Lindhard, S M; Lassen, A H; Cheng, Y; Musso, M; Wang, G and Bai, S (2025) The potential of exoskeletons in construction: barriers and challenges. Construction Innovation, 25(4), pp. 1231-1249. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: Exoskeletons are moving into industries with the potential to reduce muscle strains and prevent occupational injuries. Although exoskeletons have been designed and tested in laboratory settings, rare empirical studies of their application in construction have been reported. Therefore, the purpose of this study is on in a real-life setting testing the applicability of adopting exoskeletons in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: A feasibility study of exoskeletons in construction is conducted by testing a passive exoskeleton, designed for shoulder support. Five bricklayers tested in a two-month period the exoskeleton, each wearing it for a three-day period while carrying out normal work activities. Test data in terms of interviews were collected and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Findings: The application of exoskeletons in construction revealed several limitations, where the two primary ones are the exoskeleton is not designed while considering the tasks of a bricklayer causing several challenges and the exoskeleton only supports a single upward motion while limiting other movements and even counteracted when a downward movement was necessary. Originality/value: The identified challenges could easily have been revealed by coupling the design and testing of exoskeletons to actual application. Thus, the design approach needs to be reversed. Instead of designing an exoskeleton to support a specific body part or motion and then identifying where it is applicable, it should target specific industries and focus on the actual work and movements and the necessary support. As part of the change, the design metrics should be reevaluated to reflect the work to support.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | exoskeleton design; exoskeleton usability and acceptance; field assessment; industrial exoskeletons; working condition improvement |
| Index terms: | methodology, feasibility study, laboratory, interview, movement, injury, usability, content analysis, bricklayer, empirical study, construction industry, testing, coupling |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, systems engineering, health conditions and diseases, data analysis and analytics, design stages, data collection methods, user-centered design, research management, research methods, professional practice, health behaviours and lifestyles, practitioner |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here