Advertisement

Development of a Standardized Ergonomic Assessment Methodology for Exoskeletons Using Both Subjective and Objective Measurement Techniques

  • Michael HefferleEmail author
  • Maria Lechner
  • Karsten Kluth
  • Marc Christian
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 962)

Abstract

Awkward postures, high loads, and highly repetitive tasks are risk factors for developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders, which are the main reason for sick days in manufacturing. Overhead work, specifically, is a high-risk factor for developing musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder, which account for the longest sick leaves among all musculoskeletal disorders.

Assistive devices, such as exoskeletons, seek to reduce the stresses associated with overhead work, and have even been suggested as a preventative measure for musculoskeletal disorders.

To investigate the physiological consequences of passive upper limb exoskeletons a standardized holistic assessment methodology, including one subjective (Borg CR-10) and three objective measurement techniques (EMG, ergo spirometry combined with heart rate and NIRS). A set of static, dynamic, and simulated assembly tasks in combination with a suitable test rig is developed and preliminary study results are presented.

Keywords

Overhead work Work related musculoskeletal disorders Exoskeleton Ergonomic assessment EMG NIRS Ergo spirometry 

References

  1. 1.
    Statistical Office of the European Communities.: Health and Safety at Work in Europe (1999–2007). A Statistical Portrait. Eurostat. Statistical Books. Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Society of Biomechanics (Hrsg).: EMG assessment of a should support Exoskeleton during on-site job tasks (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bargende, M., Reuss, H-C., Wiedemann, J. (Hrsg).: 17 Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium. Automobil- und Motorentechnik. Proceedings. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spada, S., Ghibaudo, L., Gilotta, S., Gastaldi, L., Cavatorta, M.P.: Investigation into the applicability of a passive upper-limb exoskeleton in automotive industry. Procedia Manufacturing 11, 1255–1262 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spada, S., Ghibaudo, L., Gilotta, S., Gastaldi, L., Cavatorta, M.P.: Analysis of exoskeleton introduction in industrial reality: main issues and EAWS risk assessment. In: Goonetilleke, R.S., Karwowski, W., 0009835 (Hrsg) Advances in Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors. Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Physical Ergonomics and Human Factors, July 17–21, 2017, The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles, California, USA. Springer International Publishing, Cham, s.l (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Looze, M.P., Bosch, T., Krause, F., Stadler, K.S., O’Sullivan, L.W.: Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics 59(5), 671–681 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1081988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Theurel, J., Desbrosses, K., Roux, T., Savescu, A.: Physiological consequences of using an upper limb exoskeleton during manual handling tasks. Appl. Ergon. 67, 211–217 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weston, E.B., Alizadeh, M., Knapik, G.G., Wang, X., Marras, W.S.: Biomechanical evaluation of exoskeleton use on loading of the lumbar spine. Appl. Ergon. 68, 101–108 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huysamen, K., Bosch, T., de Looze, M., Stadler, K.S., Graf, E., O’Sullivan, L.W.: Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities. Appl. Ergon. 70, 148–155 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, S., Nussbaum, M.A., Mokhlespour Esfahani, M.I., Alemi, M.M., Alabdulkarim, S., Rashedi, E.: Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation. Part I – “Expected” effects on discomfort, shoulder muscle activity, and work task performance. Appl. Ergon. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, S., Nussbaum, M.A., Mokhlespour Esfahani, M.I., Alemi, M.M., Jia, B., Rashedi, E.: Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation. Part II – “Unexpected” effects on shoulder motion, balance, and spine loading. Appl. Ergon. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu, W., Fong, J., Crocher, V., Lee, P.V.S., Oetomo, D., Tan, Y., Ackland, D.C.: Modulation of shoulder muscle and joint function using a powered upper-limb exoskeleton. J. Biomech. 72, 7–16 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.02.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muramatsu, Y., Kobayashi, H., Sato, Y., Jiaou, H., Hashimoto, T., Kobayashi, H.: Quantitative performance analysis of exoskeleton augmenting devices - muscle suit - for manual worker. Int. J. Autom. Technol. 5(4), 559–567 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2011.p0559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazzaroni, M., Toxiri, S., Ortiz, J., De Momi, E., Caldwell, D.G.: Towards standards for the evaluation of active back-support exoskeletons to assist lifting taskGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dahmen, C., Hefferle, M.: Application of Ergonomic Assessment Methods on an Exoskeleton Centered Workplace Proceedings of the The XXXth Annual Occupational Ergonomics and Safety ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borg, G.: Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corlett, E.N., Bishop, R.P.: A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19(2), 175–182 (1976).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137608931530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muramatsu, Y., Kobayashi, H.: Assessment of local muscle fatigue by NIRS - development and evaluation of muscle suit -. Robomech J. 1(1), 46 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40648-014-0019-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferrari, M., Mottola, L., Quaresima, V.: Principles, techniques, and limitations of near infrared spectroscopy. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 29(4), 463–487 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koller, J.R., Gates, D.H., Ferris, D.P., David Remy, C.: ‘Body-in-the-loop’ optimization of assistive robotic devices: a validation study. In: Hsu, D., Amato, N., Berman, S., Jacobs, S. (Hrsg) Robotics: Science and Systems XII. Robotics Science and Systems Foundation, Berlin? (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Hefferle
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maria Lechner
    • 1
    • 3
  • Karsten Kluth
    • 2
  • Marc Christian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsBMW AGMunichGermany
  2. 2.Ergonomics DivisionUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany
  3. 3.TUM Department of Sport and Health SciencesTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations