Advertisement

Physical and Virtual Assessment of a Passive Exoskeleton

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

Abstract

The paper describes the testing activity carried out on a commercial passive lower limb exoskeleton: the Chairless Chair, a wearable sitting support that allows workers to switch between a standing and a sitting posture. Tests were carried out with FCA workers who volunteered for the study. Laboratory trials served to familiarize the users and to obtain an initial feedback on the usability of the device in the assembly line. At a second step, virtual modelling of a few static postures was carried out, reproducing the anthropometry and the postural angles of the worker while using the exoskeleton. A main output of the model is the estimate of what forces are exchanged between the subject and the exoskeleton. In the case of the lower limb exoskeleton, an important parameter to consider is the percentage of the subject’s weight that is sustained by the exoskeleton frame. The higher is this percentage, the lower will be the strain on the subject’s lower limbs. First comparison between experimental and simulated results showed good agreement and auspicious advantages of exoskeletons in relieving the strain on workers.

Keywords

Exoskeleton Simulation Postural comfort 

References

  1. 1.
    Aziz FA, Ghazalli Z, Mohamed NMZ, Isfar A (2017) Investigation on musculoskeletal discomfort and ergonomics risk factors among production team members at an automotive component assembly plant. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol 257Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stock SR, Nicolakakis N, Vézina N, Vézina M, Gilbert L, Turcot A, Sultan-Taieb H, Sinden K, Denis M-A, Delga C, Beaucage C (2018) Are work organization interventions effective in preventing or reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders? A systematic review of the literature. Scand J Work Environ Health 44:113–133Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    dos Reis DC, Tirloni AS, Ramos E, Moro ARP (2018) Risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders in a meat processing plant. In: Goonetilleke RS, Karwowski W (eds) Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Springer, Cham, pp 271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chander DS, Cavatorta MP (2017) An observational method for Postural Ergonomic Risk Assessment (PERA). Int J Ind Ergon 57:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pavlovic-Veselinovic S, Hedge A, Veselinovic M (2016) An ergonomic expert system for risk assessment of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders. Int J Ind Ergon 53:130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Savino M, Mazza A, Battini D (2016) New easy to use postural assessment method through visual management. Int J Ind. Ergon 53:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maurice P, Padois V, Measson Y, Bidaud P (2017) Human-oriented design of collaborative robots. Int J Ind Ergon 57:88–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 59:671–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Spada S, Ghibaudo L, Gilotta S, Gastaldi L, Cavatorta MP (2018) Analysis of exoskeleton introduction in industrial reality: main issues and EAWS risk assessment. In: Goonetilleke RS, Karwowski W (eds) Advances in physical ergonomics and human factors. Springer, Cham, pp 236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huysamen K, de Looze M, Bosch T, Ortiz J, Toxiri S, O’Sullivan LW (2018) Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks. Appl Ergon 68:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guan X, Ji L, Wang R, Huang, W (2016) Optimization of an unpowered energy-stored exoskeleton for patients with spinal cord injury, pp 5030–5033Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou L, Li Y, Bai S (2017) A human-centered design optimization approach for robotic exoskeletons through biomechanical simulation. Rob Auton Syst 91:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen EF, Raunsbæk J, Lund JN, Rahman T, Rasmussen J, Castro MN (2018) Development and simulation of a passive upper extremity orthosis for amyoplasia. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 5:205566831876152Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    NOONEE. http://www.noonee.com. Accessed 17 Apr 2018
  17. 17.
    Damsgaard M, Rasmussen J, Christensen ST, Surma E, de Zee M (2006) Analysis of musculoskeletal systems in the AnyBody Modeling System. Simul Model Pract Theory 14:1100–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chander DS, Cavatorta MP (2018) Multi-directional one-handed strength assessments using AnyBody Modeling Systems. Appl. Ergon 67:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rasmussen J, De Zee M, Damsgaard M, Christensen ST, Marek C, Siebertz K (2005) A general method for scaling musculo-skeletal models. In: 2005 international symposium on computer simulation in biomechanics, vol 3Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rasmussen J, Damsgaard M, Voigt M (2001) Muscle recruitment by the min/max criterion - a comparative numerical study. J Biomech 34:409–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fluit R, Andersen MS, Kolk S, Verdonschot N, Koopman HFJM (2014) Prediction of ground reaction forces and moments during various activities of daily living. J Biomech 47:2321–2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skals S, Jung MK, Damsgaard M, Andersen MS (2017) Prediction of ground reaction forces and moments during sports-related movements. Multibody Syst Dyn 39:175–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eltoukhy M, Kuenze C, Andersen MS, Oh J, Signorile J (2017) Prediction of ground reaction forces for Parkinson’s disease patients using a kinect-driven musculoskeletal gait analysis model. Med Eng Phys 50:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peng Y, Zhang Z, Gao Y, Chen Z, Xin H, Zhang Q, Fan X, Jin Z (2018) Concurrent prediction of ground reaction forces and moments and tibiofemoral contact forces during walking using musculoskeletal modelling. Med Eng Phys 52:31–40CrossRefGoogle 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.Centro Ricerche Fiat – WCM Research & InnovationOrbassanoItaly
  3. 3.Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations