Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance and effectiveness of a passive back-support exoskeleton in manual material handling tasks in the construction industry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Construction Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a leading contributor to workplace injuries in the construction industry, with the low back being the most affected body part. Recent developments have led to the introduction of exoskeletons on industrial job sites as a means to mitigate the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Due to the newness of industrial exoskeletons, the successful application of this technology in the construction industry requires a thorough evaluation of different aspects of its adoption, especially user acceptance, to ensure a successful and effective uptake. As manual material handling tasks are the most common cause of low back injuries, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of using exoskeletons when adopting different postures during dynamic and static manual material handling tasks. An experiment was carried out and data reflecting Rate of Perceived Exertion, Level of Discomfort, overall fit and comfort, effectiveness, and interference levels were collected. Overall, the participants perceived the exoskeleton suit as effective, with discomfort being reduced in the low back and most other body parts. However, the results indicated the importance of considering the specific task at hand (e.g., dynamic vs static manual material handling) and the posture adopted (e.g., squatting vs stooping) when evaluating and selecting an exoskeleton for construction tasks. Also, the results show differences between male and female participants in most usability and effectiveness responses. In conclusion, passive exoskeletons have the potential to be adopted to reduce the rate of WMSDs in construction. However, proper training and supervision are required on the postures adopted by the workers, based on the specific characteristics of the task carried out. Also, different results from male and female responses show that different exoskeletons, or an exoskeleton with two different designs, may lead to higher efficiency than using one exoskeleton for both groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alemi MM et al (2020) Effects of two passive back-support exoskeletons on muscle activity, energy expenditure, and subjective assessments during repetitive lifting. Hum Factors 62(3):458–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antwi-Afari MF et al (2021) Assessment of a passive exoskeleton system on spinal biomechanics and subjective responses during manual repetitive handling tasks among construction workers. Saf Sci 142:105382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltrusch S et al (2018) The effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on functional performance in healthy individuals. Appl Ergon 72:94–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan S (2015) Economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on work in Europe. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 29(3):356–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg G The borg CR10 scale folder. Hasselby: Borg Perception, 2004.

  • Capitani SL et al (2021) Model-based mechanical design of a passive lower-limb exoskeleton for assisting workers in shotcrete projection. Meccanica 56(1):195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S et al (2021) Wearable knee assistive devices for kneeling tasks in construction. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 26(4):1989–1996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho YK et al. A robotic wearable exoskeleton for construction worker’s safety and health. In ASCE construction research congress. 2018.

  • Da Costa BR, Vieira ER (2010) Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med 53(3):285–323

    Google Scholar 

  • de Castro AB (2003) ‘Hierarchy of controls’: providing a framework for addressing workplace hazards. AJN Am J Nursing 103(12):104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Ferraro S et al (2020) The effects of upper-body exoskeletons on human metabolic cost and thermal response during work tasks—a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(20):7374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geregei A et al (2020) Up-to-date techniques for examining safety and physiological efficiency of industrial exoskeletons. Health Risk Anal 3:147–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Golabchi A, Chao A, Tavakoli M (2022) A systematic review of industrial exoskeletons for injury prevention: efficacy evaluation metrics, target tasks, and supported body postures. Sensors 22(7):2714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensel R, Keil M (2019) Subjective evaluation of a passive industrial exoskeleton for lower-back support: a field study in the automotive sector. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Human Fact 7(3–4):213–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazerooni H, Tung W, Pillai M. Evaluation of trunk-supporting exoskeleton. In Proceedings of the Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. 2019. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.

  • Kermavnar T et al (2021) Effects of industrial back-support exoskeletons on body loading and user experience: an updated systematic review. Ergonomics 64(6):685–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S et al (2019) Potential of exoskeleton technologies to enhance safety, health, and performance in construction: industry perspectives and future research directions. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Human Fact 7(3–4):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marino M (2019) Impacts of using passive back assist and shoulder assist exoskeletons in a wholesale and retail trade sector environment. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Human Fact 7(3–4):281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melhorn JM (1998) Cumulative trauma disorders and repetitive strain injuries. The future. Clin Orthop Relat Res 351:107–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunseiju O et al (2021a) Subjective evaluation of passive back-support exoskeleton for flooring work. EPiC Ser Built Environ 2:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunseiju O et al (2021b) Evaluation of postural-assist exoskeleton for manual material handling. Eng Constr Archit Manag 29:1358–1375

    Google Scholar 

  • Poon N et al. (2019) Evaluation of a trunk supporting exoskeleton for reducing muscle fatigue. in Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA

  • Upasani S et al (2019) The potential for exoskeletons to improve health and safety in agriculture—perspectives from service providers. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Human Fact 7(3–4):222–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yassi A (2000) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Curr Opin Rheumatol 12(2):124–130

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Z, Dutta A, Dai F (2021) Exoskeletons for manual material handling–a review and implication for construction applications. Autom Constr 122:103493

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC 567348–2021). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Ali Golabchi

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Niromand Jasimi Zindashti & Hossein Rouhani

  3. EWI Works International Inc, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Linda Miller

  4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Mahdi Tavakoli

Authors
  1. Ali Golabchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niromand Jasimi Zindashti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hossein Rouhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mahdi Tavakoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Golabchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the research ethics board of the authors' current institution (Pro00109264), and all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants were informed of the experimental procedures and gave informed written consent before the test.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Golabchi, A., Jasimi Zindashti, N., Miller, L. et al. Performance and effectiveness of a passive back-support exoskeleton in manual material handling tasks in the construction industry. Constr Robot 7, 77–88 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41693-023-00097-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41693-023-00097-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation