Analyze Diet
Equine veterinary journal2012; 45(1); 25-30; doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00582.x

Dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic equine racetrack surface measured by a track-testing device.

Abstract: Racetrack surface is a risk factor for Thoroughbred racehorse injury and death that can be engineered and managed. To investigate the relationship between surface and injury, the mechanical behaviour of dirt and synthetic track surfaces must be quantified. Objective: To compare dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic surface in situ using a track-testing device designed to simulate equine hoof impact; and to determine the effects of impact velocity, impact angle and repeated impact on dynamic surface behaviour. Methods: A track-testing device measured force and displacement during impact into a dirt and a synthetic surface at 3 impact velocities (1.91, 2.30, 2.63 m/s), 2 impact angles (0°, 20° from vertical), and 2 consecutive impacts (initial, repeat). Surfaces were measured at 3 locations/day for 3 days. The effects of surface type, impact velocity, impact angle and impact number on dynamic surface properties were assessed using analysis of variance. Results: Synthetic surface maximum forces, load rates and stiffnesses were 37-67% of dirt surface values. Surfaces were less stiff with lower impact velocities, angled impacts and initial impacts. The magnitude of differences between dirt and synthetic surfaces increased for repeat impacts and higher impact velocities. Conclusions: The synthetic surface was generally softer than the dirt surface. Greatly increased hardness for repeat impacts corroborates the importance of maintenance. Results at different impact velocities suggest that surface differences will persist at higher impact velocities. Conclusions: For both surfaces it is clearly important to prevent horse exposure to precompacted surfaces, particularly during high-speed training when the surface has already been trampled. These data should be useful in coordinating racetrack surface management with racehorse training to prevent injuries.
Publication Date: 2012-05-16 PubMed ID: 22587378DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00582.xGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article analyzes the dynamic properties of both dirt and synthetic surfaces for horse racetracks, identifying their impact on horse injuries. The objective was to understand the role of impact velocity, angle, and repeated impacts on these surfaces’ behavior by using a unique track-testing device embodying equine hoof impact.

Objective and Methodology

  • The primary aim was to compare the dynamic responses of a dirt surface and a synthetic one, specifically in terms of how they respond to impacts that replicate a horse hoof’s strike onto the surface.
  • A specially-designed track-testing device was used for this purpose. This device was capable of measuring force and displacement during an impact into both types of surfaces at differing rates of velocities, angles, and consecutive impacts.
  • Measurement of surfaces was done in 3 distinct locations per day over a span of 3 days.
  • An analysis of variance was employed to assess the effects of factors like surface type, impact velocity, impact angle, and the number of impacts on the dynamic properties of the surfaces.

Results

  • The synthetic surface showcased less overall force, load rates, and stiffness when compared to the dirt surface. These values ranged from 37% to 67% of the values representing the dirt surface properties.
  • Furthermore, surfaces were observed to be less stiff when impacted at lower velocities, angled impacts, and during initial impacts.
  • The difference in characteristics between synthetic and dirt surfaces became more pronounced with repetitious impacts and at higher velocity impacts.

Conclusions and Implications

  • In general, the synthetic surface proved softer than the dirt surface. This indicates that the hardness of the surfaces tends to increase significantly with repeat impacts, highlighting the need for regular maintenance.
  • The study noted that differences between these surfaces would likely persist even at higher impact velocities, which are representative of high-speed training scenarios.
  • Therefore, it is crucial to avoid exposing horses to precompacted or heavily used surfaces, especially during high-speed training where the ground may have been heavily trodden.
  • The data derived from this study can aid in devising better racetrack surface management strategies, coordinating with equine training to prevent injuries to horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Setterbo JJ, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Stover SM. (2012). Dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic equine racetrack surface measured by a track-testing device. Equine Vet J, 45(1), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00582.x

Publication

ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 45
Issue: 1
Pages: 25-30

Researcher Affiliations

Setterbo, J J
  • Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Fyhrie, P B
    Hubbard, M
      Upadhyaya, S K
        Stover, S M

          MeSH Terms

          • Animals
          • Construction Materials
          • Horses
          • Sports
          • Surface Properties

          Citations

          This article has been cited 7 times.
          1. Horan K, Coburn J, Kourdache K, Day P, Carnall H, Brinkley L, Harborne D, Hammond L, Peterson M, Millard S, Pfau T. Hoof Impact and Foot-Off Accelerations in Galloping Thoroughbred Racehorses Trialling Eight Shoe-Surface Combinations. Animals (Basel) 2022 Aug 23;12(17).
            doi: 10.3390/ani12172161pubmed: 36077882google scholar: lookup
          2. Harrison SM, Whitton RC, Stover SM, Symons JE, Cleary PW. A Coupled Biomechanical-Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Model for Horse Racing Tracks. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2022;10:766748.
            doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.766748pubmed: 35265590google scholar: lookup
          3. Horan K, Kourdache K, Coburn J, Day P, Carnall H, Harborne D, Brinkley L, Hammond L, Millard S, Lancaster B, Pfau T. The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and jockey centre of mass displacements at gallop. PLoS One 2021;16(11):e0257820.
            doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257820pubmed: 34813584google scholar: lookup
          4. Horan K, Coburn J, Kourdache K, Day P, Harborne D, Brinkley L, Carnall H, Hammond L, Peterson M, Millard S, Pfau T. Influence of Speed, Ground Surface and Shoeing Condition on Hoof Breakover Duration in Galloping Thoroughbred Racehorses. Animals (Basel) 2021 Sep 3;11(9).
            doi: 10.3390/ani11092588pubmed: 34573553google scholar: lookup
          5. Crawford KL, Finnane A, Greer RM, Phillips CJC, Woldeyohannes SM, Perkins NR, Ahern BJ. Appraising the Welfare of Thoroughbred Racehorses in Training in Queensland, Australia: The Incidence and Type of Musculoskeletal Injuries Vary between Two-Year-Old and Older Thoroughbred Racehorses. Animals (Basel) 2020 Nov 5;10(11).
            doi: 10.3390/ani10112046pubmed: 33167429google scholar: lookup
          6. Morrice-West AV, Hitchens PL, Walmsley EA, Whitton RC. Track Surfaces Used for Ridden Workouts and Alternatives to Ridden Exercise for Thoroughbred Horses in Race Training. Animals (Basel) 2018 Nov 26;8(12).
            doi: 10.3390/ani8120221pubmed: 30486234google scholar: lookup
          7. Setterbo JJ, Chau A, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Symons JE, Stover SM. Validation of a laboratory method for evaluating dynamic properties of reconstructed equine racetrack surfaces. PLoS One 2012;7(12):e50534.
            doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050534pubmed: 23227183google scholar: lookup