Impact Analysis on Human Body of Falling Events in Human-Exoskeleton System

  • Jing QiuEmail author
  • Ye Chen
  • Hong Cheng
  • Lei Hou
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 819)


Powered lower extremity exoskeletons (LEE) can support and ambulate individuals in an upright posture, and meanwhile bring rehabilitative benefits. However, guaranteeing the safety of human-exoskeleton system is still a big challenge. The type and extent of probable risks of these devices have not yet been understood. Falls can result in serious injuries for LEE users and awful consequences. In this paper, we focus on the process of human-exoskeleton system falling and assess the injury of human. Herein, impacts of falling events were assessed and analyzed based on finite element method in the current study. In order to collect kinematics of the human-exoskeleton system for simulated impact analysis, an experiment platform consisting of an air bend and a ceiling rail was designed. Volunteers individually or wearing exoskeleton were asked to lean body in different directions (e.g. forward, side and backward) until they inevitably fell. The results of the experiment and simulation indicated that the main parts injured were head, thorax, spine, arm and pelvis when human-exoskeleton system fell. The maximum impact velocity of head can be 6.5 m/s, if no buffer actions were taken, and that can cause traumatic brain injury (TBI). No fractures occurred in other parts, but local squeezing and bruising could be found in the simulation. It is anticipated that the study of human-exoskeleton falling event will be useful in making safety regulations and safety exoskeleton designing.


Falling Injury assessment Lower limb exoskeleton 


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  2. 2.
    Esquenazi A, Talaty M, Packel A, Saulino M (2012) The ReWalk powered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 91(11):911–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsukahara A, Hasegawa Y, Eguchi K, Sankai Y (2015) Restoration of gait for spinal cord injury patients using HAL with intention estimator for preferable swing speed. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 23(2):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benson I, Hart K, Tussler D, van Middendorp JJ (2016) Lower-limb exoskeletons for individuals with chronic spinal cord injury: findings from a feasibility study. Clin Rehabil 30(1):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kazerooni H, Steger R, Huang L (2006) Hybrid control of the Berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton (BLEEX). Int J Robot Res 25(5–6):561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sale P, Franceschini M, Waldner A, Hesse S (2012) Use of the robot assisted gait therapy in rehabilitation of patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 48(1):111–121Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Hornby TG (2009) Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23(1):5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lajeunesse V, Vincent C, Routhier F, Careau E, Michaud F (2016) Exoskeletons’ design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 11(7):535–547Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li L, Hoon KH, Tow A, Lim PH, Low KH (2015) Design and control of robotic exoskeleton with balance stabilizer mechanism. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 3817–3823Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huynh V, Bidard C, Chevallereau C (2016) Balance control for an underactuated leg exoskeleton based on capture point concept and human balance strategies. In: 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, pp 483–488Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goffer A (2014) U.S. Patent Application No 13/535,485Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organization. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  13. 13.
    He Y, Eguren D, Luu TP, Contreras-Vidal JL (2017) Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review. Med Devices (Auckland) 10:89Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khalili M, Borisoff JF, Van der Loos HM (2017) Developing safe fall strategies for lower limb exoskeletons. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, pp 314–319Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moya J, Ruiz-del-Solar J, Orchard M, Parra-Tsunekawa I (2015) Fall detection and damage reduction in biped humanoid robots. Int J Humanoid Rob 12(01):1550001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi WJ, Wakeling JM, Robinovitch SN (2015) Kinematic analysis of video-captured falls experienced by older adults in long-term care. J Biomech 48(6):911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Robotics, School of Automation EngineeringUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina

Personalised recommendations