FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / Validation of a laboratory method for evaluating dynamic pro...
PloS one2012; 7(12); e50534; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050534

Validation of a laboratory method for evaluating dynamic properties of reconstructed equine racetrack surfaces.

Abstract: Racetrack surface is a risk factor for racehorse injuries and fatalities. Current research indicates that race surface mechanical properties may be influenced by material composition, moisture content, temperature, and maintenance. Race surface mechanical testing in a controlled laboratory setting would allow for objective evaluation of dynamic properties of surface and factors that affect surface behavior. Objective: To develop a method for reconstruction of race surfaces in the laboratory and validate the method by comparison with racetrack measurements of dynamic surface properties. Methods: Track-testing device (TTD) impact tests were conducted to simulate equine hoof impact on dirt and synthetic race surfaces; tests were performed both in situ (racetrack) and using laboratory reconstructions of harvested surface materials. Clegg Hammer in situ measurements were used to guide surface reconstruction in the laboratory. Dynamic surface properties were compared between in situ and laboratory settings. Relationships between racetrack TTD and Clegg Hammer measurements were analyzed using stepwise multiple linear regression. Results: Most dynamic surface property setting differences (racetrack-laboratory) were small relative to surface material type differences (dirt-synthetic). Clegg Hammer measurements were more strongly correlated with TTD measurements on the synthetic surface than the dirt surface. On the dirt surface, Clegg Hammer decelerations were negatively correlated with TTD forces. Conclusions: Laboratory reconstruction of racetrack surfaces guided by Clegg Hammer measurements yielded TTD impact measurements similar to in situ values. The negative correlation between TTD and Clegg Hammer measurements confirms the importance of instrument mass when drawing conclusions from testing results. Lighter impact devices may be less appropriate for assessing dynamic surface properties compared to testing equipment designed to simulate hoof impact (TTD). Conclusions: Dynamic impact properties of race surfaces can be evaluated in a laboratory setting, allowing for further study of factors affecting surface behavior under controlled conditions.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2012-12-05 PubMed ID: 23227183PubMed Central: PMC3515626DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050534Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Validation Study

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 presented focused on studying the impact properties of racehorse tracks and validating a method to study these properties in a controlled laboratory setting. The method involved the reconstruction of track surfaces, which were then evaluated using a track-testing device (TTD) for impact tests and a Clegg Hammer for measuring surface characteristics.

Research Methods

The researchers used the following methods:

  • The Track-testing device (TTD) and Clegg Hammer were used to simulate the impact of an equine hoof on both dirt and synthetic racing surfaces.
  • Tests were conducted in two settings: in situ (at the racetrack itself) and in the laboratory using harvested surface materials.
  • The in situ measurements taken with the Clegg Hammer were used to guide the recreation of the race surfaces in the laboratory.
  • Researchers then compared the dynamic surface properties between the two settings — in situ and laboratory.
  • The Clegg Hammer and the TTD measurements taken at the racetrack were analyzed using stepwise multiple linear regression.

Research Results

The study’s results were as follows:

  • Most differences in the dynamic surface properties between the racetrack and laboratory settings were small compared to the difference in surface material types (dirt versus synthetic).
  • In the synthetic surfaces, the Clegg Hammer measurements correlated more strongly with TTD measurements than in the dirt surfaces.
  • In the dirt surfaces, the Clegg Hammer deceleration measurements showed a negative correlation with TTD forces.

Conclusion

The findings suggest:

  • The laboratory reconstruction of racehorse tracks, guided by Clegg Hammer measurements, produced TTD impact measurements close to those observed in situ.
  • The relationships between the measurements taken by TTD and Clegg Hammer indicate that the type of instrument used, particularly concerning its mass, is crucial when drawing conclusions from their results. Lighter devices may not be the best choice for assessing dynamic surface properties, and equipment designed to simulate hoof impact, like TTD, might be more suitable.
  • Overall, the research affirms that the dynamic impact properties of race surfaces can be studied in a laboratory setting, thereby providing opportunities for more controlled investigations of factors affecting the racetrack surface behavior.

Cite This Article

APA
Setterbo JJ, Chau A, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Symons JE, Stover SM. (2012). Validation of a laboratory method for evaluating dynamic properties of reconstructed equine racetrack surfaces. PLoS One, 7(12), e50534. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050534

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 7
Issue: 12
Pages: e50534
PII: e50534

Researcher Affiliations

Setterbo, Jacob J
  • Biomedical Engineering Graduate Group, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.
Chau, Anh
    Fyhrie, Patricia B
      Hubbard, Mont
        Upadhyaya, Shrini K
          Symons, Jennifer E
            Stover, Susan M

              MeSH Terms

              • Animals
              • Horses
              • Running / injuries
              • Surface Properties

              Conflict of Interest Statement

              The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

              References

              This article includes 22 references
              1. Stover SM. The epidemiology of Thoroughbred racehorse injuries.. Clin Tech Equine Pract 2: 312–322.
              2. Arthur RM. Comparison of Racing Fatality Rates on Dirt, Synthetic and Turf at Four California Race Tracks.. Am Assoc Equine Practitioners Proceedings Baltimore, MD. 405–408.
              3. Cheney JA, Shen CK, Wheat JD. Relationship of racetrack surface to lameness in the thoroughbred racehorse.. Am J Vet Res 1973 Oct;34(10):1285-9.
                pubmed: 4147847
              4. Ratzlaff MH, Hyde ML, Hutton DV, Rathgeber RA, Balch OK. 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: 35–42.
              5. Ratzlaff MH, Wilson PD, Hutton DV, Slinker BK. Relationships between hoof-acceleration patterns of galloping horses and dynamic properties of the track.. Am J Vet Res 2005 Apr;66(4):589-95.
                pubmed: 15900937doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2005.66.589google scholar: lookup
              6. Robin D, Chateau H, Pacquet L, Falala S, Valette JP, Pourcelot P, Ravary B, Denoix JM, Crevier-Denoix N. 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 2009 Mar;41(3):253-6.
                pubmed: 19469231doi: 10.2746/042516409x397965google scholar: lookup
              7. Crevier-Denoix N, Pourcelot P, Ravary B, Robin D, Falala S, Uzel S, Grison AC, Valette JP, Denoix JM, Chateau H. Influence of track surface on the equine superficial digital flexor tendon loading in two horses at high speed trot.. Equine Vet J 2009 Mar;41(3):257-61.
                pubmed: 19469232doi: 10.2746/042516409x394445google scholar: lookup
              8. Chateau H, Robin D, Falala S, Pourcelot P, Valette JP, Ravary B, Denoix JM, Crevier-Denoix N. 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 2009 Mar;41(3):247-51.
                pubmed: 19469230doi: 10.2746/042516409x394463google scholar: lookup
              9. Setterbo JJ, Garcia TC, Campbell IP, Reese JL, Morgan JM, Kim SY, Hubbard M, Stover SM. Hoof accelerations and ground reaction forces of Thoroughbred racehorses measured on dirt, synthetic, and turf track surfaces.. Am J Vet Res 2009 Oct;70(10):1220-9.
                pubmed: 19795936doi: 10.2460/ajvr.70.10.1220google scholar: lookup
              10. Setterbo JJ, Yamaguchi A, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Stover SM. 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.
              11. Setterbo JJ, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Stover SM. Dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic equine racetrack surface measured by a track-testing device.. Equine Vet J 2013 Jan;45(1):25-30.
                pubmed: 22587378doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00582.xgoogle scholar: lookup
              12. Peterson ML, McIlwraith CW. Effect of track maintenance on mechanical properties of a dirt racetrack: a preliminary study.. Equine Vet J 2008 Sep;40(6):602-5.
                pubmed: 19031517doi: 10.2746/042516408x330347google scholar: lookup
              13. Bridge JW, Peterson ML, Radford DW, McIlwraith CW. Thermal transitions in high oil content petroleum-based wax blends used in granular sport surfaces.. Thermochim Acta 498: 106–111.
              14. Henwood K. A study of the dynamic response of soils under impulse loading [Masters Thesis].. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.
              15. ASTM D5874–02 (Reapproved 2007). Standard Test Method for Determination of the Impact Value (IV) of a Soil.. ASTM annual book of standards 1706–1713.
              16. ASTM D2216–05. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.. ASTM annual book of standards 235–241.
              17. Wong JY. Theory of Ground Vehicles.. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 528 p..
              18. Dimock AN, Hoffman KD, Puchalski SM, Stover SM. Humeral stress remodelling locations differ in Thoroughbred racehorses training and racing on dirt compared to synthetic racetrack surfaces.. Equine Vet J 2013 Mar;45(2):176-81.
                pubmed: 22779946doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2012.00596.xgoogle scholar: lookup
              19. Neylan J. Review of devices currently available for assessing racetrack conditions.. Barton, Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
              20. Thomason JJ, Peterson ML. Biomechanical and mechanical investigations of the hoof-track interface in racing horses.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2008 Apr;24(1):53-77.
                pubmed: 18314036doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2007.11.007google scholar: lookup
              21. Nigg BM. The validity and relevance of tests used for the assessment of sports surfaces.. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990 Feb;22(1):131-9.
                pubmed: 2406540
              22. Peterson ML, Reiser RF 2nd, Kuo PH, Radford DW, McIlwraith CW. Effect of temperature on race times on a synthetic surface.. Equine Vet J 2010 May;42(4):351-7.
                pubmed: 20525055doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00072.xgoogle scholar: lookup

              Citations

              This article has been cited 3 times.
              1. Rohlf CM, Garcia TC, Marsh LJ, Acutt EV, le Jeune SS, Stover SM. Effects of Jumping Phase, Leading Limb, and Arena Surface Type on Forelimb Hoof Movement. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jun 27;13(13).
                doi: 10.3390/ani13132122pubmed: 37443919google scholar: lookup
              2. Blanco MA, Hourquebie R, Dempsey K, Schmitt P, Peterson MM. An Experimental Comparison of Simple Measurements Used for the Characterization of Sand Equestrian Surfaces. Animals (Basel) 2021 Oct 5;11(10).
                doi: 10.3390/ani11102896pubmed: 34679917google scholar: lookup
              3. Setterbo JJ, Chau A, Fyhrie PB, Hubbard M, Upadhyaya SK, Symons JE, Stover SM. Correction: Validation of a Laboratory Method for Evaluating Dynamic Properties of Reconstructed Equine Racetrack Surfaces. PLoS One 2017;12(5):e0177213.
                doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177213pubmed: 28467499google scholar: lookup
              Subscribe to our newsletter
              Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.