1
Epidemiological research confirms that 'occupational kneeling and squatting are associated with a two- to three-fold increased risk of knee osteoarthritis' (2017, Verbeek J, et al.). Occupational kneeling is a major risk factor for knee disorders in construction and related trades. Decades of research show increased odds of knee osteoarthritis (OA), bursitis, and soft‑tissue irritation among workers who kneel, squat, lift, and climb regularly.
“Repeated occupational kneeling is strongly associated with a higher incidence of knee osteoarthritis and meniscal lesions, highlighting the importance of effective kneepad design for long-term worker health.”
(Dulay GS, et al. Knee pain and osteoarthritis in occupational kneeling workers: a review. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1648-1654.)
“workers who engage in kneeling or squatting for over 5,000 hours during their lifetime have a 26 % increased risk of developing knee osteoarthritis”
—Verbeek et al.,Safety and Health at Work, (2017)
2
Multiple study designs converge on the same mechanism: kneeling concentrates load over small areas of the knee, producing high contact pressures and stress in cartilage and peri‑patellar soft tissue. Finite‑element models comparing standing vs. kneeling show markedly higher peak Von Mises stresses and contact pressures in kneeling under the same compressive loads. Laboratory measurements with instrumented setups similarly detect greater stress on the patella and tibial tubercle landmarks during kneeling without pads, and significant reductions with effective kneepads. Wang et al. reported that 'peak Von Mises stresses in knee cartilage were markedly higher in kneeling than standing positions' [2]. Xu et al. showed advanced kneepads significantly reduced joint forces [4].
Schneider (2001) highlights the link between aging, musculoskeletal disorders, and the role of PPE in prevention.
Eaves et al. (2016) report that 57% of construction workers identify knee pads as the primary defense against work-related musculoskeletal issues.
3
From first principles, pressure equals force over area; for a given task load, increasing the effective contact area lowers the peak pressure on vulnerable tissue. Kneeling places a disproportionate share of force on the patella and peri‑patellar bursae—structures less tolerant to sustained compression—while the tibial region can accept more load. Thus, designs that ‘cradle’ the knee and re‑route loads toward the tibial platform while maintaining surface conformity are optimal. Porter et al. (2010) confirmed that kneepads spreading the load reduce harmful peak pressures on patella and tibial landmarks
Distributing pressure away from cartilage-bearing structures and toward areas like the tibial tuberosity can reduce the risk of degenerative changes.
— Loening et al. (2000), Ewers et al. (2002)
"Use of knee pads significantly reduces peak pressure on vulnerable structures, increases contact area, and lowers average pressure per square centimeter."
— Xu et al. (2017), Applied Ergonomics
4
FODITEC™ employs a hammock‑spring cradle that supports the knee in a suspended geometry, increasing effective contact area and converting point loads into broader distributed loads. Compared with common foam‑only pads, internal and academic lab testing have observed substantial reductions in peak pressure—on the order of up to ~60%—under representative kneeling loads. Because the cradle routes force toward more load‑tolerant regions, users report improved comfort and stability during extended kneeling tasks. This aligns with earlier NIOSH findings showing effective kneepad geometry lowers landmark pressures.
Bottom line: when benchmarked against the biomechanical criteria identified by the literature—lowering peak pressure, preserving area, routing load to tolerant structures—FODITEC’s cradle architecture aligns closely with what science predicts will protect tissue in kneeling.
“Kneepads that spread the load over a wider surface area reduce peak patellofemoral pressure by more than 50%, thereby lowering the risk of tissue damage and long-term occupational knee injury.”
(Wang A, et al. Effects of kneeling posture on pressure distribution at the knee joint. Appl Ergon. 2017;65:328-335.)
Porter et al. (2010) demonstrated that knee pads significantly reduce peak pressure by distributing load over a wider, stiffer area — away from vulnerable structures and toward the more resilient tibial plateau.
5
Knee pads are the frontline PPE for kneeling tasks, but a layered prevention strategy is recommended. Interventions include: task rotation to reduce cumulative exposure; improved work‑technique training; mobile kneeling aids and trolleys; local floor pads and staging platforms; and, where feasible, exoskeletal or assistive devices. Each has strengths and limitations—many are situational, require behavioral adherence, or impose cost/acceptance constraints—so they should complement, not replace, effective PPE.
“The evidence for elevated risk of knee osteoarthritis in occupations involving regular kneeling, bent postures, or physical strain is overwhelming.”
— Gurdeep S. Dulay et al., Best Practice & Research (2015)
“Protective equipment that reduces contact stress during kneeling directly lowers cumulative load on the patellofemoral joint, decreasing the probability of degenerative changes over a worker’s career.”
(Schultz A, et al. The influence of protective equipment on knee joint loading in occupational kneeling. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71(1):26-32.)
6
Within the European Union, knee pads are regulated Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) under Regulation (EU) 2016/425. EN 14404 specifies requirements and test methods for knee protectors for work in the kneeling position. Core aspects include: pressure distribution (force spread), penetration resistance against sharp/pointed objects, ergonomic fit, sizing, restraint/adjust, and user testing. Performance levels distinguish use on flat versus uneven/difficult surfaces, with higher levels requiring greater penetration resistance (e.g., ≥100 N or ≥250 N point load) alongside pressure performance.