Advertisement

Optimizing Design Characteristics of Passive and Active Spinal Exoskeletons for Challenging Work Tasks

  • Monika Harant
  • Manish Sreenivasa
  • Matthew Millard
  • Nejc Šarabon
  • Katja Mombaur
Conference paper
Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB, volume 22)

Abstract

Spinal exoskeletons can reduce the cumulative back load of physically demanding working tasks and, thus, have the potential to reduce the risk of low-back injuries. In this work, we perform a comparative design study of active and passive spinal exoskeletons to support stoop-lifts of a 10 kg box. We recorded various healthy subjects performing this motion and created mathematical models of the subjects and of active spinal exoskeletons. The spring characteristics as well as the torque profiles are optimized to reduce the load on the subjects while they are tracking the recorded stoop-lifts. In addition, it is ensured that the exoskeletons remain comfortable to wear during the motion. The obtained results are compared to results from a similar setup using a passive spinal exoskeleton.

References

  1. 1.
    Rubin, D.I.: Epidemiology and risk factors for spine pain. Neurol. Clin. 25(2), 353–371 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guo, H.R., Tanaka, S., Halperin, W.E., Cameron, L.L.: Back pain prevalence in us industry and estimates of lost workdays. Am. J. Public Health 89(7), 1029–1035 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stadler, K., Elspass, W., van de Venn, H.: Robo-mate: exoskeleton to enhance industrial production. In: Mobile Service Robotics, pp. 53–60. WORLD SCIENTIFIC (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coenen, P., Kingma, I., Boot, C.R., Bongers, P.M., van Dieën, J.H.: Cumulative mechanical low-back load at work is a determinant of low-back pain. Occup. Environ. Med. 71(5), 332–337 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harant, M., Sreenivasa, M., Millard, M., Šarabon, N., Mombaur, K.: Parameter optimization for passive spinal exoskeletons based on experimental data and optimal control. In: IEEE/RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harant, M., Sreenivasa, M., Millard, M., Šarabon, N., Mombaur, K.: Identification of optimal compliance in passive spinal exoskeletons based on motion capture experiments and subject-specific musculoskeletal models, unpublishedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Leva, P.: Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov’s segment inertia parameters. J. BIOMECH 29(9), 1223–1230 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Millard, M., Kleesattel, A.L., Harant, M., Mombaur, K.: A reduced muscle model and planar musculoskeletal model fit for synthesis of whole body movements. J. BIOMECH, submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huysamen, K.: Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks. Appl. Ergon. 68, 125–131 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Harant
    • 1
  • Manish Sreenivasa
    • 1
  • Matthew Millard
    • 1
  • Nejc Šarabon
    • 2
    • 3
  • Katja Mombaur
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer EngineeringOptimization, Robotics and Biomechanics Group (ORB)HeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department for Kinesiology and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of PrimorskaIzolaSlovenia
  3. 3.Laboratory for Motor Control and Motor Behaviour, Techonology ParkS2P, Science to Practice, Ltd.LjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations