Validity and reliability of two standard test devices in assessing mechanical properties of different sport surfaces

Colino, Enrique; Sánchez-Sánchez, Javier; García-Unanue, Jorge; Ubago‐Guisado, Esther; Haxaire, Pascal; Blan, Aurélien Le; Gallardo, Leonor

doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.06.011

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the importance of this aspect, none of the included studies reported the surface stiffness of the MT or overground condition and these could also not be derived from the MT manuals. We therefore urge future research to assess surface stiffness (see Colino et al [89] for a standardized test) and match surface stiffness between the two conditions.…”

Section: Implications For Training Research and Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings. Objective This study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running. Methods Four databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible. Results 33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) − 9.8° [95% confidence interval: − 13.1 to − 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD − 1.5 cm [− 2.7 to − 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD − 0.04 body weights [− 0.06 to − 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD − 2.3° [− 3.6 to − 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD − 0.4 Nm/kg [− 0.7 to − 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity. Conclusions Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

show abstract

Section: Implications For Training Research and Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2004, the “advanced artificial athlete (AAA) device,” a modification of the AA, was designed. The AAA uses an accelerometer (in place of the load cell used in the AA) and by manipulation of the impact data, records the peak impact force, the peak surface deformation, and the “energy restitution” for each impact . Currently, this test is embedded within the current guidance of FIFA and World Rugby .…”

Section: Experiments and Numerical Simulation Related To Shock Absorpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Bland‐Altman test revealed an overall VFR overestimation with the AAA. The VFRs of AA and AAA can be used interchangeably on synthetic sports surfaces by applying Equation as follows:

{VFR}_{AA} = 0.852 \times {VFR}_{AAA} + 10.117,

where VFR AA and VFR AAA are the VFRs of AA and AAA, respectively.…”

Section: Experiments and Numerical Simulation Related To Shock Absorpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shock absorption properties of synthetic sports surfaces: A review

Hong

Zheng

et al. 2019

Polymers for Advanced Techs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeated impact loading during running is a risk factor in the etiology of overuse injuries. Shock absorption can reflect the degree of force attenuation when the heel lands first during movement. This study summarizes the major achievements in the existing literature regarding shock absorption from the engineering perspective and then suggests directions for further investigation. Studies have explained the influencing factors related to shock absorption from the synthetic sports surface itself. Some special measurement methods that can be used to assess vertical and horizontal shock absorption simultaneously are discussed. Numerical simulations related to shock absorption are reviewed, including how to acquire a constitutive model of the sports surface and simulate the manner of loading. Future work should aim to build "player movement-surface structure and material-player performance" relationship systems, with more accurate measurements of shock absorption properties in the vertical and horizontal directions and numerical models that can truly reflect actual movements. Solving these problems can strengthen the theoretical and practical understanding of the relationship between synthetic sports surfaces and injury, and athletes can develop more expert performance with fewer injuries. KEYWORDSforce reduction, measurement, shock absorption, simulation, synthetic sports surface | INTRODUCTIONThe overall yearly incidence rate for running injuries varies between 37% and 56%. 1 Hence, related to bodily injury, the performance of synthetic running track surfaces, which are used for indoor and outdoor recreational or game surfaces, is always valued.There are mainly two collision ways between foot and ground in running, including a rear-foot strike (RFS) (Figure 1A and 1B) and a Nomenclature: b, stiffness coefficients; C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 , instantaneous elastic constants; C 10 ,C 01 , material parameters within the small-strain limit; E, elastic modulus; E * (ω), complex modulus in uniaxial tension/compression; E′(ω), storage modulus; E ′′ (ω), loss modulus; F, force applied to the specimen; f, frequency; f c , force generated by the nonlinear viscous element; f k , force generated by the nonlinear elastic element; G(i), amplitude; G(t), the reduced relaxation function; G∞, the long term modulus once the material is totally relaxed; k, stiffness constant which depends on the surface's elastic modulus and the geometry of the impactor; k0, p0,p1,c0,c1,c2,r0,r1,r2,q0,q1,q2, undetermined coefficients; L,L0, the current and initial lengths of the material specimen; m, mass of test foot; n, nonlinearity coefficient; r, the radius of the hammer head; t, time; u, viscosity coefficients; x, deformation; _ x, deformation velocity; € x, deformation acceleration; β, undetermined coefficients; β i , the decay rate of relaxation; δ(ω), the phase shift angle between the stress and the applied strain; ε, strain; ε(t), stress with time; ε 0 , amplitude; λ, the stretch ratio; μ, the elastic parameter; σ, the tensile stress; σ e (ε), the inst...

show abstract

“…Although some of these tests might be excessively simplistic when mimicking human and ball movement [11][12][13][14], they still are recognized by most of the international standards and sports federations as being appropriate for the assessment and regulation of sports surfaces, since they represent a practical and reproducible tool for predicting surface behavior during athletic movements. Therefore, mechanical tests are useful because they allow surfaces to be compared and provide evidence whether they meet certain specification standards [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Methodology for Football Rebound Test Method

Colino

Corral-Gómez

Rodríguez-Rosa

et al. 2020

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing and keeping control of the mechanical properties of sport surfaces is a relevant task in sports since it enables athletes to train and compete safely and under equal conditions. Currently, different tests are used for assessing athlete-and ball-surface interactions in artificial turf pitches. In order to make these evaluations more agile and accessible for every facility, it is important to develop new apparatus that enable to perform the tests in an easier and quicker way. The existing equipment for determining the vertical ball behavior requires a complex and non-easily transportable device in which the ball must be fixed to the upper part of the frame in a very precise position by means of a magnet. The rebound height is determined by capturing the acoustic signal produced when the ball bounces on the turf. When extended tests are conducted, the time required to evaluate a single field is too high due to the non-valid trials. This work proposes a novel methodology which allows to notoriously decrease the time of testing fields maintaining the repeatability and accuracy of the test method together with a compact device for improving its mobility and transport. Simulations and experiments demonstrates the repeatability and accuracy of the results obtained by the proposed device, which decreases the non-valid trials and notoriously reduces the time for field evaluation.

show abstract

Validity and reliability of two standard test devices in assessing mechanical properties of different sport surfaces

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Is Motorized Treadmill Running Biomechanically Comparable to Overground Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Over Studies

Shock absorption properties of synthetic sports surfaces: A review

Novel Methodology for Football Rebound Test Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About