Amateur football pitches: mechanical properties of the natural ground and of different artificial turf infills and their biomechanical implications
Zanetti EM, Bignardi C, Franceschini G, Audenino AL
Journal of sports sciences · 16 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- In vitro/mechanistic study (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2012-12-12 · J Sports Sci · vol. 31 · issue 7 · pp. 767–778
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Cited
- 52 citations · more than 74% of similar papers · 1.0× the field average
- References
- 37 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Sports injuries and prevention · Foot and Ankle Surgery · Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
- Keywords
- Amateur, Football, Natural (archaeology), Aeronautics, Alpine skiing, Engineering, Ecology, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Biology, Medicine, Geography
- MeSH
- humans, athletic injuries, butadienes, styrene, rubber, plastics, soil, task performance and analysis, running, surface properties, friction, acceleration, football, soccer, shoes, adult, athletic performance, young adult, biomechanical phenomena
4 authors
From IT
- Elisabetta Maria Zanetti · correspondingUniversity of Perugia
- Cristina BignardiPolitecnico di Torino
- Giordano FranceschiniUniversity of Perugia
- Alberto Luigi AudeninoPolitecnico di Torino
Abstract
Artificial turf is being used more and more often. It is more available than natural turf for use, requires much less maintenance and new products are able to comply with sport performance and athletes' safety. The purpose of this paper is to compare the mechanical and biomechanical responses of two different artificial turf infills (styrene butadiene rubber, from granulated vehicle tires, and thermoplastic rubber granules) and to compare them to the performance of natural fields where amateurs play (beaten earth, substantially). Three mechanical parameters have been calculated from laboratory tests: energy storage, energy losses and surface traction coefficient; results have been correlated with peak accelerations recorded on an instrumented athlete, on the field. The natural ground proved to be stiffer (-15% penetration depth for a given load), and to have a lower dynamic traction coefficient (-48%); the different kinds of infill showed significantly different stiffnesses (varying by more than 23%) and damping behaviour (varying by more than 31%). In running, peak vertical accelerations were lowest in the artificial ground with thermoplastic rubber granules, while, in slalom, both artificial grounds produced higher horizontal peak accelerations compared to the natural ground. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for athletic performance and injury risk.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.