Would only ever work as a tool timer,
Already exists on the Havi? meter?
Dosnt actually tell you what exposure is occuring only duration (except in the 1,000,000:1 occasion where exposure is constant and not variable)

Waste of money in my opinion

I've been talking to the manufacturer, get your facts right before commenting. They do measure exposure, can be set to however many points you want to set as a company, uploaded by simcard. The data can even tell you which tools are used most and of those used which may need maintenance or discarded. This is a great piece of kit just like the tool mounted version. Stick to your paper copy of exposure that will get lost and just keep your fingers crossed for no future claims from employees

I'd appreciate more opinion on this wrist meter, especially from someone who has USED the meter, so a link to an example technical report or risk assessment data would be nice.

Agree Toe, or a read of ISO 5349.

To even think a wrist mounted meter could accurately (or even close) actualy measure vibration magnitude at the point of contact (presuming you have 2 for both hands right?) is absurd, given the challenges in correct mounting and the huge errors which occur with even the slightest bit of wobble...

Stand by my comment, and my paper risk assessments which contain actual vibration exposure levels.

In my experience - I would not use manufactures data.

This instrument appears to measure m/s2 using a' MEMS accelerometer' ??

I'd be interested if anyone has experience with this meter.

http://svantek.co.uk/products/sv-103/

http://svantek.co.uk/wp-...loads/2014/04/SV1031.pdf

The svantek looks to be a self-contained individual version of the reactec system (which speaks to a base station). Same principle - dependent on the accuracy of the vibration magnitude figure you program it with.

MEMS = micro electromechanical systems = compact transducer technology.

Both svantek and reactec have triple axis MEMS accelerometers. Neither system is equivalent to a ISO 5349 meter.

Useful? Yes, could be. Expensive? Yes? Proportionate to the risk? Your call!

And of course, technology is infallible, isn't it?

Rubbish in, rubbish out.

A very exact (and very expensive) measurement of inexact data still = inexact data.

This kit is not cheap. I couldn't justify use.

ISO 5391? Eh?

Actually the IOSH mag advert quotes the correct ISO 5349 (and ISO 8041), as does their home page; the quote I pasted mentioning the other ISO is on their webpage about the HAVsense system, still wrong I think.

Bigmac1,

Which HAV instrument have you had demonstrated? What tools were assessed? What jobs were performed?

How did the data compare with the m/s2 quoted in the manufacturers' manuals?

I would like to respond to Ron Hunter’s post regarding the Svantek vibration dosemeter and the Reactec tooltimer.

Both devices use a MEMS accelerometer, but the similarity ends there. It is not for me to make any comment on the Reactec device, other than it is a tooltimer. Nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is.

The use of the MEMS accelerometer here is merely to establish that the tool is being operated, and the vibration level is above a certain threshold. This will allow it to start the timing process, to estimate the vibration dose received, based on tool manufacturers’ data. It is not measuring the dose received. It also assumes the manufacturers’ data is correct and unchanged depending on tool wear and tear. As you say, your call.

The Svantek SV103 has a sophisticated transducer, which measures the vibration level in three axes. It meets the requirements of ISO 5349. It is tested to ISO 8041. It is a vibration meter. It is not a ‘vibration presence sensor’.

Not only does it measure vibration to the standards, it also incorporates a unique and patented force transducer, which measures the contact force (not the grip force) on the tool. This allows measurements to be coded to ensure that values taken into the dose calculation are relevant, and representative of received vibration dose. It’s not enough to operate the tool and wave it in the air. It has to be doing something like drilling, grinding, sanding etc.

If you wish to discuss this further, call us – we will be only too happy to answer any technical questions you may have. The SV103 is not a wrist mounted device – the instrument itself can be mounted anywhere, but the transducer is positioned exactly where it should be – at the interface between the tool and the palm of the hand – the point of entry into the hand/arm system. Why would you measure anywhere else?

Expensive? Certainly, if you are estimating the vibration exposure, but if you are measuring it?..... Priceless.

Bigmac, I think plenty of the people posting here had said enough to be honest. Advice and opinion here is free - readers can make of it what they will. I don't think any of the cautions raised by "the rubbishers" had been answered or negated by the posts afterwards. I'm glad you had a successful trial though - if you could post a summary yourself it might add useful info.

Manufacturer's vibration data isn't very accurate in the real world so if you decide you need to carry out your own monitoring, I wouldn't do it without a recognised way of assessing actual vibration levels as well as trigger times. This means a proper meter to proper standards, used in a way that gives accurate results, for the first element of that work - after that you can use tool-time based monitoring devices and decide how often you need to remeasure vibration levels in real-world use.

For a lower-exposure operation, Chris' suggestion of a 40% margin added to manufacturer's data sounds a fair place to start, but if you're anywhere near thinking you might have people approaching the action value, taking accurate measurements will help you put proper controls in place and help you investigate any claims or diagnoses.

As everyone who has been on an accredited havs measurement course knows, ISO 5349 calls for the transducer assembly to be made secure to the tool being measured. Only as a very last resort does the standard suggest that the transducer assembly be hand-held, with the obvious caveat that readings are likely to vary markedly.

If I was going to spend money, I'd want an instrument that gave me accurate repeatable data, not one that operated to the least favourable condition permitted (but not recommended) by the ISO document.

The appropriate methodology is defined in ISO 5349, John. I wouldn't want to stand in Court and not have followed the accepted Standard method.

Toe, Ron,

I appreciate what Ron said about ISO 5349 but, Toe, I am not convinced (in my technical mind) that all tool vibration is transferred to the hand. Gloves will absorb some energy, and maybe firmness of grip or pressure applied (e.g. to a masonry drill) will affect the transfer of energy. That's why I favour measuring hand (not tool) vibration.

Other than HSE publications I am not well-read on HAVS so I don't know how action level and exposure level figures were worked out, but was the research work based on medical affects of actual hand (not tool) vibration?

gramsay, yes thanks that is accepted by the H&S community I'm sure.

The hand/arm mounted meter providers, therefore, are marketing instruments whose data would be found invalid in court? (what Ron was implying earlier)

Hi there

(if I misunderstand you, apologies, I'm not trying to be pedantic)

The standard is for whoever wants guidance on how to judge vibration dose, H&S people are only a small subset. My point was that UNTIL any alternative means of estimating harm is generally agreed, it's a good idea to always consider the standard. Or, at least, if you don't then you should have a very good idea how you would answer questions related to cases where your measurements differed greatly from standards-compliant ones.

At a previous employer, the HSE wanted detailed evidence of how we managed vibration dose and (very clearly) they expected any measurements we took ourselves to be made with standards-compliant measurement devices (used properly, which is a whole other subject!).



Not necessarily, but if you want reassurance that measurements WOULD be trusted, why would you not follow the (generally accepted) standard? The only reasons I can imagine (and these are both justifiable) are:

. You are genuinely researching or using alternative and (in your opinion) more accurate ways of vibration exposure measurement. In this case you will need some fairly bomb-proof evidence to back up your system if you are basing your management of real workers' exposure on it. Many improvements to how we do things started with people thinking of better ways, there's nothing wrong with that.

. You are simply measuring time-on-tool (trigger time). This is fairly common, and is NOT a measurement of vibration dose, just TIME for whatever vibration figure you have settled on. How you settled on that figure leads you back to the start of this discussion :)

Apologies for not replying sooner,

Just to go back to the initial request for thought and ideas on use of "smart" devices to measure vibration exposure. And perhaps to make my point from another perspective:

As we (and the HSE) know there are huge variations in vibration emission (thickness of material, type of material - wood, steel, concrete etc... pressure applied, condition of tool, condition of accessory - eg. worn grinding disc), as well as task duration or actual trigger time. The HSE expect, using best practice, an uncertainty of still around +/-20% or higher!

As such what is requested by the HSE is, and I quote "a reasonable estimate" of employees exposure. The "likely" level of vibration and duration of use/exposure. And to answer your previous question, yes I do personal measurements of exposure (even some under water!), usually 3 times per tool and on 3 separate users - in the case where the risk assessment estimates the risk for a group of employees all conducting a similar task or using the same tools.

The use and purpose of such "smart" devices or tool timers, in my opinion serves only to fill this gap in knowledge (or where there is significant uncertainty or variability) to make a reasonable risk assessment of the task / hazard. Level of emission and duration of use.

In absence of reliable manufacturer data (which is a lot better than it used to be, as manufacturers now have to present emission levels to the new standard, as recognised by the HSE on the old standard this could under-represent by as much as 50% - and the hse USED to recommend double the emission level - but no longer):
HSE state: "Please be aware: Please refer to page 6, 'Estimating exposure,' second paragraph - "However, if the only information available to you is the vibration emission declared in the equipment’s handbook, it may be safer to double this figure before using it for estimating daily exposures." - Due to the implementation (29/12/2009) of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008, supplementary European Standards have been revised to help manufacturers provide information that can be used to estimate daily HAV exposure"

I would still recommend to measure the emission yourself, and use this in your risk assessment, than to implement a costly and questionable "smart" monitoring system (as above I am concerned how this measures the emission of the tool in relation to the point of conact with the hand) - which I say again, in most cases will only act as an expensive tool timer.

Personally, my risk assessments highlight maximum use times which are marked clearly on the tools. This is usually by a colour coding system, green indicating tool can be used all day and in combination with other green tools, amber no more than 4 hours per day, and red where a significant constraint applies. However there are only a few occasions where red is used, as the first priority after identifying a "red" tool is to look at alternative work methods or lower vibration alternatives.

I dont know if I have covered all points raised above, but I more than happy to discuss this further should anyone have any questions or comments. For example I have had experience managing a number of historical cases (stage 3+), targetted HSE inspectios on HAVS, reporting under RIDDOR of identified HAVS and a number of legal defence claims, the type of questions asked and the expected type of evidence required to be presented to successfully defend (again due to historic exposures - and not current practices).

Descarte8

All your comments are valid. Though if the data given by these watches is near the mark and all the information is uploaded by 3G or 4G then a clear record is stored on a cloud, accessible and easy to interrogate. A point I was trying to make is, an example is my workplace, trigger times are to be on all equipment, some contractors use smartmeters either on the equipment or now with some looking at this watch while others choose to write guestimated exposure to umpteen different pieces of equipment onto a piece of paper. This makes a couple of things happen: - they don't fill in the times onto the sheet (human nature), they do but the times are very estimated i.e Ummm I think I was using that drill for 10 minutes when it was more like 20 etc or when sheets are handed in, they get lost or don't get data inputted onto a spread sheet for future mitigation.
The detail given by the manufacturer of the watch show comparison exposures which are close to the mark but ALL the information is recorded, that's my point.