Search results

This study aims to investigate the impact of active back-support exoskeletons on muscle activity and range of motion during carpentry tasks, focusing on addressing back disorders in the construction sector. The purpose is to understand how exoskeletons can serve as ergonomic solutions in the construction industry.

Sixteen participants engaged in simulated carpentry framing tasks under “no-exoskeleton” and “active-exoskeleton”. The study measured muscle activity and range of motion during tasks such as measuring, assembly, moving, lifting, installing and nailing. This experimental design was chosen to assess the effectiveness of the exoskeleton in different carpentry scenarios.

The results indicate that the active back-support exoskeleton reduced the back’s range of motion by 3%–26% during various tasks, suggesting its impact on movement limitations. Additionally, the exoskeleton led to reduced muscle activity in most muscles, with task-specific variations. There was an increase in muscle activity by 1–35%, during measuring and assembly tasks, revealing nuanced effects.

The findings may be task-specific, however, the absence of a consistent correlation between muscle activity and range of motion suggests potential complexities that warrant further investigation.

This research contributes to the understanding of exoskeletons in construction, emphasizing that task-specific designs are crucial for addressing unique work requirements. The study provides valuable data on the diverse effects of exoskeletons in different carpentry tasks.

Low back disorders are more predominant among construction trade workers than their counterparts in other industry sectors. Floor layers are among the top artisans that are severely affected by low back disorders. Exoskeletons are increasingly being perceived as ergonomic solutions. This study aims to compare the efficacy of passive and active back-support exoskeletons by measuring range of motion, perceived discomfort, usability, perceived rate of exertion and cognitive load during a simulated flooring task experiment.

In this study eight participants were engaged in a repetitive timber flooring task performed with passive and active back-support exoskeletons. Subjective and objective data were collected to assess the risks associated with using both exoskeletons. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Scheirer-Ray-Hare test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were adopted to compare the exoskeleton conditions.

The results show no significant differences in the range of motion (except for a lifting cycle), perceived level of discomfort and perceived level of exertion between the two exoskeletons. Significant difference in overall cognitive load was observed. The usability results show that the active back-support exoskeleton made task execution easier with less restriction on movement.

The flooring task is simulated in a laboratory environment with only eight male participants.

This study contributes to the scarce body of knowledge on the usage comparison of passive and active exoskeletons for construction work.