Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluating industrial exoskeletons for performance and fatigue in lifting tasks Cover

Evaluating industrial exoskeletons for performance and fatigue in lifting tasks

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal
Volume 17 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)
By: Mohamad Iyad Al-Khiami,  Søren Munch Lindhard and  Søren Wandahl  
Open Access
|Oct 2025

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

Experimental setup and sequence.
Experimental setup and sequence.

Fig. 2:

(a) Standing position and (b) lifting position.
(a) Standing position and (b) lifting position.

Fig. 3:

Annotated frame of repetition tracking with YOLOv8.
Annotated frame of repetition tracking with YOLOv8.

Fig. 4:

Sequence for one full repetition.
Sequence for one full repetition.

Fig. 5:

Trial 1 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.
Trial 1 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.

Fig. 6:

Trial 2 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.
Trial 2 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.

Fig. 7:

Trial 3 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.
Trial 3 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.

Fig. 8:

Trial 4 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.
Trial 4 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.

Fig. 9:

Trial 5 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.
Trial 5 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.

Fig. 10:

Trial 6 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.
Trial 6 time per repetition per condition and polynomial regression fitting.

Number of repetitions per conditions per trial*

ConditionsTrial 1Trial 2Trial 3Trial 4Trial 5Trial 6
No Exo202419252632
Exo A303127304244
Exo B192225283238

Descriptive analysis of time per repetition per condition per trial in seconds

TrialConditionMeanSDMinMax
Trial 1No Exo5.3530.4134.5016.198
Exo A4.5860.2624.0005.003
Exo B4.6090.3304.2495.550
Trial 2Exo A4.0080.2583.5004.500
No Exo3.6850.2633.2504.251
Exo B3.7960.2263.2504.250
Trial 3Exo B3.9120.2473.5004.499
Exo A3.6540.2653.2504.249
No Exo3.9310.2683.5004.499
Trial 4No Exo3.8360.2773.2514.252
Exo B3.5670.2923.0004.249
Exo A3.5000.2912.9994.001
Trial 5Exo A3.5590.2453.0004.249
Exo B3.4970.2543.0004.001
No Exo3.7300.3223.0004.250
Trial 6Exo B3.7030.2193.2494.001
No Exo3.8630.2653.2504.252
Exo A3.5570.2063.2483.999

Percentage difference in repetition count relative to No Exo

ConditionTrial 1 (%)Trial 2 (%)Trial 3 (%)Trial 4 (%)Trial 5 (%)Trial 6 (%)
Exo A+150+129+142+120+162+140
Exo B–5–8.33+132+112+123+119

Percentage difference in repetitions between Exo A and Exo B relative to Exo B

ConditionTrial 1 (%)Trial 2 (%)Trial 3 (%)Trial 4 (%)Trial 5 (%)Trial 6 (%)
Differences5841873116

Qualitative observations comparison between Exo A and Exo B

ObservationExo AExo B
Comfort and fit
  • -

    Requires assistance to wear

  • -

    Was time consuming to adjust for comfort and fit

  • -

    During the lifting activity, the springs on the sides were pressing on the latissimus dorsi muscles

  • -

    Relatively comfortable

  • -

    No assistance required to wear

  • -

    Easy to adjust and fits closer to the body

  • -

    Elastic bands behind the hamstrings caused discomfort

  • -

    More comfortable overall

Ease of use
  • -

    Easy to walk with

  • -

    Minimal restrictions

  • -

    Easier to walk with compared with Exo A

  • -

    Minimal restrictions

Support and performance
  • -

    Higher perceived support

  • -

    Was more consistent and stable throughout the set duration

  • -

    Less perceived support compared to Exo A

  • -

    Provided higher IPO but less consistency in maintaining time per repetition.

Failure and recovery
  • -

    Failure due to leg muscles

  • -

    Minimal stress on the back

  • -

    Higher muscular recovery before next set

  • -

    Failure due to leg muscles

  • -

    Minimal stress on the back

  • -

    Relatively less muscular recovery before next set

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2025-0012 | Journal eISSN: 1847-6228 | Journal ISSN: 1847-5450
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 204 - 217
Submitted on: Dec 24, 2024
Accepted on: Aug 21, 2025
Published on: Oct 6, 2025
Published by: University of Zagreb
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
work-related musculoskeletal disorders,
muscular endurance,
repetitive lifting,
worker well-being,
occupational health and safety
Related subjects:
Engineering,
Introductions and overviews,
Engineering, other

© 2025 Mohamad Iyad Al-Khiami, Søren Munch Lindhard, Søren Wandahl, published by University of Zagreb
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 17 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)Next article