4.6 Article

Evaluation of Active Shoulder Exoskeleton Support to Deduce Application-Oriented Optimization Potentials for Overhead Work

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app122110805

Keywords

human-machine interaction; biomechanical analysis; sEMG; interaction forces; user experience; power tool; exoskeleton

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  2. [435242218]
  3. [WA 2913/41-1]
  4. [MA 5940/11-1]
  5. [WE 6430/3-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates the influence of support level of an active shoulder exoskeleton in different motion phases, and suggests that the support force should be adapted based on the specific phase of the task.
Repetitive overhead work with a heavy load increases the risk for work-related shoulder disorders. Occupational exoskeletons supporting arm elevation are potential solutions to reduce that risk by lowering the physical strains on the shoulder. Many studies have reported a reduction in shoulder stress in various overhead tasks by using such exoskeletons. However, the support demand can vary in each phase of motion as well as in each individual task. This paper presents a laboratory study with five participants to evaluate the influence of the support level of an active shoulder exoskeleton in different motion phases (e.g., arm lifting, screw-in, and arm lowering of two overhead tasks) to identify the potential optimization of support at each phase. Results show that the support level of the exoskeleton should be adapted to the motion phase of the two chosen tasks. A higher support force is desired for the screw phase compared to the arm lifting and lowering phases, and the support level needs to be reduced immediately for arm lowering after the screw phase. The time for switching the support levels can be recognized by the electric current of the screwdriver.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available