Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of equine racetrack surface type, depth, boundary area, and harrowing on dynamic surface properties measured using a track-testing device in a laboratory setting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sports Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The dynamic behaviour of racetrack surfaces during hoof impact is a likely risk factor for racehorse injuries and fatalities. A track-testing device that simulates equine hoof impact was used to assess the effects of surface type (dirt, synthetic), surface depth (2, 3, 4 layers), test boundary area (929, 6,606, 11,381 cm2), harrowing, and impact angle (0°, 20° from vertical) on dynamic surface properties. Surfaces were tested within a laboratory track-in-a-box. Surface type and depth, boundary area, and harrowing significantly affected dynamic surface properties during impacts (P < 0.05). The synthetic surface was generally less stiff, and had 26–73% lower maximum impact forces and load rates, than the dirt surface. Harrowing decreased stiffness and differences between dirt and synthetic properties. Measured surface stiffness was larger for the smallest depth and boundary area, but most surface properties were not significantly different between the larger boundary areas. Surfaces were less stiff with angled impacts than vertical impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stover SM (2003) The epidemiology of Thoroughbred racehorse injuries. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2(4):312–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arthur RM (2010) Comparison of racing fatality rates on dirt, synthetic and turf at four California race tracks. In: 56th Annu Meet Am Assoc Equine Pract, Proceedings, Baltimore, pp 405–408

  3. Thomason JJ, Peterson ML (2008) Biomechanical and mechanical investigations of the hoof-track interface in racing horses. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 24(1):53–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Setterbo JJ, Garcia TC, Campbell IP, Reese JL, Morgan JM, Kim SY, Hubbard M, Stover SM (2009) Hoof accelerations and ground reaction forces of Thoroughbred racehorses measured on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces. Am J Vet Res 70(10):1220–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Robin D, Chateau H, Pacquet L, Falala S, Valette JP, Pourcelot P, Ravary B, Denoix JM, Crevier-Denoix N (2009) Use of a 3D dynamometric horseshoe to assess the effects of an all-weather waxed track and a crushed sand track at high speed trot: preliminary study. Equine Vet J 41(3):253–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crevier-Denoix N, Pourcelot P, Ravary B, Robin D, Falala S, Uzel S, Grison AC, Valette JP, Denoix JM, Chateau H (2009) Influence of track surface on the equine superficial digital flexor tendon loading in two horses at high speed trot. Equine Vet J 41(3):257–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chateau H, Robin D, Falala S, Pourcelot P, Valette JP, Ravary B, Denoix JM, Crevier-Denoix N (2009) Effects of a synthetic all-weather waxed track versus a crushed sand track on 3D acceleration of the front hoof in three horses trotting at high speed. Equine Vet J 41(3):247–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheney JA, Shen CK, Wheat JD (1973) Relationship of racetrack surface to lameness in the Thoroughbred racehorse. Am J Vet Res 34(10):1285–1289

    Google Scholar 

  9. Peterson ML, Wayne McIlwraith C, Reiser Ii RF (2008) Development of a system for the in situ characterisation of thoroughbred horse racing track surfaces. Biosyst Eng 101(2):260–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ratzlaff MH, Hyde ML, Hutton DV, Rathgeber RA, Balch OK (1997) Interrelationships between moisture content of the track, dynamic properties of the track and the locomotor forces exerted by galloping horses. J Equine Vet Sci 17(1):35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Peterson ML, McIlwraith CW (2008) Effect of track maintenance on mechanical properties of a dirt racetrack: a preliminary study. Equine Vet J 40(6):602–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ratzlaff MH, Wilson PD, Hutton DV, Slinker BK (2005) Relationships between hoof-acceleration patterns of galloping horses and dynamic properties of the track. Am J Vet Res 66(4):589–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nigg BM (1990) The validity and relevance of tests used for the assessment of sports surfaces. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22(1):131–139

    Google Scholar 

  14. Roland E, Stover SM, Hull ML, Dorsch K (2003) Geometric symmetry of the solar surface of hooves of Thoroughbred racehorses. Am J Vet Res 64(8):1030–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Setterbo JJ (2011) Comparison of equine racetrack dynamic surface properties and development of a surface-testing system. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Davis

  16. ASTM D5874-02 (Reapproved 2007) (2007) Standard test method for determination of the impact value (IV) of a Soil. ASTM annual book of standards

  17. ASTM D2216-05 (2005) Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass. ASTM annual book of standards

  18. Johnston C, Hjerten G, Drevemo S (1991) Hoof landing velocities in trotting horses. In: Persson SG, Lindholm A, Jeffcott LB (eds) Equine exercise physiology 3. ICEEP Publications, Davis, pp 167–172

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dixon SJ, Batt ME, Collop AC (1999) Artificial playing surfaces research: a review of medical, engineering and biomechanical aspects. Int J Sports Med 20(04):209, 218

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stiles VH, James IT, Dixon SJ, Guisasola IN (2009) Natural turf surfaces: the case for continued research. Sports Med 39(1):65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Neylan J (1997) Review of devices currently available for assessing racetrack conditions. Project Number PTP-5A. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton

    Google Scholar 

  22. Witte TH, Knill K, Wilson AM (2004) Determination of peak vertical ground reaction force from duty factor in the horse (Equus caballus). J Exp Biol 207(21):3639–3648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Henwood K (1969) A study of the dynamic response of soils under impulse loading. Masters, University of California

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pratt GW (1985) Racetrack surface biomechanics. Equine Vet Data 6(13):193–202

    Google Scholar 

  25. Das BM (2008) Advanced Soil Mechanics, 3rd edn edn. Taylor & Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gill WR, Vanden Berg GE (1968) Soil dynamics in tillage and traction. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garciano LO, Upadhyaya SK, Jones RA, Jersey SR (2007) Determination of the soil pressure distribution around a cone penetrometer. J Terramech 44(3):265–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Supported by grants from the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, the Southern California Equine Foundation, and the Center for Equine Health with funds provided by the State of California pari-mutuel fund and contributions by private donors. The authors thank Dr. Marc Ratzlaff of Washington State University for donating the track-testing device, and Keeneland Race Course and Martin Collins Surfaces & Footings LLC, makers of Polytrack, for donating the laboratory box and materials to build the synthetic surface base.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Jacob J. Setterbo

  2. Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Akihiro Yamaguchi

  3. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Mont Hubbard

  4. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Shrini K. Upadhyaya

  5. JD Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Susan M. Stover

Authors
  1. Jacob J. Setterbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akihiro Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mont Hubbard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shrini K. Upadhyaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan M. Stover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Stover.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Setterbo, J.J., Yamaguchi, A., Hubbard, M. et al. Effects of equine racetrack surface type, depth, boundary area, and harrowing on dynamic surface properties measured using a track-testing device in a laboratory setting. Sports Eng 14, 119–137 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-011-0073-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12283-011-0073-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation