Advertisement

Passive Upper Limb Exoskeletons: An Experimental Campaign with Workers

  • Stefania Spada
  • Lidia Ghibaudo
  • Chiara Carnazzo
  • Laura Gastaldi
  • Maria Pia Cavatorta
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

Wearable exoskeletons are currently evaluated as technological aids for workers on the factory floor, as suggested by the philosophy of Industry 4.0. The paper presents the results of experimental tests carried out on a first prototype of a passive upper limbs exoskeleton developed by IUVO. Eighteen FCA workers participated to the study. Experimental tests were designed to evaluate the influence of the exoskeleton while accomplishing different tasks, both in static and dynamic conditions.

Quantitative and qualitative parameters were analyzed to evaluate usability, potential benefits and acceptability of the device. Results show, on average, that wearing the exoskeleton has a positive effect in increasing: (i) endurance time while holding demanding postures with raised arms and/or having to lift and hold small work tools, (ii) endurance time and accuracy execution in precision tasks. The users also declared a lower perceived effort, while performing tasks with the exoskeleton.

Keywords

Upper limb exoskeleton Human-robot cooperation Usability 

References

  1. 1.
    Gopura RARC, Kiguchi K, Bandara DSV (2011) A brief review on upper extremity robotic exoskeleton systems. In: 2011 6th international conference on industrial and information systems. IEEE, pp 346–351Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borzelli D, Pastorelli S, Gastaldi L (2017) Elbow musculoskeletal model for industrial exoskeleton with modulated impedance based on operator’s arm stiffness. Int J Autom Technol 11:442–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang C-J, Zhang J-F, Chen Y, Dong Y-M, Zhang Y (2008) A review of exoskeleton-type systems and their key technologies. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 222:1599–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belforte G, Sorli M, Gastaldi L (1997) Active orthosis for rehabilitation and passive exercise. In: International conference on simulations in biomedicine, Proceedings, BIOMED. Computational Mechanics Publ, pp 199–208Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zoss AB, Kazerooni H, Chu A (2006) Biomechanical design of the Berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton (BLEEX). IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 11:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liang P, Yang C, Wang N, Li Z, Li R, Burdet E (2014) Implementation and test of human-operated and human-like adaptive impedance controls on Baxter robot. Presented at the conference towards autonomous robotic systemsGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spada S, Ghibaudo L, Gilotta S, Gastaldi L, Cavatorta MP (2017) Investigation into the applicability of a passive upper-limb exoskeleton in automotive industry. Proc Manuf 11:1255–1262Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spada S, Ghibaudo L, Gilotta S, Gastaldi L, Cavatorta MP (2018) Analysis of exoskeleton introduction in industrial reality: main issues and EAWS risk assessmentGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Looze MP, Bosch T, Krause F, Stadler KS, O’Sullivan LW (2016) Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics 59:671–681Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim S, Nussbaum MA, Mokhlespour Esfahani MI, Alemi MM, Alabdulkarim S, Rashedi E (2018) 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 70:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Romero D, Stahre J, Wuest T, Noran O, Bernus P, Fast-Berglund Å, Gorecky D (2016) Towards an operator 4.0 typology: a human-centric perspective on the fourth industrial revolution technologies. In: CIE 2016: 46th international conferences on computers and industrial engineeringGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim S, Nussbaum MA, Mokhlespour Esfahani MI, Alemi MM, Jia B, Rashedi E (2018) 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 70:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huysamen K, Bosch T, de Looze M, Stadler KS, Graf E, O’Sullivan LW (2018) Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities. Appl Ergon 70:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IUVO – Wearable Technologies. https://www.iuvo.company/
  15. 15.
    Macdermid JC, Ghobrial M, Badra Quirion K, St-Amour M, Tsui T, Humphreys D, Mccluskie J, Shewayhat E, Galea V (2007) Validation of a new test that assesses functional performance of the upper extremity and neck (FIT-HaNSA) in patients with shoulder pathology. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borg G (1998) Borg’s Perceived exertion and pain scales. Human KineticsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spada S, Ghibaudo L, Carnazzo C, Di Pardo M, Chander DS, Gastaldi L, Cavatorta MP (2018) Physical and virtual assessment of a passive exoskeleton. In: 20th congress international ergonomics association, FlorenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fiat Chrysler Automobiles - EMEA Region – Manufacturing Planning & Control – Direct Manpower Analysis & ErgonomicsTurinItaly
  2. 2.Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations