.2) 5.27 (1.9) 5.73 (2.0) 5.64 (1.6) 5.40 (1.6) 5.41 (1.4)
L 12.39 (7.0) 12.11 (1.7) 5.57 (2.1) 4.87 (2.1) 5.39 (2.0) 4.59 (2.2)
4 M 20.22 (8.5) 22.16 (13.4) 5.53 (2.3) 4.83 (2.1) 5.33 (2.0) 5.39 (2.1)
S 20.92 (7.7) 23.79 (9.0) 5.95 (2.1) 5.96 (3.3) 5.84 (2.2) 5.12 (1.9)
L 5.35 (6.5) 3.68 (3.8) 5.05 (1.9) 5.58 (1.0) 4.84 (0.5) 5.35 (0.3)
1 M 5.94 (3.1) 4.02 (2.5) 5.14 (1.4) 5.59 (1.2) 4.78 (0.2) 5.14 (0.8)
S 5.26 (5.0) 3.48 (2.6) 5.32 (1.6) 5.88 (1.2) 5.22 (0.7) 5.14 (0.5)
L 2.53 (2.2) 2.03 (2.0) 5.06 (1.3) 5.22 (1.6) 4.83 (0.3) 5.43 (1.2)
2 M 6.88 (4.7) 6.14 (5.3) 5.33 (1.6) 5.43 (1.6) 4.18 (0.8) 5.38 (0.9)
1/3 S 4.70 (4.9) 4.36 (3.4) 5.33 (1.9) 5.05 (1.7) 5.17 (0.4) 4.95 (1.2)
Max. L 5.95 (5.6) 2.85 (2.6) 4.97 (1.8) 5.42 (1.3) 4.83 (1.1) 4.85 (0.4)
ulnar 3 M 3.67 (3.1) 3.71 (2.7) 5.26 (1.8) 5.46 (1.1) 4.53 (2.2) 5.18 (0.7)
dev. S 5.43 (3.5) 4.92 (3.3) 5.41 (1.5) 5.72 (1.5) 5.03 (0.9) 5.20 (0.8)
L 15.23 (6.5) 9.68 (5.1) 5.31 (1.7) 5.50 (1.4) 5.31 (0.6) 5.29 (0.5)
4 M 30.02 (8.6) 27.22 (14.0) 5.23 (1.6) 5.58 (1.3) 5.13 (0.5) 5.34 (0.6)
S 24.54 (17.2) 25.49 (17.0) 5.83 (1.9) 5.99 (1.6) 5.67 (1.6) 5.22 (1.9)
3.3. Vibration
Data collected from the experiment were ana-
lyzed to document the eects of type and size of
rivet gun on hand-arm vibration utilizing com-
pletely randomized block design with subject as
block.
3.3.1. Vibration at the coupling
Table 3 provides descriptive statistics for un-
weighted RMS acceleration values in x, y, and
z axes at the coupling corresponding to dierent
combinations of wrist postures, applied forces, rivet
gun types, and rivet gun sizes. Table 4 provides
ANOVA summary of vibration at the coupling.
600 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
Table 4
ANOVA summary for vibration at the coupling
Factors X-axis -axis Z-axis Basicentric orthogonal axes
Posture * * *
Applied force * *
Rivet gun type (RGT) * *
Rivet gun Size (RGS) * *
RGT * RGS * *
Note: * Denotes signicance at Alpha"0.05.
Fig. 1. Eect of type and size of rivet gun on unweighted RMS
acceleration in the three basicentric orthogonal axes at the
coupling.
According to the result, in the x-axis, posture, rivet
gun type (RGT), rivet gun size (RGS), and the
interaction between RGT and RGS had signicant
eect on unweighted RMS values of acceleration.
Duncans test revealed that neutral and

max.
exion produced signicantly higher RMS value
(9.27g and 8.88g, respectively) than

max. ulnar
deviation (7.54g). However, there was no signicant
dierence between neutral and

max. exion. Rivet

gun type 4 (conventional) was signicantly dierent
(21.09g) from the other three types 3, 1, and 2 with
RMS values of 4.81g, 4.42g, and 3.93g, respectively.
Types 3, 1, and 2 were not signicantly dierent
from one another. There was no signicant dier-
ence between large (L) and medium (M) sizes
(10.01g and 9.4g, respectively) while both of them
were signicantly dierent from small (S) size
(6.28g). The interaction eect showed that in all the
size categories, type 4 had the highest acceleration
value while the other three types were similar.
In the -axis, posture and applied force had
signicant eect on the unweighted RMS value of
acceleration. Duncans tests on the signicant fac-
tors revealed that neutral posture of the wrist had
signicantly higher RMS value (6.53g) than

max.
exion and

max. ulnar deviation (5.56g and 5.40g,

respectively) while the latter two postures of the
wrist were not signicantly dierent from each
other. Applied force of 8 lb produced signicantly
higher RMS value (6.03g) than applied force of
12 lb (5.63g).
In the Z-axis, only applied force had signicant
eect on the unweighted RMS value of acceler-
ation. Duncans tests on the signicant factor
revealed that applied force of 8 lb produced
signicantly higher RMS value (5.32g) than applied
force of 12 lb (5.14g).
In the three-basicentric orthogonal directions at
the coupling, the result showed that posture, rivet
gun type, rivet gun size, and interaction between
rivet gun type and rivet gun size had signicant
eects on the combined acceleration at the coup-
ling. Duncans test on the signicant factors re-
vealed that neutral posture of the wrist produced
a signicantly higher value of acceleration (13.96g)
than

max. exion (12.94g) and

max. ulnar devi-

ation (12.02g), and the latter two postures did not
dier signicantly. Type 4 rivet gun was signi-
cantly dierent (23.2g) from types 3, 1, and 2 (9.74g,
9.62g, and 9.32g, respectively). However, types 3, 1,
and 2 were not signicantly dierent from one
another. Large and medium size rivet guns were
not signicantly dierent from each other (14.1g
and 13.89g, respectively) while both signicantly
diered from the small size (10.92g). The interaction
eect showed that in all the size categories, type
4 had the largest acceleration value compared to
other three types while the other three types were
similar (Fig. 1).
B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608 601
Table 5
Descriptive statistics for RMS acceleration value at the three axes at the wrist at dierent posture, applied force, rivet gun type, and rivet
gun size combinations
Wrist posture RGT RGS RMS acceleration (gs) RMS acceleration (gs) RMS acceleration (gs)
In X-axis [Mean (SD)] in -axis [Mean (SD)] in Z-axis [Mean (SD)]
Applied force (lb) Applied force (lb) Applied force (lb)
8 12 8 12 8 12
L 0.31 (0.2) 0.42 (0.3) 0.01 (0.0) 0.03 (0.0) 3.12 (1.8) 3.30 (1.7)
1 M 1.23 (0.9) 1.69 (1.0) 0.54 (0.7) 0.14 (0.4) 2.61 (1.2) 3.23 (1.7)
S 0.31 (0.2) 0.41 (0.4) 0.04 (0.1) 0.99 (3.0) 3.62 (1.1) 3.16 (2.5)
L 0.70 (0.8) 0.73 (0.8) 0.02 (0.0) 0.09 (0.2) 3.11 (1.1) 3.13 (1.8)
2 M 0.60 (0.5) 0.45 (0.3) 0.14 (0.2) 0.06 (0.1) 3.29 (1.7) 3.17 (2.1)
Neutral S 0.47 (0.5) 0.52 (0.6) 0.37 (0.5) 0.03 (0.0) 3.15 (1.4) 2.74 (1.4)
L 0.17 (0.1) 0.16 (0.2) 0.03 (0.0) 0.38 (0.8) 3.23 (1.6) 2.71 (1.8)
3 M 0.59 (0.4) 0.54 (0.5) 0.19 (0.3) 0.03 (0.1) 2.85 (1.7) 3.97 (2.7)
S 1.00 (0.7) 1.15 (0.8) 0.14 (0.3) 0.18 (0.4) 2.94 (1.7) 3.24 (1.7)
L 0.92 (0.5) 0.82 (0.6) 0.14 (0.3) 0.04 (0.0) 3.74 (0.9) 3.06 (1.5)
4 M 0.82 (0.6) 1.03 (0.9) 0.11 (0.2) 0.04 (0.1) 3.10 (1.6) 3.47 (1.8)
S 1.09 (0.9) 1.23 (1.2) 2.88 (5.1) 0.20 (0.4) 3.55 (1.2) 3.06 (2.0)
L 0.66 (0.6) 0.56 (0.4) 0.07 (0.1) 0.06 (0.1) 3.50 (2.3) 3.87 (2.5)
1 M 2.83 (1.8) 3.83 (2.7) 0.43 (0.4) 0.62 (0.8) 3.85 (2.2) 3.53 (2.3)
S 0.54 (0.5) 0.93 (2.1) 0.07 (0.0) 0.44 (1.3) 3.52 (2.2) 4.31 (2.2)
L 0.08 (0.1) 0.44 (0.8) 0.01 (0.0) 0.07 (0.1) 4.07 (2.0) 3.67 (2.1)
2 M 1.01 (1.1) 0.60 (0.4) 0.32 (0.5) 0.19 (0.3) 3.86 (2.4) 3.81 (2.3)
1/3 S 1.27 (1.2) 0.82 (0.6) 0.28 (0.5) 0.15 (0.3) 4.02 (2.5) 4.12 (2.4)
Max. L 0.33 (0.3) 0.28 (0.3) 0.04 (0.0) 0.04 (0.0) 3.79 (2.4) 3.91 (2.3)
exion 3 M 1.01 (1.0) 1.03 (0.7) 0.15 (0.2) 0.16 (0.2) 3.93 (2.1) 3.76 (2.5)
S 1.66 (1.2) 1.93 (1.2) 0.30 (0.5) 0.23 (0.5) 3.73 (2.0) 3.73 (2.6)
L 1.13 (0.9) 1.33 (1.1) 0.39 (0.8) 0.19 (0.3) 4.04 (2.2) 3.27 (2.5)
4 M 1.43 (1.8) 1.21 (0.9) 0.49 (0.9) 0.11 (0.1) 3.69 (2.3) 3.91 (2.2)
S 1.83 (1.9) 1.60 (1.6) 0.46 (0.3) 0.58 (0.3) 3.77 (2.3) 4.67 (3.0)
L 0.28 (0.2) 0.28 (0.3) 0.02 (0.0) 0.08 (0.2) 3.53 (1.6) 3.50 (1.7)
1 M 1.45 (1.2) 1.38 (1.4) 0.30 (0.6) 0.40 (0.7) 3.41 (1.7) 3.52 (2.5)
S 0.63 (0.5) 0.31 (0.3) 0.04 (0.1) 0.04 (0.1) 3.25 (2.0) 3.64 (1.7)
L 0.71 (1.1) 0.38 (0.3) 0.08 (0.2) 0.29 (0.9) 3.37 (1.5) 3.23 (1.5)
2 M 0.63 (0.5) 0.35 (0.3) 0.09 (0.2) 0.08 (0.2) 3.69 (2.0) 3.64 (1.6)
1/3 S 0.64 (0.6) 0.53 (0.5) 0.08 (0.1) 0.12 (0.1) 3.43 (1.8) 3.69 (1.5)
ulnar L 0.24 (0.3) 0.22 (0.3) 0.05 (0.1) 0.01 (0.0) 3.39 (2.0) 3.10 (1.9)
dev. 3 M 0.35 (0.3) 0.36 (0.3) 0.05 (0.1) 0.07 (0.1) 3.23 (1.7) 3.04 (0.4)
S 0.66 (0.6) 0.54 (0.4) 0.29 (0.6) 0.06 (0.1) 3.69 (1.7) 3.72 (1.9)
L 0.71 (0.5) 0.54 (0.8) 0.12 (0.3) 0.05 (0.1) 3.12 (1.4) 3.08 (1.9)
4 M 0.40 (0.3) 0.30 (0.2) 0.09 (0.2) 0.95 (2.8) 3.76 (1.8) 3.56 (1.7)
S 0.84 (0.9) 0.59 (0.8) 0.23 (0.3) 0.55 (0.7) 4.41 (1.4) 4.08 (2.1)
The higher value of amplitude of vibration
produced by this type may be a risk factor to its
users for vibration-related disorders (Musson et al.,
1989; Burdorf and Monster, 1991; Jacobsson et al.,
1992). Adequate protection needs to be provided
to the users of this type of rivet guns to protect
them from the potential risk of developing vibra-
tion white nger. Neutral posture of the wrist
transmitted the largest amount of vibration to
the hand-arm system. This result is in conformity
with the results of Grin (1980) and calls for fur-
ther research to investigate if other postures had
vibration localized in the hand and ngers instead
of transmitting to the upper arm. Since applied
force had no signicant eect on vibration response
variables, in the present context of the rivet sizes,
applied force alone may not present any risk to the
users.
602 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
Table 6
ANOVA Summary for vibration at the wrist
Factors X-axis -axis Z-axis Basicentric orthogonal axes
Posture * * *
Applied force
Rivet gun type (RGT) * * *
Rivet gun size (RGS) * * *
RGT * RGS * * *
Note: * Denotes signicance at Alpha"0.05.
3.3.2. Vibration at the wrist
Table 5 provides the descriptive statistics for
RMS acceleration values at x, y, and z axes at the
wrist location at dierent combinations of wrist
postures, applied forces, rivet gun type, and rivet
gun size. It can be seen from the table that in most
of the combinations, type 4 rivet gun is associated
with higher values of RMS acceleration compared
to the other types. ANOVA summary for un-
weighted RMS acceleration at wrist in x, y, z, and
basicentric orthogonal axes (Table 6) shows that in
x-axis, posture, rivet gun type, rivet gun size, and
the interaction between type and size of rivet gun
had signicant eect on unweighted RMS values of
acceleration. Duncans test revealed that all the
three wrist postures

max. exion, neutral, and

max. ulnar deviation produced accelerations signif-

icantly dierent from one another (1.18g, 0.72g, and
0.56g, respectively). While rivet gun types 2 and
4 were not signicantly dierent from each other
(1.03g and 0.99g, respectively), both of these diered
signicantly from types 1 and 3 (0.74g and 0.52g,
respectively). Types 1 and 3 also were signicantly
dierent from each other. The large, medium, and
small sizes of the rivet guns were signicantly dier-
ent from one another (1.13g, 0.81g, and 0.53g, re-
spectively). The interaction eect showed that in
the large size category, type 2 had the highest accel-
eration produced followed in descending order of
magnitude by type 4, 1, and 2, respectively. In the
medium size category, the order was 1, 4, 3, and 2.
Similarly, in the small size category type 4 had the
highest value followed by 2, 1, and 3, respectively.
In the -axis, rivet gun type, rivet gun size, and
interaction between the type and size of rivet gun
had signicant eects on the unweighted RMS
value of acceleration. Duncans tests on the signi-
cant factors revealed that type 4 rivet gun signi-
cantly diered from types 3 and 1 (0.42g vs. 0.14g
and 0.11g respectively), while there was no signi-
cant dierence between it and type 2 (0.25g). The
large size rivet gun signicantly diered from me-
dium and small sizes (0.37g vs. 0.19g and 0.014g,
respectively), while there was no signicant dier-
ence between medium and small sizes. The interac-
tion eect showed that in the large and small size
categories, type 4 had the highest value of acceler-
ation compared to the other types. However, in the
small size category, type 2 had the highest value
followed in descending order of magnitude by types
4,3, and 1, respectively.
In the Z-axis, only posture had signicant eect
on the unweighted RMS value of acceleration.
Duncans tests on the signicant factor revealed
that all the three wrist postures,

max. exion,

max. ulnar deviation and neutral were signicantly

dierent from one another (3.85g, 3.52g, and 3.19g,
respectively).
In the three-basicentric orthogonal directions at
the wrist location, the result showed that posture,
rivet gun type, rivet gun size, and interaction be-
tween rivet gun type and rivet gun size had a signi-
cant eect on the combined acceleration at the
wrist.
Duncans test on the signicant factors revealed
that

max. exion of the wrist produced signi-

cantly higher value of acceleration (4.28g) than

max. ulnar deviation (3.67g) and neutral (3.50g),

and the latter two postures did not dier signi-
cantly. There was no signicant dierence between
type 4 and 2 (4.05g and 3.91g, respectively) and
also between type 1 and type 3 (3.68g and 3.62g,
B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608 603
Fig. 2. Eect of type and size of rivet gun on unweighted RMS
value of acceleration in the three basicentric orthogonal axes at
the wrist.
respectively). However, each of types 4 and 2 signif-
icantly diered from types 1 and 3. The large size
rivet gun produced signicantly higher (4.05g) ac-
celeration value compared to medium and small
sizes (3.79g and 3.61g, respectively) while there was
no signicant dierence between mediumand small
sizes. The interaction eect showed that in the large
size category, type 4 had the highest value of accel-
eration followed by types 2, 3, and 1, respectively.
In the medium size category, types 1 and 4 were
similar followed by types 2 and 3 in descending
order of magnitude in acceleration value. Similarly,
in the small size category, type 2 had the highest
value followed by 1, 4, and 3, respectively (Fig. 2).
3.3.3. Vibration at the forearm
Table 7 provides descriptive statistics for RMS
acceleration values at x, y, and z axes at the forearm
location at dierent combinations of wrist postures,
applied forces, rivet gun type, and rivet gun size.
Table 8 provides the ANOVA summary of RMS
acceleration in x, y, z, and basicentric orthogonal
axes at the forearm. The results show that in the
x-axis, posture, rivet gun type (RGT), rivet gun size
(RGS), and the interaction between RGT and RGS
had signicant eect on unweighted RMS values of
acceleration. Duncans test on signicant factors
revealed that wrist postures, neutral and

max.
ulnar deviation were not signicantly dierent from
each other (1.1g and 1.02g, respectively) while each
of these was signicantly dierent from

max.
exion (0.71g). Rivet gun type 4 produced signi-
cantly higher (1.58g) acceleration value compared
to types 2, 1, and 3 (1.0g, 0.63g, and 0.56g, respec-
tively). Rivet gun type 2 was signicantly dierent
from types 1 and 3 while there was no signicant
dierence between types 1 and 3. The large, me-
dium, and small sizes of rivet gun were signicantly
dierent from one another (1.18g, 1.02g, and 0.62g,
respectively). The interaction eect showed that in
the large size category, type 2 had the highest value
of acceleration followed by types 4, 3, and 1, respec-
tively. In the medium size category, types 4 had the
highest acceleration value followed by types 1, 3,
and 2, respectively. Similarly, in the small size cat-
egory, type 4 was followed by types 2, 1, and 3,
respectively.
In the -axis, posture, and rivet gun type had
a signicant eect on the unweighted RMS value of
acceleration. Duncans tests on the signicant fac-
tors revealed that the neutral posture of the wrist
produced signicantly higher acceleration value
(0.26g) compared to the

max. ulnar deviation

and

max. exion postures (0.1g and 0.09g,

respectively).
In the Z-axis, posture, rivet gun type, rivet gun
size, and interaction between the type and size of
rivet gun had a signicant eect on the unweighted
RMS value of acceleration. Duncans tests on the
signicant factors revealed that all the three wrist
postures, neutral,

max. exion, and

max. ulnar
deviation were signicantly dierent from one an-
other (0.60g, 0.57g, and 0.55g, respectively). There
was no signicant dierence between types 2 and
4 (0.60g and 0.59g, respectively) and types 1 and
3 (0.55g and 0.54g, respectively). However, each of
the types 2 and 4 is signicantly dierent from types
1 and 3. There was signicant dierence between
the sizes large, medium, and small (0.61g, 0.58g, and
0.53g, respectively). The interaction eect showed
that in the large size category, type 2 was followed
by types 4, 3, and 1, respectively. In the mediumsize
category, type 1 was followed very closely by types
4, 3, and 2, respectively. Similarly, in the small size
category, type 4 had the highest value of acceler-
ation followed by types 2, 3, and 1, respectively.
In the three-basicentric orthogonal directions at
the forearm location, the result showed that pos-
ture, rivet gun type, rivet gun size, and interaction
between rivet gun type and rivet gun size had a sig-
nicant eect on the combined acceleration at the
forearm. Duncans test on the signicant factors
604 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
Table 7
Descriptive statistics for RMS acceleration value at the three axes at the forearm at dierent posture, applied force, rivet gun type, and
rivet gun size combinations
Wrist posture RGT RGS RMS acceleration (gs) RMS acceleration (gs) RMS acceleration (gs)
In X-axis [Mean (SD)] in -axis [Mean (SD)] in Z-axis [Mean (SD)]
Applied force (lb) Applied force (lb) Applied force (lb)
8 12 8 12 8 12
L 0.20 (0.2) 0.43 (0.5) 0.10 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.49 (0.0) 0.51 (0.0)
1 M 1.84 (0.6) 2.00 (0.9) 0.33 (0.5) 0.37 (0.5) 0.77 (0.2) 0.77 (0.2)
S 0.35 (0.4) 0.55 (0.7) 0.10 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.52 (0.0) 0.53 (0.1)
L 1.03 (0.8) 1.45 (1.3) 0.14 (0.1) 0.26 (0.3) 0.60 (0.1) 0.64 (0.2)
2 M 0.78 (0.9) 0.49 (0.4) 0.19 (0.2) 0.13 (0.1) 0.57 (0.1) 0.54 (0.1)
Neutral S 0.44 (0.5) 0.74 (0.8) 0.19 (0.3) 0.13 (0.1) 0.55 (0.1) 0.59 (0.1)
L 0.40 (0.5) 0.25 (0.4) 0.24 (0.4) 0.11 (0.1) 0.50 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0)
3 M 0.66 (0.6) 0.72 (0.7) 0.14 (0.2) 0.14 (0.1) 0.56 (0.1) 0.59 (0.1)
S 1.28 (1.0) 1.21 (0.6) 0.24 (0.2) 0.15 (0.1) 0.69 (0.2) 0.66 (0.1)
L 1.75 (1.0) 1.60 (1.3) 0.72 (1.4) 0.32 (0.6) 0.62 (0.1) 0.61 (0.2)
4 M 2.08 (1.1) 2.06 (1.3) 0.91 (2.3) 0.35 (0.6) 0.64 (0.2) 0.67 (0.2)
S 2.03 (1.3) 1.97 (1.7) 0.43 (0.9) 0.44 (1.1) 0.64 (0.2) 0.69 (0.2)
L 0.22 (0.3) 0.20 (0.2) 0.10 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.51 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0)
1 M 1.51 (0.6) 1.48 (0.9) 0.08 (0.0) 0.09 (0.1) 0.74 (0.2) 0.79 (0.1)
S 0.23 (0.2) 0.32 (0.5) 0.10 (0.0) 0.09 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0) 0.52 (0.1)
L 0.08 (0.0) 0.29 (0.5) 0.11 (0.0) 0.09 (0.0) 0.49 (0.0) 0.55 (0.2)
2 M 0.66 (0.8) 0.40 (0.4) 0.09 (0.0) 0.09 (0.0) 0.56 (0.1) 0.53 (0.0)
1/3 S 0.89 (0.8) 0.55 (0.6) 0.09 (0.1) 0.10 (0.0) 0.60 (0.1) 0.58 (0.1)
Max. L 0.17 (0.2) 0.10 (0.1) 0.10 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0)
exion 3 M 0.45 (0.4) 0.44 (0.3) 0.09 (0.0) 0.09 (0.0) 0.52 (0.1) 0.54 (0.1)
S 0.80 (0.6) 0.84 (0.5) 0.07 (0.0) 0.09 (0.1) 0.63 (0.2) 0.65 (0.2)
L 1.34 (0.7) 1.12 (0.6) 0.09 (0.0) 0.05 (0.0) 0.60 (0.1) 0.60 (0.1)
4 M 1.32 (0.8) 1.04 (0.6) 0.09 (0.0) 0.08 (0.0) 0.59 (0.1) 0.55 (0.1)
S 1.41 (1.3) 1.26 (0.8) 0.13 (0.2) 0.08 (0.0) 0.59 (0.1) 0.58 (0.1)
L 0.45 (0.6) 0.36 (0.4) 0.11 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.49 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0)
1 M 2.13 (0.7) 1.97 (0.9) 0.08 (0.0) 0.11 (0.1) 0.69 (0.2) 0.67 (0.1)
S 0.87 (0.7) 0.35 (0.3) 0.09 (0.0) 0.13 (0.1) 0.55 (0.1) 0.51 (0.1)
L 0.53 (0.9) 0.99 (1.5) 0.12 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.50 (0.1) 0.53 (0.1)
2 M 0.92 (0.7) 0.63 (0.6) 0.09 (0.0) 0.09 (0.1) 0.55 (0.1) 0.53 (0.1)
1/3 S 0.99 (0.9) 0.94 (0.6) 0.08 (0.0) 0.08 (0.1) 0.58 (0.1) 0.58 (0.1)
Max. L 0.52 (0.8) 0.21 (0.3) 0.10 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.49 (0.0) 0.50 (0.0)
ulnar 3 M 0.52 (0.5) 0.66 (0.7) 0.09 (0.1) 0.10 (0.0) 0.51 (0.1) 0.54 (0.1)
dev. S 1.13 (1.0) 0.84 (0.5) 0.08 (0.1) 0.07 (0.0) 0.56 (0.1) 0.55 (0.1)
L 1.39 (0.7) 1.53 (1.4) 0.10 (0.0) 0.08 (0.0) 0.55 (0.1) 0.59 (0.2)
4 M 1.66 (0.9) 1.39 (1.5) 0.08 (0.0) 0.10 (0.0) 0.54 (0.1) 0.54 (0.1)
S 1.86 (1.5) 1.59 (1.9) 0.12 (0.0) 0.10 (0.1) 0.62 (0.2) 0.54 (0.1)
revealed that neutral,

max. ulnar deviation, and

max. exion of the wrist were signicantly dierent

from one another (1.43g, 1.25g, and 1.00g, respec-
tively). Rivet gun type 4 produced signicantly
higher acceleration value (1.82g) than types 2, 1,
and 3 (1.28g, 0.92g, and 0.86g, respectively). Type
2 produced signicantly higher acceleration value
than types 1 and 3. However, there was no signi-
cant dierence between types 1 and 3. The large size
rivet gun produced a signicantly higher (1.43g)
acceleration value compared to medium and small
sizes (1.3g and 0.94g, respectively) while the value
for medium size was signicantly higher than that
for the small size.
B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608 605
Table 8
ANOVA summary for vibration at the forearm
Factors X-axis -axis Z-axis Basicentric orthogonal axes
Posture * * * *
Applied force
Rivet gun type (RGT) * * * *
Rivet gun size (RGS) * * *
RGT * RGS * * *
Note: * Denotes signicance at Alpha"0.05.
Fig. 3. Eect of type and size of rivet gun on unweighted RMS
value of acceleration in the three basicentric orthogonal axes at
the forearm.
Table 9
ANOVA summary for absolute value of decrement of RMS
acceleration
Source Pr 'F
Posture (P) 0.6171
Applied force (AF) 0.5825
Rivet gun type (RGT) 0.0001
Rivet gun size (RGS) 0.1416
Transmission between 0.0001
Error
Total
The interaction eect showed that in the large
size category, types 2 and 4 were similar followed
by types 3 and 1, respectively. In the medium size
category, type 4 had the highest value of acceler-
ation followed by types 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Similarly, in the small size category, type 4 was
followed by types 2, 3, and 1, respectively (Fig. 3).
3.4. Hand-arm dampening
Dampening is the mechanism that transforms
the kinetic and potential energy into heat and
thereby takes energy out of a vibrating system.
Thus, if no energy is directed into a vibrating sys-
tem to keep it in motion, the dampening that is
present will dissipate the initial energy in the system
and all motion will stop.
Table 9 gives the ANOVA summary for the ab-
solute value of decrement of RMS acceleration be-
tween coupling and wrist and between wrist and
forearm. The results show that the rivet gun type
and transmission between the locations had a sig-
nicant eect on the absolute value of decrement in
RMS acceleration. Duncans multiple range tests
on signicant factors showed that type 4 rivet gun
had signicantly higher decrement in acceleration
between the locations compared to other three
types. The other three types were not signicantly
dierent from one another in terms of decrement of
RMS acceleration. Similarly, the decrement be-
tween coupling and wrist was signicantly higher
compared to that between wrist and forearm.
3.5. Vibration transmissibility
These results indicate that on the overall, the
value of acceleration produced at neutral posture
was higher than that produced at other postures for
the same applied force. However, for an applied
force of 12 pounds there was an increase in acceler-
ation values for all the types and sizes when the
posture changed from neutral to

max. exion.
This shows that vibration transmitted to hand-arm
at neutral posture of the wrist is more than that
606 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608
Note: The opinions and results contained in this Article are
those of the authors and not of Great American Insurance
Company.
transmitted when there is a deviation in posture
from neutral.
The RMS value of acceleration in the three
basicentric orthogonal directions in all the three
locations (coupling, wrist, and forearm) indicate
that type 4 and the large size of rivet gun is signi-
cantly dierent from the other types and sizes. Type
4 is a trigger-to-start activated type with no vibra-
tion dampening provisions (i.e., it is not a recoilless
type). Thus, all the vibration generated by the rivet
gun of this type is transmitted to the hand-arm
system and was recorded by the accelerometers.
Other types of rivet guns (type 1, 2, and 3) are
recoilless types with a built-in mechanism to reduce
vibration produced by the tool. Thus, the nding
that type 4 produced high vibration is justied. As
size is a factor inuencing the acceleration, it is
reasonable that the large-size produces higher ac-
celeration values than the smaller sizes. In most of
the cases type 4 is signicantly dierent from the
other three types, however, at three basicentric or-
thogonal directions at the wrist, median frequency
of EMG signal at forearm extensor, RMS acceler-
ation values in the x and y axes at the wrist, RMS
acceleration and median frequency of EMG signal
in z-axis at the forearm, it is not signicantly dier-
ent from types 2 and 3. Since both types 2 and 4 are
push-to-start activated, similarity in some cases
between them could be expected.
Vibration transmission was found to be aected
by posture of the wrist. Most of the response vari-
ables were signicantly aected by posture. Neutral
posture was signicantly dierent from the other
two postures (

max. exion, and

max. ulnar
deviation) for coupling and forearm locations. In
case of wrist,

max. exion produced a signicantly

higher RMS acceleration and an increase in heart
rate than other postures. According to Grin
(1980), transmission of vibration to the upper arm
is highly dependent on the angle of elbow. Though
all the experiments were conducted with the elbow
exed at 90 degrees, the wrist postures were
changed. The higher value of vibration transmitted
at the neutral posture compared to that at other
deviated postures of the wrist could be related to
the nding by Grin (1980). The results on trans-
missibility of vibration show that most of the vibra-
tion produced by the rivet guns is absorbed by
hand and ngers. This result is in conformity with
the results of Reynolds (1984) who found that vi-
bration higher than 200 Hz was not permitted to
pass through to the wrist and was localized to
ngers and hand.
3.6. Comparison with ISO 5349
It was necessary to investigate the amount of
time that users could be exposed to the eects of the
rivet guns under consideration in this study. ISO
5349 recommends safe exposure limits of frequency
weighted acceleration values corresponding to
center frequency of vibration signal. It divides safe
exposure times into three zones A, B, and C, which
correspond to exposure times of 48 h, 24 h, and
0.52 h, respectively. For comparison purpose, the
extreme values of frequency weighted average of
acceleration for each type of the rivet gun used in
the study have been taken. These were 3.34, 2.26,
4.51, and 19.42 m/s for types 1, 2, 3, and 4, respec-
tively. These values corresponded to a center fre-
quency of 63 Hz. Based on the recommendations of
ISO 5349 (Chan and Andersson, 1991) in terms of
exposure times, users should not be exposed to type
4 rivet guns for more than 30 min per day. How-
ever, it is safe to use the other types for 48 h per
day.
4. Conclusion
When the results of the eects of type and size of
rivet guns are combined, it can be seen that the
large size of type 4 (conventional) had the largest
eect on the hand-arm system with respect to the
amplitude of vibration transmitted. Based on this
result, it is concluded that the large size of type
4 rivet gun was the worst among all the rivet guns
under study. Thus, the users of these types and sizes
of rivet guns need appropriate controls to be pro-
tected against the risk of developing vibration-re-
lated musculoskeletal disorders.
B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608 607
References
Aghazadeh, F., Mital, A., 1987. Injuries due to hand tools.
Applied Ergonomics 18 (4), 273278.
Armstrong, T.J., Radwin, R.G., Hansen, D.J., 1986. Repetitive
trauma disorders: job evaluation and design. Human Fac-
tors 28 (3), 325336.
Burdorf, A., Monster, A., 1991. Exposure to vibration and self-
reported health complaints of riveters in the aircraft indus-
try. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 35 (3), 287298.
Caldwell, L.S., Chan, F.N., Dukes, D.B., Kroemer, K.E.H.,
Laubach, L.L., Snook, S.H., Wasserman, D.E., 1974. A pro-
posed standard procedure for static muscle strength testing.
American Industrial Hygiene Journal 35, 201206.
Chan, D.B., Andersson, G.B.J., 1991. Occupational Bi-
omechanics. Wiley, New York.
Ekenvall, L., Carlsson, A., 1987. Vibration white nger: a follow
up study. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 44, 476478.
Farkkila, M., 1978. Grip force in vibration disease. Scandina-
vian Journal of Work Environment and Health 4, 159166.
Farkkila, M., 1986. Vibration induced injury. British Journal of
Industrial Medicine (Editorial) 43, 361362.
Fredericks, T.K., 1995. The eect of vibration on maximum
acceptable frequency for a riveting task. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas.
Grin, M.J., 1980. Vibration injuries of the hand and arm: their
occurrence and the evolution of standards and limits. Lon-
don, England: Her Majestys Stationery Oce, Health and
Safety Executive, Research Paper 9.
Hempstock, T.I., OConnor, D.E., 1977. Evaluation of human
exposure to hand-transmitted vibration. In: Wasserman,
D.E., Taylor, W., Curry, M.G. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
International Occupational Hand-Arm Vibration Confer-
ence. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Con-
trol, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77170.
Jacobsson, B., Nordstrom, B., Lundstrom, R., 1992. Vibrating
hand-held machines in the construction industry. Safety
Science 15, 367373.
Kattel, B.P., 1998. The eects of type and size of rivet guns on
hand-arm vibration. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas.
Kattel, B.P., Fernandez, J.E., Weddle, R., 1998. The eects of
type and size of rivet guns on hand-arm vibration. In:
Shrawan Kumar (Ed.), Advances in Occupational Ergonom-
ics and Safety, vol. 2. IOS Press, 1998.
Kihlberg, S., 1995. Biodynamic response of the hand-arm system
to vibration from an impact hammer and a grinder. Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 16, 18.
Musson, Y., Burdorf, A., Van Drimmelen, D., 1989. Exposure
to shock and vibration and symptoms in workers using
impact power tools. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 33 (1),
8596.
Pheasant, S., 1986. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics
and Design. Taylor and Francis, London.
Putz-Anderson, V., 1988. Cumulative Trauma Disorders:
A Manual for Musculoskeletal Diseases of the Upper Limbs.
Taylor and Francis, London.
Radwin, R.G., Smith, S.S., 1995. Industrial power hand tool
ergonomics research: current research, practice, and needs.
Proceedings of a NIOSH Workshop, US Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.
95114.
Rasmussen, G., 1982. Measurement of vibration coupled to the
hand-arm system. In: Brammer, A.J., Taylor, W. (Eds.), Vi-
bration Eects o on the Hand and Arm in Industry. Wiley,
New York, pp. 157167.
Reynolds, D.D., Basel, R., Wasserman, D.E., Taylor, W., 1984.
A study of hand vibration on chipping and grinding oper-
ators. Part I: Vibration acceleration levels measured on
pneumatic tools used in chipping and grinding operations.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 95 (4), 479497.
Wasserman, D.E., 1987. Human Aspects of Occupational Vibra-
tion. Elsevier, New York.
Wasserman, D.E., Reynolds, D.D., Behrens, V., Taylor, W.,
Samuelo, S., 1981. Vibration white nger disease in US
workers using pneumatic chipping and grinding hand tools.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Insti-
tute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 82101.
Woodson, W.E, Tillman, B., Tillman, P., 1992. Human Factors
Design Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York.
608 B.P. Kattel, J.E. Fernandez / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 595608