ISO/TC 108/SC 3 N 388-CEN/T C 231 N 439

Date: 2003-07 ISO/TC 108/SC 3 N 388-CEN/TC 231 N 439 

Report of voting on doc. 108/3 N 367-CEN/TC 231 N 402 

Second ISO/CD 8041 "Human response to vibration - Measuring instrumentation" 

1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 

Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations 

on each comment submitted 

Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 

(e.g. Table 1) 

Clause No./ 

Subclause No./ 

Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

DE 02 ed quote ISO 2631-4 and ISO 5349-1 dated, see Table 3 ISO 2631-4:2001 and ISO 5349-1:2001 Rejected - Most recent 

version is required, therefore 

dated reference 

inappropriate. 

Comment accepted, but - 

Reference to ISO 5348 now 

changed to “shall”. 

ISO 5348, Mechanical vibration and shock — 

Mechanical mounting of accelerometers 

DE 02 ed move ISO 5348 to Biblio since quoted in clause 6 only 

with "should". 

correct title 

Accepted – “s” added to 

“accelerometer" 


Reference to ISO 16063 now 

changed to “shall”. 

DE 02 ed move ISO 16063 (all parts) to Biblio since quoted in 11.9 

only with "should" 


Reference to ISO 16063 all 

parts is retained, therefore 

reference to a specific part is 

not necessary. 

DE 02 ed move ISO 16063-21 from the Biblio to here since it is 

quoted in 11.10.2 with "shall" 

Accepted 

DE 02 ed move IEC 60529 to Biblio since quoted only in the note to 

7.7 

Accepted 

Accepted 

DE 02 ed move IEC 61260 to Biblio since quoted only in informative 

Annex B 

DE 02 ed remove date from IEC 61672-1 since not quoted by date 

in 11.21.6 

Accepted 

DE 02 ed CISPR 22:1993 has been withdrawn and replaced by 

CISPR 22:1997, Information technology equipment — 

Radio disturbance characteristics — Limits and methods 

of measurement 

...of the measurement (time constant) Rejected – the term “time 

constant” is not appropriate 

DE 03.4.3 ed add below eq. (3) (time constant) since this synonym is 

used 

1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **) 

2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial 

NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory. 

page 1 of 25 

ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10




1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

for linear averaging. The 

terms has been inserted 

correctly for the following 

equation relating to 

exponential averaging 

Accepted – slightly modified 

version of this definition used 

parameter for a measurement period, given by the 

peak vibration value divided by the frequencyweighted 

r.m.s. acceleration value 

DE 03.4.8 ed crest factor is never used in 8041, so delete definition 

If not, correct to read: 

DE 05.02.2 3rd para ed delete 2nd at least Accepted 

Accepted – sentence is rewritten 

to try and clarify to 

point being made. Reference 

to “time-weighting” removed. 

Tolerances of indication at reference frequency 

and vibration value 

DE 05.05 Table 2 te read heading: 

last row: it is not clear what the running r.m.s. vibration 

value is compared with, i.e. what is "any linear time 

weighting". We assume that this may be a relict from the 

sound level meter where Fast and Slow are compared 

The tolerances for phase 

response have been reexpressed 

in terms of the 

“characteristic phase 

deviation” (CPD) proposed 

by Mr Bress. 

Refine the requirements for the phase response 

and add test procedures. Use as a basis the 

annex by Mr. Bress on phase response tests, 

already handed out to the working group; see also 

a letter 2002-8-20 from Mr. Bress to the convenor 

DE 05.06.6 te The requirements for the phase response acc. to Table 4 

are too coarse and too general (e.g. sampling freq. req. in 

C.2.4). VDV and MTVV are phase-dependent and are 

mandatory acc. to Directive 2002/44/EC Vibration. Tests 

for the phase response are totally missing. 

However, there are some 

remaining concerns about 

using this parameter. CPD is 

based on the evaluation of 

phase, a parameter that is 

not measured by the meter 

see also Japanese comment 

on Annex B . 

Accepted 

DE 05.06.6 Table 4 ed use < signs in the 1st column rather than false > f < f1 × 10 –3/10 

f1 × 10 –3/10 ≤ f ≤ f1 × 10 1/10 




page 2 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

f1 × 10 1/10 < f < f2 × 10 –1/10 

f2 × 10 –1/10 ≤ f ≤ f2 × 10 3/10 

f2 × 10 3/10 < f 

DE 05.09 ed below eq. (12): replace amplitude with magnitude Accepted – however clause 

5.9 and 5.10 have been 

totally replaced by a new 

signal burst response clause 

DE 05.09 ed below eq. (13): replace amplitude with magnitude Accepted – See comment on 

05.09 

Accepted – See comment on 

05.09 

DE 05.09 2nd para ed read: Table 5 gives the responses to a single tone-bursts 

for... 

DE 05.09 4th para ed delete the word reference Accepted – See comment on 

05.09 

DE 05.09 note ed no shall in a note! read: ...given in Table 5 shall apply... Accepted – See comment on 

05.09 

DE 05.10 ed below eq. (14): replace amplitude with magnitude Accepted – See comment on 

05.09 

DE 05.11 5th para ed 1st line read indicator 

Accepted 

last sentence: replace meter with indicator 

DE 05.14 1st para ed 3rd line delete time Accepted 

DE 07.6 3rd para te acc. to 11.21.8 we use the ref. freq. rather than 1 kHz Accepted 

DE 07.6 last but 1 pa ed replace shall be apply with applies Comment accepted – have 

chosen to delete the word 

“be” 

Accepted 

DE 07.6 note ed read: this International Standard 

delete for each type of amplitude modulation, we defined 

only one! 




page 3 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

Accepted – see new clause 

11. 

Use as a basis the Engl. version of DIN 45671-3, 

already handed out to the working group 

DE 11 ed Insert a new clause Testing and calibration. It should 

explain when what tests are necessary (e.g. which facts 

ask for a verification), should contain Table 13, state in 

detail el. and mech. tests and give practical hints. 

Accepted 

...shall be the reference environmental conditions 

within the following tolerances ranges: 

⎯ Air temperature: 20 °C to 26 °C; 

⎯ Relative humidity: 10 % to 75 % (non 

condensing). 

DE 11.02 te tolerance in % on rel. humidity in % is confusing. We 

suggest to give ranges as in Annex A: 

DE 11.02 note ed quote dated ISO 2041:1990 Rejected - Can’t see a need 

to date this reference 

Accepted 

DE 11.07 1st line ed exchange words, we do not specify a freq. counter: 

...indication of the reference acceleration value at the 

reference frequency shall... 

DE 11.07 4th para ed 1st line replace accuracy with error Accepted 

DE 11.07 6th para ed 4th line replace level with value Accepted 

Accepted 

DE 11.07 7th para ed 2nd line replace level with amplitude 

3rd line replace level with value 

Comment accepted – but 

agreed to change “dB”s to 

“factors”. 

DE 11.10.1 2nd para ed 2nd line replace value with level since we add an 

attenuation in dB 

insert setting on the to read (cf. 12.9): 

...relative to the setting on the reference.. 

DE 11.10.2 1st para ed last line replace tests with accelerometers (cf. 11.11.3) Accepted 

DE 11.10.2 2nd para ed 2nd line replace value with level since we add in dB Comment accepted – but 



Accepted 

ed delete value to read: For each...measured by the reference transducer 

value shall... 

DE 11.10.2 last para on 

p. 24 




page 4 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

Comment accepted – Clause 

now re-written using IEC 

16063-2 as a guide. 

Hopefully, this clause is now 

clearer. 

an excerpt of the actual version of IEC 61672-2 

has been transmitted to the convenor. 

DE 11.11 te we urge a clearer formulation of this test; actually it is 

taken from the sound level meter standard IEC 61672-2 

which specifies 1 method for acoustical test: a constantlevel 

sound field; and 2 methods for el. test: 1) same (do 

not say constant!) indication as for acoustical test, 2) 

constant input level of el. signal. 8041 shall clearly state 

what (frequency-weighted, inversely weighted or 

unweighted) signal or indication is kept constant, and how 

the error ε is evaluated 

Accepted 

DE 11.11.1 ed move Table 10 below subclause 11.11.2 where it first is 

quoted 

DE 11.11.1 note te the errors ε are defined in % and just summed ε f ( f ) = εt 

( f ) + εe 

( f ) 

Accepted 

DE 11.11.3 2nd para ed replace electrical signal with mechanical vibration Accepted 

Accepted 

DE 11.12 ed exchange sentences and delete is to read: The typical value of instrument noise shall as 

determined from the arithmetic average of ten 

measurements with the vibration transducer of the 

instrument is fitted to a non-vibrating object that 

does not add significantly to the indicated vibration 

value. Tests shall... 

Accepted – But clause now 

totally replaced with signal 

burst response tests 

Tone-burst response and exponential decay 

running r.m.s. time constant 

DE 11.13 heading ed this clause deals with exponential and with linear running 

r.m.s., so read: 

DE 11.13 last but 1 pa ed replace (and with (or Accepted – See comment on 

11.13 

Accepted – See comment on 

11.13 

DE 11.13 last para ed we say "at least" and tone bursts are not dealt with, so 

delete: or longer-duration, tone-bursts extracted from the 

steady input signals 

DE 11.16.1 1st para ed replace acceleration with signal, since only electrical test Accepted 




page 5 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

DE 11.16.1 last para ed replace intervals with increments (cf. Table 9) Accepted 

DE 11.16.1 note ed delete test Accepted 

DE 11.17 2nd para ed 2nd sentence, delete vibration to read: An electrical vibration input signal at the... Accepted 

DE 11.19 te acc. to 5.1 measurement of elapsed time is mandatory, Facilities for measurement of elapsed time shall... Accepted 

so read: 

DE 11.21.1 last para ed insert vibration to read: ...by the vibration meter... Accepted 

DE 11.21.4 last para ed insert be to read: ...shall be no more... Accepted 

DE 11.21.5 last para ed insert be to read: ...shall be no more... Accepted 

DE 11.21.6 2nd para ed delete sets of, this is a relict from microphones Accepted – with other related 

changes 

DE 11.21.7 ed replace in this subclause 5 times 5.17 with 7.5 Accepted 

Accepted 

DE 11.21.7 ed replace in this subclause 

clause 11 of CISPR 22:1993:clause 10 of CISPR 22:1997 

9.1 of CISPR 22:1993 with 8.1 of CISPR 22:1997 

clause 10 of CISPR 22:1993: clause 9 of CISPR 22:1997 

Accepted 

...set to the mode(s), as stated in the instrument 

documentation, that produce the greatest radio 

frequency emissions. 

DE 11.21.7 1st para te last line: this subclause deals with emission, not with 

susceptibility, so read: 

DE 11.21.8 2nd para ed last line delete that Accepted 

DE 11.21.8 last but 1 pa ed insert for to read: ...IEC 61000-4-6:1996, for hand-held... Accepted 

DE 11.21.8 last para ed last line delete to the nearest 10 %, 

Accepted 

this is a relict from sound: rounded to the nearest 1 dB 

DE 12.01 5th, 7th pa ed read: this International Standard Accepted 

Not clear about how to refer 

to new clause, but, this 

DE 12.01 last but 1 pa te following the recommendations in new cl. 11 (which facts 

ask for a verification), this sentence shall refer to new cl. 




page 6 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

paragraph has been changed 

to refer to verification rather 

than conformance. 

11 rather than copy the requirements of conformance test 

Accepted 

DE 12.02 te give ranges as in Annex A, see 11.2 ...shall be the reference environmental conditions 

within the following tolerances ranges: 

⎯ Air temperature: 19 °C to 27 °C; 

⎯ Relative humidity: ≤ 90 % (non condensing). 

Accepted 

DE 12.02 1st para ed 1st line replace conformance testing which effect with 

verification which affect 

DE 12.02 3rd para ed read (cf. 11.2): The value of mechanical Comment accepted, changed 

to read ”amplitude” 

DE 12.03 ed read 5.4 Changed to refer to Annex A, 

rather than 5.4 

DE 12.06 ed 1st line insert vibration to read: ...the vibration sensitivity... Accepted 

Accepted, sentence rewritten, 

also changed 

“checked” to “set” 

DE 12.06 ed at the calibration check frequency shall be checked at the 

reference frequency seems to be twice 

DE 12.07 ed see all proposals to 11.7 See comments to 11.07 

(accepted) 

Comment accepted – but 



DE 12.09 2nd para ed 2nd line replace value with level since we add an 

attenuation in dB 

last line replace linearity with acceleration (cf. 11.10) 

Sentence deleted 

DE 12.09 3rd para ed 1st line insert amplitude to read: 

Tests of amplitude linearity... 

Accepted 

delete test to read: 

...input test facility. 

DE 12.09 6th para ed delete on to read: ...tested on additionally on... Accepted 

DE 12.10.1 ed above the list replace input with indicated (cf. 11.11.1) Accepted 




page 7 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

DE 12.10.2 ed copy completely from 11.11.2 except note 1 and 3 % Accepted 

DE 12.10.3 ed see all proposals to 11.11.3 Accepted 

DE 12.11 ed see all proposals to 11.12 See comments to 11.12 (All 

text copied from 11.12) 

DE 12.12 ed see all proposals to 11.13 and 

Accepted 

1st para insert at the end of first sentence: 

of the linear operating range 

DE 12.13 ed replace in this subclause 3 times 5.9 with 5.11 

Accepted 

End of 2nd para delete ± 

DE 12.15.1 ed see all proposals to 11.16.1 Accepted 

DE 12.15.2 ed last line is twice Accepted 

DE 13.02 ed insert instrument to read: The instrument documentation... Accepted 

DE 13.03 ed insert instrument to read: The instrument documentation... Accepted 

DE 13.03 Table 13 ed correct twice under Verification 11. to 12. and move to 

Accepted 

new clause 11 

DE B Figure B.2 ed arrange fig. titles correctly, i.e. move up to fig. B.2 a) Accepted 

DE B note 2 ed read: this International Standard Accepted 

Accepted - Note changed to 

explain limitations 

DE C.1.1 note ed make the note clearer, read: NOTE Frequency analysis is only applicable for 

time-averaged acceleration, not for running r.m.s. 

acceleration or non-r.m.s. based quantities. 

Therefore it cannot be used for VDV or MTVV 

evaluations. 

Accepted 

DE C.1.2 3rd para te Delete this paragraph because it is in contradiction to the 

note in C.1.1 and because it is only half the truth: Not only 

the time intervals must be short enough but also the 

inverse analysis bandwidth! Otherwise the filter response 

time would influence the result. This is a severe restriction 




page 8 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

for constant bandwidth filtering (FFT) and for constant 

percentage bandwidth filtering (third octave) as well. 

DE C.1.3 ed 2nd para below Table C.1, insert several to read: ...summation of several pure tones... Accepted – but paragraph 

deteled 

DE C.1.3 last para ed repetition, so delete Accepted 

DE C.1.3 Table C.1 ed add factor to read: Noise bandwidth factor Accepted 

DE C.2.4 Figure C.1 ed delete ; after 5th line (comment only) 

Accepted 

delete 4 times % preceeding empty lines 

DE C.2.4 last para ed delete l in fillter to read: ...function ’filter.m’ and, Accepted 

DE D.1 Figure D.1 ed delete in subscript rms, (cf. definition of aτ in 3.4.3) Accepted 

DE D.2 ed 1st line delete acceleration since it is not dealt with in 

Accepted 

sound measurement 

Last line insert acceleration to read: 

...running r.m.s. acceleration averaging can... 

DE D.2 Figure D.2 ed delete in subscript rms, (cf. definition of aτ in 3.4.3) 

Accepted 

Correct fig.: feed back to 2nd Sum is missing 

DE D.3 Figure D.3 ed delete τ above the fig. Accepted 

DE D.3 Figure D.4 ed correct title to read: Equivalent time windows for optimum 

Accepted 

correspondence of statistical parameters 

DE E.2 Table E.1 te Total mass, Vehicles, change to a realistic value acc. to 450 g Accepted 

commercially available mounting discs 

DE E.2 Table E.1 te Total size, Vehicles, On seat: correct to read acc. to 300 mm diameter × 12 mm ... Accepted 

ISO 10326-1 (cf. clause F.2): 

DE E.2 Table E.1 ed include in 1st column Maximum to read: Maximum transducer mass 

Accepted 

Maximum total mass... 

Maximum total size... 

Maximum acoustic... and delete 4 times < 




page 9 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

Maximum transverse... and delete 4 times < 

Accepted 

DE E.2 Table E.1 ed include in last 2 rows Minimum to read: Minimum resonant frequency 

Suggested minimum enclosure specifications... 

DE E.2 Table E.1 ed 3rd row from bottom, 2nd line replace the with this ...withstanding the this un-weighted shock... Comment accepted – but 

sentence changed 

DE F.1.2.1 5th para ed add r.m.s. to read: ...with an overall Wh r.m.s. value of 10 m/s². Accepted 

Comment accepted – test 

changed. Should have said 

“no greater than” 

DE F.1.2.1 6th para te just a lower limit for the increment is too less, the user 

needs a precise range in order not to use too wide steps 

DE G.3 ed read heading: Vibration sensitivity Accepted 

DE G.4 f) ed read as in G.7 e) ...lengths and a description of the nature... Accepted – also delete “the 

nature” 

DE G.8 e) ed add as to read: ...frequency-weightings as time-average... Accepted 

DE G.9 h) ed repetition from G.4 g) Accepted 

Rejected – 

a) Not customary to have 

such an annex. 

Use as a basis the attachment to these comments 

and the outline by Mr. Bress, already handed out 

to the working group 

b) It is ISO 2631 that 

changed the weightings 

in 1997, not ISO 8041 

DE H ed Additionally to the short statements in the Foreword, we 

propose a new informative annex H giving a comparision 

between the old 8041 and this new edition. It should 

include a description of the effect of the new Wk on measured 

values, and of the new linear time-weighted running 

r.m.s. compared to the exponential time weighting. 

c) For instrumentation, the 

change in weightings 

was introduced in the 

1999 amendment to ISO 

8041, not in this revision. 

Comment accepted – 

Standard now a normative 

DE Z Biblio ed add ISO 2041:1990 Vibration and shock — Vocabulary 

which is quoted in 11.2, note 




page 10 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

reference, i.e. introduced into 

clause 2. 

DE Z Biblio ed move ISO 16063-21 to clause 2 Rejected – ISO 16063 (all 

parts) is in clause 2, 

Reference in bibliography 

therefore deleted 

DE Z Biblio ed delete IEC 60651 since this is outdated, see IEC 61672-1 Accepted 

DE Z Biblio ed delete EN 50082-2 since it is replaced by IEC 61000-6-2 Accepted 

DE Z Biblio ed delete EN 55022 since it is identical with CISPR 22:1997 Accepted 

Accepted 

DE Z Biblio ed move the GUM to clause 2 since it is quoted in 11.1 and 

12.1 with "shall" 

DE Z Biblio ed check quotation number [8] in C.2.3! Accepted – should now be 

[6] 

Comment appreciated. 

FR 0 ge France appreciates the work done, otherwise it appears 

that CD2 is not covering the field of ISO 5349-2. 

Rejected – Human vibration 

measurement standards 

require measurement in 

single axes. For hand arm 

vibration the three axes are 

combined to produce an 

overall level. If these 

transducers are applicable to 

human vibration 

measurement, then the new 

standard could be included in 

the bibliography – but only 

when it appears as a full 

standard. 

Add IEC 60747-14-4, 47E/220/CD to the list of 

references. 

JP 02 te IEC has issued the first committee draft for semiconductor 

accelerometer standard 60747-14-4 47E/220/CD, where 

acceleration is treated as vector quantity. Calibration is 

described using vector acceleration. 




page 11 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

Rejected – It is customary to 

assume a sensitivity value at 

one frequency and level will 

be adequate to represent the 

transducer performance (per 

axis). Additional sensitivity 

information may be used in 

the instrument, but it is not 

considered necessary for this 

International Standard 

JP 05.04 te It should be clarified that the sensitivity must be defined 

by a matrix 

Delete phase column in this Table 4. Phase is defined in ISO 2631 

and ISO 5349-1 in the 

complex forms of the filter 

equations. 

JP 05.06.6 Table 4 te Phase column in this Table 4 is not necessary, because 

it does not prescribe phase in SO 2631 and ISO 5349-1. 

If phase should be prescribed , delete Figure 1 b) in 

Clause 3.1.3. 

A good phase response is 

important for producing the 

correct values for parameters 

such as MTVV and VDV. 

However, the phase columns 

have been changed to 

characteristic phase 

deviation. 

See also response to 

German comments on 5.06.6 

Rejected – I am not sure we 

understood the point being 

made. However, there are 

tests that evaluate amplitude 

linearity and there are now 

signal burst tests that would 

be adversely affected by 

poor phase response. 

JP 05.07 ge Linearity is a concept related to both gain and phase. 

There must e a description on phase in terms of linearity. 




page 12 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

We think this comment arises 

due to the draft CD2 

confusing cross-talk and 

cross axis sensitivity, which 

produces this comment. We 

think the confusions have 

been dealt with in the revised 

draft. 

JP 05.17 te ISO 16063 does not give any description on multi-axes 

calibration technique. IEC 60747-14-4 only gives the 

description on the derivation of cross sensitivity. 

JP 11.10.2 te Linearity of phase is requested to be written. Rejected –There are now 

signal burst tests that would 


poor phase response 

linearity. 

See previous responses to 

Japanese comments on 5.04 

and 5.17. We do not believe 

that the level of information 

suggested here is necessary. 

Clear description is necessary that the reference 

accelerometer for human vibration can provide the 

data for sensitivity as a matrix with every 

component as a function of frequency. 

JP 11.11.3 te ISO 16063-21 does not give the technique of cross 

sensitivity. It does not say anything about the frequency 

dependency of cross sensitivity. 

JP 12.09 te Linearity shall be stated in terms of phase. The new signal burst tests 

attempt to provide multifrequency 

inputs that would 


incorrect phase responses. 

Rejected - We think this 

comment arises due to the 

draft CD2 confusing crosstalk 

and cross axis 

sensitivity, which produces 

this comment. We think the 

confusions have been dealt 

with in the revised draft. 

JP 12.10.3 te ISO 16063-21 does not give the technique of cross 

sensitivity. It does not say anything about the frequency 

dependency of cross sensitivity. Is there any calibration 

laboratory that can provide cross sensitivity under the 

concept of matrix sensitivity ? 




page 13 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

Rejected - I think this is a 

misunderstanding of the 

“calibrator” being specified 

here. This is the field 

calibrator, designed for insitu 

checks of on-axis 

sensitivity. Iit is not the 

mechanical vibrator that will 

be used for conformance and 

verification testing. 

te As long as the direction of vibration vector is normal to 

the coupling surface, calibration can not provide the cross 

axis sensitivity as a function of frequency. On the other 

hand, 5.17 claims that the cross axis sensitivity is less 

than 0.5%. This is contradiction, since one axis vibration 

table cannot give cross sensitivity. 

JP A A.2 

specification 

ge This Annex B is very important for making the instrument. This Annex B should be normative not informative. Rejected - The frequency 

weightings and tolerances 

are fully defined in clause 

5.6. This annex is for 

information only, since it 

ONLY gives approximate 

values at 1/3 octave band 

centre frequencies. 

JP B Frequency 

weighting 

Rejected - The weighting 

factor values given are not 

an indication of required 

tolerances. The actual 

tolerances are listed 

separately. It was considered 

useful to list the 

mathematically calculated 

values precisely. 

Each factor has 4 digits. ISO 16063-21 is a standard for 

secondary calibration and cannot provide the accuracy 

corresponding to these four digits. 

JP B Frequency 

weighting 

A note has been added to 

the Annex to avoid this 

confusion. 

Phase is a necessary part of 

the frequency weightings, 

f 

Phase column in Table of Annex B and Figure b) 

in Annex B should be deleted. 

te Phase column in Table of Annex B and Figure b) in 

Annex B are not necessary. 

JP B Table and 

Figure b) 




page 14 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

and presentation of the 

phase response was 

considered to be useful to 

instrument developers. 

Accepted that higher 

vibration level may be 

experienced in some 

applications – The suggested 

specification in this 

informative Annex are 

intended as a guide only. A 

comment has been added to 

emphasise this point. 

JP E Table E.1 te Maximum shock acceleration value 1000 m/s 2 in wholebody 

vibration for vehicles is too low. Side impact 

considered in the design is 2500 m/s 2 . 

Rejected – Mass and size 

are important in many 

applications (see ISO 5349- 

2). While the size may not, in 

principal, affect the 

measurement, a large 

transducer may interfere with 

the way a machine is used, 

and therefore affect the 

result. 

The specification of mass, size, height should be 

deleted. 

JP E Table E.1 te The specification of mass, size and height are not 

necessary. 

Accepted that measurement 

uncertainties are too close to 

tolerance allowance in many 

cases. These values have all 

been revised in the revised 

draft. 

UK 0 ge Do all the tolerances given in the standard include or 

exclude the uncertainties? In some cases the allowed 

uncertainty and the tolerance are fairly similar. 

No, only one laboratories has 

used part of the draft 

standard. We would welcome 

UK 0 ge Have the new tests and uncertainties / tolerances been 

tried by any test bodies? Is there any intention to 

evaluated this draft standard prior to publication? 




page 15 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

input from other laboratories. 

We have reviewed the need 

for the tests required by the 

standard. Some 

rationalisation has been 

achieved in the revised draft. 

Check for “should” and change to “shall” where 

appropriate. 

UK 0 ge The testing requirements are likely to be significantly 

more onerous than the previous version of the standard. 

1. Is there scope to reduce the number of tests 

needed? 

2. Will manufacturers want to use this standard 

when published? 

UK 0 ed There are a number of occurrences of the “should” were it 

ought to be “shall” 

Accepted - All occurrences of 

“should” have been review, 

and in most cases they have 

been changed to “shall” 

UK 03 ed Should there be a list of symbols used (e.g. t, ς, a(ς) …) Introduce list of symbols at start of clause 3. Accepted 

Accepted – The symbols 

have been reviewed and 

rationalised. 

Can another symbol be used, or alternative 

approach be adopted to solve the problem of the 

need for multiple versions of “time” in these 

equations? 

ed Use of ς in equations is queried. This symbol is 

associated with the damping factor in the context of 

vibration control. 

UK 03 Equations 

1,3,4 

Accepted 

ed The format of these equations should be consistent with 

that of 1,3, and 4 (i.e. use ς as integrand – but see note 

above) 

ed Title for Figure 1a is unclear due to page break between 

1a and 1b. 

UK 03 Equations 5 

and 6 

Accepted 

Options: 

• Make Figs 1a and 1b appear on one 

page. 

• Re-state title in Fig 1a 

UK 03 Figure 1a 

Figure 1b 

• Renumber as Figures 1 and 2 

UK 03 Figure 1b ed Spelling Change “Band-limitting” to “Band-limiting” Accepted 

Accepted 

UK 03.4.7 ed Emphasise that this is bot positive and negative peaks Change definition to : 

“modulus of the maximum instantaneous positive 

and negative peak value of the frequency 

weighted acceleration” 

ed Grammar Change to “Time-averaged” and “Band limited”. Accepted 

UK 05.01 Para 2 

Bullets 1 and 

2 




page 16 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

UK 05.02.2 Para 1 ed Clarify definition of tolerance Change to “1% of displayed value” Accepted 

Accepted 

Replace paragraph with: 

“The tolerance limits in this standard include the 

associated expanded uncertainties of 

measurement calculated for a coverage factor of 

2, corresponding to a level of confidence of 

approximately 95%, in accordance with the 

guidance given in the Guide to the expression of 

te Need to specify coverage factor for expanded 

uncertainties of measurement, e.g ISO 61672-1 para 2 of 

Annex A 

UK 05.05 Penultimate 

para 

uncertainty in measurement.” 

UK 05.06.5 Equation 11 ed Equation variables need to be in italics Change to variables to italics Accepted 

Accepted 

f < f1*10^(-2/10) 

f1*10^(-2/10)




1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

Rejected – Could not see 

any contracdiction 

Review required meaning and improve paragraph. 

Possibly change last sentence to “The minimum 

time for which an overload shall be indicated is 1 

s for hand-arm vibration and 8 s for whole-body 

UK 05.11 para 5 ed Wording seems to contradict itself, surely the minimum 

period overrides the first requirement? 

vibration” 

UK 05.11 Para 5, last ed Should say “indicator “, not “meter“ Change “… meter should remain on…” to “… Accepted 

sentence 

indicator shall remain on…” 

UK 05.16 Note te Provision of real-time clock is not required for vibration Remove note Accepted 

measurements, therefore there should be no specification 

UK 05.17 ed Needs clarification – currently two possible interpretations Add “ of input vibration” to end of paragraph Accepted 

of requirement: 

1) 0.5% of reading on affected channel (which is 

un-measurable, equivalent to 0.5% of noise floor) 

2) 0.5% of input level. 

UK 05.19 Para 2 te Requirement too tight Change to ±3% (as in SLM standard) Accepted 

UK 07.5 Table 8 ed CISPR-16 has been updated since that referenced here Update references to CISPR-16 Accepted 

Rejected – Committee 

considerer that both were 

necessary 

UK 07.6 Para 2 ed 50 and 60Hz, could be 50 or 60Hz Reduce testing requirement and have option for 50 

or 60Hz not both. 

Accepted 

Change “marking” to “clear indication on the body 

of the instrument or clearly displayed on the 

instruments display panel or other output device”. 

UK 09 Both paras ed The term “marking” implies an indelible (stamped) 

marking on the instrument case. Is this necessary? Would 

it be adequate to have the software system display the 

conformance details. In which case the term “marked” is 

inappropriate. 

UK 11.02 Definitions ed Spelling in definition of atot Change to “band-limiting”, should perhaps be Accepted 

below 

“band-limited” 

equation 11 

UK 11.02 Lines above ed Add “d” in sentence Change two sentences to read “The total 

Accepted 

equation 11 

distortion, d, for sinusoidal …” 

UK 11.02 Para 3 te The 2% accuracy would be OK for the mechanical Change 2% to higher value Rejected – Tolerance of 2% 

reference, but probably unachievable for most labs for 

considered to be OK, but 

non reference conditions 

Note added to limit this to 




page 18 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

above 0.4 Hz. 

Rejected – need to keep the 

action of confirming. 

UK 11.05 Para 1 ed “.. be confirmed ..” unnecessary. Remove “be confirmed” (Note phrase is also used 

unnecessarily elsewhere in clauses 11 and 12, 

e.g. in 11.4 

Increase to, at least, 3% Rejected – 2% considered to 

be easily achievable 

ed The 2% figure for uncertainty is too tight. It must be 

remembered that these figures apply to both pattern and 

periodic verification. Whilst pattern approval labs. May 

meet this, periodic ones will most likely not. At least 3% is 

required. 

UK 11.07 Paras 5, 6, & 

7. 

UK 11.08 ed This clause “Electrical cross talk” refers to the 

Change title of 11.8 or 5.17 Accepted – see response to 

specification in clause 5.17 “Cross axis sensitivity”. The 

German comments on 5.17 

titles should be consistent. 

UK 11.10.1 last para ed Should the units be linear rather than 1dB?. Change to 10% Rejected – the 1dB relates to 

the dB steps in Table 9 

(Table 10 in revised draft) 

UK 11.10.1 para. 5 ed The uncertainty of 1% is far too tight. 3% is more realistic. Suggest tolerances of 3% and 4%. Accepted – Changed to 2% 

Similarly in para 7. 

for all 

Suggest tolerances of 4% and 5%. Accepted – Changed to 3% 

& 4% 

Square root equations Accepted 

UK 11.10.2 para. 8 & 10 ed Uncertainties should be changed to the ones suggested 

in 11.10.1 above as a minimum. The additional 

inaccuracies of setting the source are probably going to 

require even bigger uncertainties though. 

UK 11.11.1 Equations ed Would the expressions be better as un-squared 

equations. defining the actual value rather than its 

square. 

UK 11.11.1 Equations ed Should these equations be numbered? Number equations Accepted 

Increase uncertainty (8%) Rejected – Considered that 

uncertainty should not 

depend on the measurement 

range being used. 

Manufaturer’s may elect to 

design to a smaller tolerance 

on reference range to allow 

UK 11.11.3 para. 6 te If the uncertainty is 5% how does this tie in with the 

accuracy on the ref. range which has a requirement of 

accuracy 5%. Doesn’t appear to leave any tolerance for 

the manufacturer. 




page 19 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

for range switching errors. 

Accepted 

Rejected – This is a relative 

electrical test, so 2% not 

considered unreasonable. 

UK 11.12 ed Poor English Delete first word “with” and change “as” in line 2 to 

“be”. 

UK 11.13 para 4 te Uncertainty too tight, 3% recommended, but no 

uncertainty mentioned in para. 6 which I think is needed. 

UK 11.14 para. 2 te Uncertainty too tight, 3% recommended Change uncertainty to 3% Rejeted – prefer to keep to 

2% - this is considered to be 

achievable. 

Accepted – see new signal 

burst specification and test. 

Can test be developed to introduce simultaneous 

testing at other frequencies? 

UK 11.16 Table 11 te Is this test sensitive enough to test VDV, it does not test 

phase response well as it is a tone burst at a single 

frequency, therefore dominated by single tone? 

Rejected – precision of 

computed values is provided 

for reference purposes, the 

tolerance on these values is 

given elsewhere. 

UK 11.16 Table 11 ed Is 4 decimal place precision required? Reduce to appropriate level of precision (tolerance 

on result is 8%) 

See attached Accepted – see new signal 

burst specification and test. 

UK 11.16 Table 11 ed Can this test be used to also test MTVV and timeaveraging 

UK 11.16.1 Note - line 2 ed The word “test” is not required. Delete the word “test” Accepted – but deleted 

anyway 

UK 11.18 te Should there be an uncertainty for this tolerance? Add uncertainty, e.g 1%. Rejected – this is not a 

measurement – just a 

reading 

Accepted, used 2 in 2000 

seconds 

UK 11.19 Sentence 1 te No test given Include a test (e.g. within 3 seconds in any 50 

minute period) 

UK 11.19 Sentence 2 te No specification in 5.16 Remove test requirement Accepted (used words from 

IEC 61672-2 for SLM testing) 

UK 11.21.6 ed The reference to the EMC standards have nearly all got Update to latest editions of EMC standards (and in Accepted 

more recent references that those cited. 

section 2). 




page 20 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

UK 11.21.6 para. 4 ed Why in is IEC 61672-1 cited? Refer to clause 7.4 Accepted 

UK 12.03 Last line ed Para cross referenced as 5.3 is incorrect. Should refer to Annex A Accepted 

UK 12.07 paras.5 & 7 te Uncertainties too tight. Change uncertainties to 3% Rejected 

UK 12.09 te see comments and values in 11.10.1 above. Suggest tolerances of 3% and 4%. Rejected – 2% considered 

achievable for this electrical 

test. 

Rejected – The specification 

here is a basic specification – 

manufacturer’s could chose 

to provide a wider 

temperature range. 

Calibrator may be used for environmental tests 

(e.g. clause 11.21.4) therefore range operating 

range to that of instrument (-10 to +50 

UK A te Why is the temperature range less than that for the 

measuring meter. If the calibrator is to be used for 

environmental tests of the meter, it needs to be the same. 

One or other should be modified so that they match. 

Accepted 

Accepted 

Accepted 

Accepted 

Accepted 

Rejected – Need to provide a 

challenging test a smaller 

UK A te Needs reference to calibrators standard ISO 16023-21 Introduce reference to calibrators standard ISO 

16023-21 

UK B ed Add note clarifying that the total weighting values 

given include the band limiting 

UK C C.2.3 and te The bilinear transform given in equation C.6 has a co-tan Change C.6 to bilinear transform 

C.2.4 

transform (2πfc/tan(πfcTs), which improves high frequenc S = 2/Ts * (z-1)/(z+1). 

accuracy and allows lower sample rates than fs*8. The And add note to say that the MATLAB code given 

MATLAB code given does not include this transform, needs sample rate of fs * 8, but code can be 

therefore equation C.6 should just be the bilinear 

optimised using transforms such as 2πfc/tan(πfcTs, 

transform i.e. 2/Ts * (z-1)/(z+1). 

which will allow much lower sample rates to be 

used. 

UK E Table E.1 te Don’t see why the transducer mass for Hand-arm is only Make the total mass first line of table and mass 

5 g when the total including mount is 30g. The important per accelerometer the second line in brackets to 

figure is the total mass, what fraction of the total the suggest it is of lesser importance. 

transducer occupies is up to the designed or the system. I 

would like to see the 5g removed, its unnecessarily 

onerous 

UK E Table E.1 ed Should have reference to ISO 10326-1 for seat 

Add reference to ISO 10326-1 for seat 

accelerometer 

accelerometer 

UK F.1.2.1 Para 2 te Handle diameter too small, should be consistent with Change diameter to that proposed for revision of 

other standards (e.g. glove test ISO 10819 where ISO 10819 




page 21 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

diameter is 40 mm challenging test, a smaller 

handle does this. 

Accepted – Now included in 

the symbols section 

US 0 Foreword ed The several abbreviations in the forward, such as MTVV 

and VDV should be spelled out when first used. In the 

Rejected – None of the 

measurements standards 

require simultaneous- triaxial 

measurement, although it is 

recognised in some that 

simultaneous-triaxial is 

desirable (e.g. ISO 5349-2). 

Therefore this 

instrumentation standard 

cannot require triaxial 

measurement, but it must 

allow for it. 

text. 

US 0 Overall ge Overall there is NO MENTION herein that tri-axial linear 

acceleration measurements are virtually ALWAYS 

simultaneously made-this document implies its ok to 

make single axis linear measurements by sequentially 

adjusting the position of the measurement accelerometer- 

NOT true as a rule! 

It is not true to say that 

triaxial measurement is 

virtually always made 

simultaneously, there are 

many single axis instruments 

available, and there are 

circumstances where triaxial 

measurements are 

undesirable (e.g. due to 

weight restrictions). 

Accepted 

Include dates for all Normative references Rejected – It is customary to 

only give dates when a 

particular version of the 

referenced standard is being 

referenced For undated 

US 02 ed Normative references should include ISO 2041:1990. 

Vibration and Shock_ Vocabulary. 

US 02 ed Normative references do not have a data associated w/ 

all standards. This means I do not know what version of 

the standards apply to this document. Furthermore this 

standard can be automatically changed if the referenced 

standards change. I cannot vote affirmative on this. 




page 22 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

referenced. For undated 

references them the latest 

version of the standard 

applies (as stated in the 

sentence before the list of 

normative references – this 

is a standard ISO phrase). 

Otherwise I have no concerns with this document an think 

the past comments were treated reasonably. 

Accepted 

Accepted 

Rejected – The standard 

does not suggest the use of 

vehicle dc sources. The 

clause provides a means for 

specifying the suitability of 

external dc sources. We 

have now added a more 

explicit requirement for the 

manufacturer to specify the 

specification limitations for 

external power supplies. 

US 02 ed Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement 

(GUM) needs to be added to Normative references. 

US 03 ed Several terms and definitions used in section 3 should be 

same as ISO 2041, or else there should be a statement in 

the body of the text that some terms are exceptions to 

that standard 

US 05.19 te It is NOT good engineering & instrumentation practice to 

connect & use external DC power derived from [vehicle] 

sources while measuring vibration from these sources - 

this virtually always leads to serious unwanted [ground 

loop & /or RFI] sources of electrical/electronics problems 

in the measuring & other instruments connected to say a 

vehicle's DC power supply-rather use a SEPARATE & 

independent power source [i.e. external 12VDC battery] & 

avoid all of these problems-this NEEDS to be mentioned 

& explained in this document-this is NOT a trivial 

recommendation. 

Advice on good 

measurement practice does 

not belong in this 

instrumentation standard. 

Remove clause 7.7 Rejected – The removal of 

this clause has been 

suggested before and the 

committee have agreed to 

retain it. 

US 07.7 te IP rating is a product feature and should not be listed as a 

desired capability in the standard. One could make the 

same argument for making the device intrinsically safe for 

use in mines. 




page 23 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

The clause does not specify 

any IP rating, it only says that 

whatever the rating, it should 

be specified by the 

manufacturer. 

Rejected – While the rollover 

test does make use of 

an easily accessible external 

calibration signal (i.e. gravity) 

the test is well outside the 

frequency ranges specified 

for both LFWBV and WBV. 

To allow such a test would 

require also demonstrating 

that the response of the 

meter and transducer were 

the same (within a tolerance) 

at 0 Hz and at the reference 

frequency. 

US A te This section assumes there are no self-calibrating 

accelerometers & that all accelerometers require external 

calibration sources. NOT TRUE- for many years human 

Whole-Body Vibration measurements have been made 

using [DC response] PIEZORESISTIVE accelerometers 

where a simple manual technique called a '1g rollover' is 

used to calibrate these accelerometers, since there is a 

DC response, the sensitive face of the accelerometer is 

pointed towards gravity, & nulled to zero volts out, 

then the accelerometer is rotated 90 degrees away from 

gravity-producing a [DC] voltage deflection exactly equal 

to 1g = device calibration. There needs to be mention of 

this very old & useful device. This technique does 

not work with XTAL accelerometers [used for hand-arm 

measurements], which do require an external calibrator 

as described in this section. 

It would not be unreasonable 

for manufacturers to 

recommend the 

supplemental use of a rollover 

test, if their systems 

respond to dc and they 

provide piezo-resistive 

transducers 

Rejected – There is no 

mention of the use of dc 

power supplies in vehicles. 

There is a requirement to 

provide specification against 

which the suitability of any 

US G.5 te It is NOT good engineering & instrumentation practice to 

connect & use external DC power derived from [vehicle] 

sources while measuring vibration from these sources - 

this virtually always leads to serious unwanted [ground 

loop & /or RFI] sources of electrical/electronics problems 

in the measuring & other instruments connected to say a 




page 24 of 25 





1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) 



Type 

of 

comment2 

Paragraph/ 

Figure/Table/ 

Note 


Clause No./ 


Annex 

(e.g. 3.1) 

MB 1 

which the suitability of any 

external power supply can be 

evaluated. 

vehicle's DC power supply-rather use a SEPARATE & 

independent power source [i.e. external 12VDC battery] & 

avoid all of these problems-this NEEDS to be mentioned& 

explained in this document-this is NOT a trivial 

recommendation. 




page 25 of 25

ISO/TC 108/SC 3 N 388-CEN/T C 231 N 439

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?