Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems

This item was submitted to Loughborough's Research Repository by the author.
Items in Figshare are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
Skin friction related behaviour of artificial turf systems

PLEASE CITE THE PUBLISHED VERSION
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1223330
PUBLISHER
© Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
VERSION
AM (Accepted Manuscript)
PUBLISHER STATEMENT
This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
LICENCE
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
REPOSITORY RECORD
Tay, Sock, Paul Fleming, Xiao Hu, and Steph Forrester. 2019. “Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial
Turf Systems”. figshare. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/22529.
Journal of Sports Sciences
Fo
Skin-Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems

rP
Journal: Journal of Sports Sciences
Manuscript ID RJSP-2016-0130.R3
ee
Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript
Keywords: artificial turf, securisport, turf components, skin-friction, abrasion

rR
ev
ie
w
On
ly
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rjsp
Page 1 of 25 Journal of Sports Sciences
1
2
3
1 Skin-friction related behaviour of artificial turf systems
4
5
6 2
7
8 3 Abstract
9
10
4 The occurrence of skin-friction related injuries is an issue for artificial turf sports pitches and
11
12 5 remains a barrier to their acceptance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current
13
14 6 industry-standard Securisport® Sports Surface Tester that measures skin-surface related
Fo
15
7 frictional behaviour of artificial turf. Little research has been published about the device and
16
17 8 its efficacy, despite its widespread use as a standard FIFA Test Instrument. To achieve a
18
rP
19 9 range of frictional behaviours, several ‘third generation’ (3G) carpet and infill
20
10 combinations were investigated; friction-time profiles throughout the Securisport
21
22 11 rotations were assessed in combination with independent measurements of skin
ee
23
24 12 roughness before and after friction testing via 3D surface scanning. The results indicated
25
13 that carpets without infill had greatest friction (coefficients of friction 0.97 to 1.20) while
26
rR
27 14 those completely filled with sand or rubber had similar and lower values independent of
28
29 15 carpet type (coefficient of friction ≈0.57). Surface roughness of a silicone skin decreased
30
16 after friction testing, with the largest change on sand infilled surfaces, indicating an ‘abrasive’
ev
31
32 17 polishing effect. The combined data show that the silicone skin is damaged in a surface-
33
34 18 specific manner, thus the Securisport coefficient of friction values appear to be a poor
ie
35
19 measure of the potential for skin abrasion. It is proposed that the change in silicone skin
36
37 20 roughness improves assessment of the potential for skin damage when players slide on
w
38
39 21 artificial turf.
40
On
41 22 Keywords: artificial turf, skin-friction, abrasion, turf components, Securisport

42
43 23
44
45
ly
46 24 1. Introduction
47
48 25 Skin abrasion injuries in sports are usually considered to be minor and are typically excluded
49
50 26 from epidemiological studies as they do not fall under the category of “time-loss” injuries
51 27 (Fuller et al., 2006; van den Eijnde, Peppelman, Lamers, van de Kerkhof & van Erp, 2014).
52
53 28 Yet when players have been questioned on their perceptions of artificial turf, many have
54
55 29 highlighted more skin abrasions as a major disadvantage of artificial turf fields over natural
56 30 grass. This is a concern that can deter player acceptance of these products (Burillo, Gallardo,
57
58 31 Felipe, & Gallardo, 2014; Roberts, Osei-Owusu, Harland, Owen, & Smith, 2014; Zanetti,
59
60 1
Journal of Sports Sciences Page 2 of 25
1
2
3 1 2009). Of the available studies that have recorded incidences of skin injuries, many have
4
5 2 shown greater rates of skin injuries on artificial turf than natural grass fields (e.g. Fuller,
6 3 Clarke, & Molloy, 2010; Fuller, Dick, Corlette, & Schmalz, 2007; Meyers & Barnhill, 2004).
7
8 4 Research into skin-friction for player falling/sliding has largely stagnated because of limited
9
10 5 understanding of complex interactions between the turf surface and human skin (Twomey,
11 6 Petrass, & Fleming, 2014). This increases the challenge of validating mechanical test
12
13 7 methods.
14
Fo
15 8 The first generation of artificial turf (developed in the 1960s) was especially unforgiving on
16
17 9 the skin because it comprised polyamide yarns that are hard and abrasive (Basler, 1989;
18
10 Eiland & Ridley, 1996; Fleming, 2011). The introduction of softer polyolefin yarns in the
rP
19
20 11 1990s was partly aimed at reducing the occurrence of skin-related injuries (Fleming, 2011).
21
22 12 The latest (third) generation (3G) artificial turf uses polyolefin fibres that longer fibre lengths,
ee
23
24 13 and rubber ‘performance’ infills. This combination both improves simulations of the playing
25 14 properties of natural grass and allows the use of standard studded footwear. Apart from the
26
rR
27 15 transition to polyolefin fibres in the 1970s, it appears there has been little improvement in
28
29 16 skin-friendliness of turf surfaces. Epidemiological studies indicate that the currently available
30 17 third-generation surfaces have a greater skin-injury risk than natural grass. Furthermore, the
ev
31
32 18 interdependency of material properties complicates product design with the need for possible
33
34 19 compromises between factors such as in-game performance and player comfort, player-turf
ie
35 20 interactions versus ball-turf interactions and yarn softness versus yarn resiliency (Hufenus,
36
37 21 Affolter, Camenzind, & Reifler, 2013; Sandkuehler, Torres, & Allgeuer, 2010).
w
38
39 22 There are two testing standards that assess friction and/or the abrasiveness of artificial turf
40
On
41 23 systems. The first is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F1015 standard,
42
43 24 which determines the relative abrasiveness of a sport surface by measuring the loss of mass
44 25 of friable foam blocks after pulling it manually across the test surface under a constant static
45
ly
46 26 load of 20 lb (89 N) (ASTM International, 2009). The second is that specified by the
47
48 27 association football governing body Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
49 28 as part of its accreditation process for artificial turf surfaces. The Securisport Sports Surface
50
51 29 Tester (FIFA, 2012b) comprises a test ‘foot’ with a silicone skin attached (hereafter termed
52
53 30 s-skin). The test foot completes five revolutions, at a speed of 40 rpm, across the surface
54 31 under a constant normal load of 100 N. Histories both of the normal load and horizontal
55
56 32 resistance torque experienced by the test foot are recorded via load cells. The histories are
57
58 33 then combined to identify the coefficient of friction (COF) for the surface in accordance with
59
60 2
1
2
3 1 Equation 1. The mean COF is calculated to represent the s-skin-to-surface friction. World
4
5 2 Rugby, the Rugby Football League, Gaelic Football (GAA) and Australian Rules Football
6 3 (AFL) have also adopted the FIFA guidelines for the determination of skin-surface friction.
7
8 4 Products (carpet and infills combined) are deemed satisfactory if the measured COF falls
9
10 5 between 0.35 – 0.75. However, there is no clear documented justification or detail on how
11 6 these performance requirements have been determined.
12
13

[]
14 7 Eq.1 COF =
[] []
Fo
15
16
17 8 Despite the extensive FIFA and World Rugby accredited 3G artificial-turf systems worldwide,
18
rP
19 9 there is little published on frictional behaviours of artificial turf or on the standard mechanical
20
10 testing method currently used to determine skin-surface friction of 3G turf. A recent study
21
22 11 challenged the external validity of the Securisport device and sought to develop a modified
ee
23
24 12 linear test (Lenehan and Twomey, 2015). Hence, the purpose of this study was to improve
25
13 the evaluation of the Securisport Sports Surface Tester as a means to assess skin-related
26
rR
27 14 frictional behaviours of artificial turf. To achieve a range of frictional behaviours, several

28
29 15 3G carpet–infill combinations were tested and the COF profiles throughout the
30
16 Securisport five rotations assessed in combination with independent measurements of
ev
31
32 17 the s-skin roughness before and after testing.
33
34
18
ie
35
36
37 19 2. Materials and Methods
w
38
39 20 The study met institutional ethics requirements.
40
On
41 21
42
43
44 22 2.1 Surface Preparation
45
ly
46 23 A monofilament (M) carpet with a 40 mm fibre length and a fibrillated (F) carpet with a 60
47
48 24 mm fibre length were selected to represent the two main categories of yarn used for 3G turf.
49 25 Monofilament yarns are produced by polymer extrusion to form individual strands that are
50
51 26 gathered to form tufts of fibres; while fibrillated tapes are manufactured by cutting polymer
52
53 27 films into wide strips and subsequently patterned with longitudinal slits (fibrillation) to give
54 28 the appearance of grass blades (Sandkuehler et al., 2010). Figure 1 shows the two types of
55
56 29 carpet fibre investigated. The infills were styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) and (industry
57
58 30 standard 2EW) silica sand, both commonly used in artificial turf pitches. The specifications
59
60 3
1
2
3 1 of these turf components are presented in Table 1. For each carpet type, five surface systems
4
5 2 were prepared: carpet-only, carpet with sand added to give a 20 mm free-pile height, carpet
6 3 with SBR to give a 20 mm free pile height, sand added to give 0 mm free pile height and
7
8 4 SBR added to give 0 mm free pile height (Table 2). The surface systems were prepared by
9
10 5 first raking the carpet to lift the fibres that tended to lie inclined with their intrinsic
11 6 orientation from the manufacturing process. The infill was applied in layers of 10 mm at a
12
13 7 time and conditioned using a standard (30 kg) hand-pulled studded-roller, in accordance with
14
8 the FIFA Handbook of Test Methods (FIFA, 2012a). The infill depth and free pile height for
Fo
15
16 9 each surface were measured and recorded before and after each trial based on three
17
18 10 measurements across the surface using a simple depth gauge method (Figure 2). After each
rP
19
20 11 trial the surface was reconditioned by raking and/or redistribution of infill to ensure
21 12 consistency of the initial infill depth for each surface. A summary of the specifications for the
22
ee
23 13 prepared surfaces is presented in Table 2.
24
25 14 ***Table 1***
26
rR
27
28 15 ***Figure 1***
29
30 16 ***Figure 2***
ev
31
32 17 ***Table 2***
33
34
ie
35 18
36
37 19 2.2 Data Collection
w
38
39 20 Silicone skin L7350 (Maag Technic AG, Switzerland) and the Securisport Sports Surface
40
On
41 21 Tester (Deltec Equipment, Netherlands), shown in Figure 3, were used to conduct the
42
43
22 frictional measurements in accordance with the FIFA-08 test method (FIFA, 2012a). The s-
44 23 skin samples were cut to the required 15 x 8 cm, washed using deionized water and dried at
45
ly
46 24 ambient conditions for 24 hours. An initial appraisal of the s-skin for manufactured
47
48
25 consistency was undertaken via simple friction measurements on a calibrated steel block; s-
49 26 skin samples were rejected if either too smooth or rough in accordance with the FIFA test
50
51 27 procedure. The test foot and s-skin were then attached to the Securisport and a normal load of
52
53
28 100 N was applied via the pneumatic ram. The control software drove the motor to rotate the
54 29 foot across the sample surface system at a rotational speed of 40 rpm for five revolutions. The
55
56 30 radius of rotation was 0.2 m to the centre of the foot of width 0.08 m, hence a radius range of
57
58
31 0.16 – 0.24 m. Instead of reporting the single value of the mean COF, as specified in FIFA-08,
59
60 4
1
2
3 1 the complete raw-data files of normal load and horizontal torque for each trial were saved for
4
5 2 off-line analysis. Three trials were conducted for each surface system with each trial using a
6 3 new s-skin sample. In the standard FIFA test method, the sliding force of the s-skin sample
7
8 4 (traversing 100 mm) on a polished steel plate before and after Securisport testing quantified
9
10 5 changes in sliding force and ‘abrasion’ of the s-skin. An initial assessment of this method
11 6 identified inconsistent results after Securisport testing and hence, a separate technique was
12
13 7 explored to investigate s-skin roughness, using optical microscopy and 3D-scanning
14
8 techniques.
Fo
15
16
17 9 The s-skin samples were analysed using an optical microscope (Olympus BX51-SC30) at a
18
10 magnification of 10x, for further subjective observation of surface morphologies before and
rP
19
20 11 after testing. To determine roughness of the s-skin surface, roughness profiles were
21
22 12 characterized by 3D scanning (Taylor Hobson Precision Talyscan 150). These were
ee
23
24 13 completed on the new s-skin samples before Securisport testing and on the after test s-skin
25 14 samples. To remove any superficial infill or fibre material particles from the tested s-skin,
26
rR
27 15 samples were sonicated for 10 min using deionized water and dried before surface
28
29 16 characterization. The 3D scanning covered a scan area of 4 mm2 (2 mm × 2 mm) selected
30 17 from the midpoint of all s-skin samples (75 mm and 40 mm from the long and short edges
ev
31
32 18 respectively) – to standardize the inter-sample comparisons. Scanning was carried out at a
33
34 19 speed of 1000 µm/s using an inductive diamond probe, giving an output of the root mean
ie
35 20 square area surface roughness value (Sq), as shown in Equation 2. Root mean square surface
36
37 21 roughness (Sq) of an area was defined as the mean of the profile height deviations (Z) from
w
38
39 22 the mean value, measured within the evaluation length (L = 2 mm) across the measured trace
40 23 in both x and y directions.
On
41
42
" # # "/*
43
24 Eq. 2 Sq = ! $ %+ %+ &', )* ,',)-
44 #
45
ly
46 25
47
48 26 ***Figure 3***
49
50 27
51
52
53 28 2.3 Data Processing
54
55 29 The raw values of normal load and horizontal torque from the Securisport were low-pass
56
57 30 filtered using a zero-lag Butterworth filter (MATLAB R2015a, The Mathworks Inc., MA,
58
59
60 5
1
2
3 1 USA) to remove high-frequency data noise. A filter frequency of 3.5 Hz was selected based
4
5 2 on a power analysis of the signals. The coefficient of friction as a function of time was then
6 3 calculated according to Equation 1. The 3D surface scanning used the Talymap Basic 3.1.2
7
8 4 software to determine the surface roughness for the designated area of each s-skin sample,
9
10 5 according to Equation 2.
11
12 6
13
14 7 2.4 Statistical Analysis
Fo
15
16
17 8 All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (v22, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). An
18 9 independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean change in surface roughness
rP
19
20 10 between the two unfilled carpets (monofilament and fibrillated). A three-way (2 × 2 × 2)
21
22 11 mixed-design factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared mean changes in surface
ee
23 12 roughness according to three factors: carpet type (monofilament and fibrillated), infill type
24
25 13 (rubber and sand), infill depth (half, full). For the ANOVA analysis, Greenhouse-Geisser
26
rR
27 14 adjustment to the degrees of freedom was applied if sphericity was violated. Cohen's d effect
28 15 sizes (difference in means divided by the pooled standard deviation) were calculated and
29
30 16 defined as small (d ≤ 0.2), medium (0.2 < d <0.8), and large (d ≥ 0.8) (Cohen, 1992).
ev
31
32 17 Unless specified, data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and statistical
33
34 18 significance was set at p < 0.05.
ie
35
36 19
37
w
38 20 3. Results
39
40
21 3.1 Frictional Behaviour
On
41
42
43 22 The three tests on each surface had highly repeatable COF profiles (Figure 4). A
44
45 23 representative COF against time relationship is presented for each of the ten turf systems in
ly
46 24 Figure 5. The profiles indicate a rapid rise in COF in the first 0.3 s to a maximum that
47
48 25 represents the coefficient of static friction, followed by a surface-specific response until the
49
50 26 second or third rotation (3 – 4.5 s) after which COF tended to stabilise although oscillate
51 27 slightly about a (surface dependent) steady-state value. The respective COF values are
52
53 28 summarized in Table 3.
54
55 29 ***Figure 4***
56
57
58 30 ***Figure 5***
59
60 6
1
2
3 1 ***Table 3***
4
5 2
6
7
8 3 The s-skin had largest frictional resistance when it moved across carpet-only surfaces M1 and
9 4 F1, with the fibrillated carpet exhibiting a greater steady-state COF value of 1.2 and 0.97 for
10
11 5 the monofilament carpet. However, all the silicone skin samples tested on surface sample F1
12
13 6 were ripped off the foot before the trial was completed; causing the sudden drop in COF
14 7 value as represented by the dashed line on the F1 profile in Figure 4b. For both carpet-only
Fo
15
16 8 surfaces, the COF continued to increase beyond the static friction phase (time ≤ 0.3 s), but at
17
18 9 a lesser rate, and reached a peak COF early in the second rotation, before continuing to
rP
19 10 oscillated about this peak value for the remainder of the test.
20
21
22 11 Coefficients of friction tended to decrease with increasing infill height/decreasing free pile
ee
23 12 height. Coefficients for the partially filled SBR surfaces (M3 and F3) tended to track the
24
25 13 corresponding unfilled surface profile to a similar peak COF early in the second rotation,
26
rR
27 14 before dropping slightly to a stable value between the unfilled and fully-filled surfaces (0.7 –
28 15 0.8). The partially filled sand surfaces (M2 and F2) also continued to increase beyond the
29
30 16 static friction phase but to a much lesser extent than the unfilled and partially SBR filled
ev
31
32 17 surfaces. Coefficient of friction for the fully-filled surfaces (M4, M5, F4 and F5) peaked at
33 18 the end of the static friction phase and, notably, all converged to a similar steady-state COF
34
ie
35 19 of 0.57±0.03, independent of the carpet or infill used.

36
37
w
20
38
39
40 21 3.2 Infill Depth
On
41
42 22 Surfaces were prepared with repeatable infill depths and free pile heights (Table 2). Infill
43
44 23 depth decreased after Securisport testing of the surface (Figure 6). The partially filled sand
45
ly
24 surfaces (M2 and F2) had least change in infill depth after testing, whereas fully-filled
46
47 25 surfaces had greater absolute changes in infill depth. The SBR-filled surfaces tended to show
48
49 26 a greater decrease in infill depth than the sand filled surfaces, with the greatest decrease in
50 27 infill depth being for the fully filled SBR monofilament carpet (M5) that decreased by 5 mm
51
52 28 (from 35 to 30 mm).
53
54 29 ***Figure 6***
55
56
57
30
58
59
60 7
1
2
3 1 3.3 Surface Roughness of Silicone Skin
4
5 2 After testing values of surface roughness (Sq) of the s-skin together with that of the new s-
6
7 3 skin are presented in Figure 7. All after-test s-skin samples had surface roughness values less
8
9 4 than the original s-skin. The s-skin samples from the unfilled fibrillated carpet (F1) had a 73%
10 5 greater decrease in surface roughness (p < 0.001) than the unfilled monofilament carpet (M1)
11
12 6 (∆Sq = 0.77±0.01 µm and 0.44±0.05 µm respectively), indicating that more s-skin abrasion
13
14 7 occurred and the effect size was large (d = 9.15). In contrast, the filled fibrillated carpet
Fo
15
8 systems (F2–F5) had a 66% smaller decrease (p < 0.001) in s-skin surface roughness than the
16
17 9 filled monofilament carpet systems (M2–M5), suggesting that less s-skin abrasion occurred,
18
rP
19 10 again with a large effect size (d = 2.26). The sand-filled surface systems (M2, M4, F2 and
20
11 F4) had 47% greater decrease (p = 0.0034) in s-skin surface roughness than the respective
21
22 12 SBR-filled surfaces (M3, M5, F3 and F5), suggesting that more s-skin abrasion occurred and
ee
23
24 13 with a medium effect size (d = 0.60). Similarly, the fully-filled surfaces (M4, M5, F4 and F5)
25
14 had a 70% greater decrease (p < 0.001) in s-skin surface roughness than the partially-filled
26
rR
27 15 surfaces (M2, M3, F2 and F3), indicating that more s-skin abrasion occurred and with a
28
29 16 large effect size (d = 0.85). Subjective visual analysis of the s-skin samples under the optical
30
17 microscope corroborated the measurements of roughness (Figure 8). Distinct raised surface
ev
31
32 18 morphology seen as reflective regions on the new s-skin (Figure 8a) were absent on after-test
33
34 19 s-skin samples from the sand-filled surface M4 (Figure 8b) and the SBR-filled surface M5
ie
35
20 (Figure 8c).
36
37
w
38 21 The L7350 s-skin specified in Securisport testing had a surface roughness of 1.281±0.121 µm,
39
22 typical of common silicone-skin models used as surrogates (0.722 – 1.166 µm; Derler,
40
On
41 23 Schrade, & Gerhardt, 2007; Goiato, Pesqueira, Santos, & Dekon, 2009). However, these
42
43 24 surface roughness values are less than reported values for human skin, that range from 6.1
44
25 µm (Trojahn et al., 2015) to 256.4 µm (Pacheco, Martins-Costa, Zapata, Cherit, & Gallegos,
45
ly
46 26 2005).
47
48
27 ***Figure 7***
49
50
51 28 ***Figure 8***
52
53 29
54
55 30 4. Discussion
56
57
58
59
60 8
1
2
3 1 The purpose of this study was to improve the evaluation of the Securisport Sports Surface
4
5 2 Tester as a means to assess the skin-surface related frictional behaviours of artificial turf
6 3 systems. A range of ten 3G carpet – infill combinations was tested that successfully achieved
7
8 4 a range of frictional behaviours, as seen in COF histories from the Securisport, as well as in
9
10 5 the independent assessments of s-skin surface roughness before and after Securisport testing.
11 6 The results provide a relevant dataset from which to evaluate the Securisport Sports Surface
12
13 7 Tester.
14
Fo
15 8 The skin-surface frictional behavior of an artificial turf system depends on the roughness
16
17 9 properties both of the s-skin and the surface system under test. Thus, it is suggested that skin-
18
10 surface frictional behaviors of different artificial turf systems can be compared only under
rP
19
20 11 conditions where s-skin roughness is consistent and it is differences in surface alone that are
21
22 12 causing the differences in frictional behaviour. The current results indicate that this is not the
ee
23
24 13 case for tests carried out using the the Securisport Sports Surface Tester. The range of COF
25 14 profiles from the 10 surface systems tested (Figure 5), combined with the range of surface
26
rR
27 15 roughness values for the after-test s-skin samples, indicates that the s-skin is damaged in a
28
29 16 surface-specific manner during the Securisport testing, most notably in the earlier rotations. It
30 17 is suggested from these findings that both the state of the artificial turf surface and the
ev
31
32 18 changing s-skin contribute to the COF profiles produced and, in particular, the steady-state
33
34 19 COF values obtained during the latter rotations. This questions the use of the values of COF
ie
35 20 from the Securisport Tester to compare frictional properties and differentiate among artificial
36
37 21 turf systems. In the Lenenhan and Twomey (2015) study, only abrasion using the FIFA
w
38
39 22 method of change in coefficient of friction of the s-skin on a steel block before and after
40 23 testing on the turf was reported and a trend of increasing abrasion with increasing depth of
On
41
42 24 infill added to the (63 mm fibre length) carpet was identified. Further, it was notable that with
43
44 25 the specified depth of sand (below) and rubber (above) for the carpet system investigated,
45
ly
26 abrasion was 122% which is greater than the acceptable FIFA compliance value of maximum
46
47 27 30%. Lenehan and Twomey (2015) did not report the coefficient of friction for the s-skin on
48
49 28 the artificial turf, precluding direct comparison with this study. However, assuming that the
50 29 increased COF for the s-skin on a steel block after-testing arises from the s-skin being
51
52 30 smoother, then the relationship they observed between increased infill depth and increased
53
54 31 abrasion is in agreement with the similar and large effect size (d = 0.85) difference
55 32 between the partially-filled and fully-filled surfaces in this study. Furthermore, they
56
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3 1 reported large variability for the COF of the skin on steel block after-testing supporting the
4
5 2 direct measuremeant of s-skin roughness as conducted in this study.
6
7 3 The direct measurement of s-skin surface roughness and the change from before to after
8
9 4 testing provide a useful estimate of the damage done to the s-skin from the Securisport test.
10 5 This improves measurement of skin-related damage, in addition to or instead of the frictional
11
12 6 measurement made by the Securisport. The damage to the s-skin is probably a function of the
13
14 7 surface-system roughness, so comparing the s-skin damage across a consistent surface
Fo
15 8 exposure ‘path’ (five rotations corresponds to a mean path length of 6.3 m, at constant speed
16
17 9 and normal load) should improve isolation of the abrasive effects of different surface
18
10 systems.
rP
19
20
21 11 All after-test samples had decreased surface roughness, indicating abrasion and material loss
22
12 and importantly, a smoothing of the initially rougher silicone skin via a ‘polishing’ type
ee
23
24 13 process (Evans & Cullis, 2008; Nemli, Akbulut, & Zekoviç, 2007). Samples tested on the
25
26 14 carpet-only and sand-filled surfaces had greater abrasion (less after-test surface roughness)
rR
27
28 15 than the respective SBR-filled surfaces. The medium effect size (d = 0.60) for the change in
29 16 surface roughness between the two infills most likely arises from the comparatively rigid
30
17 sand particles being more abrasive compared to the deformable rubber particles. For
ev
31
32
33 18 silicone skin samples tested on carpet-only surfaces, the large effect size (d = 9.15) for the
34 19 increased abrasion of the fibrillated carpet compared to the monofilament carpet may
ie
35
36 20 arise from the twisting of the tufted-ends (near the carpet backing) of the fibrillated fibres
37
w
38 21 leading to increased stiffness and scraping of the soft silicone skin. Adding infill to the
39 22 carpets eliminates this carpet-base effect, thereby reducing the abrasiveness.
40
On
41
42 23 Indeed, in the presence of infill, the abrasion two carpet types was clearly reversed.
43 24 There was a large effect size (d = 2.26) for the lower abrasiveness of the fibrillated fibres
44
45 25 (as reflected by less change in the s-skin surface roughness after testing) than for the
ly
46
47 26 monofilament fibres which can be attributed to the thinner fibre thickness for the former
48 27 carpet (0.1 mm versus 0.3 mm; Table 1). As the test-foot traverses the surface, the initial
49
50 28 net-like structure of the fibrillated fibre gives way and splits into smaller fibre-strands. These
51
52 29 less resilient individual fibre-strands are in turn, less abrasive than the monofilament fibres
53 30 and hence, inflicted less damage on the silicone skin. For both carpets, further increase of
54
55 31 infill level led to a transition to the sandpaper-effect of infill particles on the skin samples.
56
57 32 Moreover, the ‘fibrillated’ fibre carpet reduced the mobility of the infills under testing
58
59
60 10
1
2
3 1 (Figure 6), perhaps an effect of the ‘honeycomb’ nature of the slitted fibres that holds the
4
5 2 infill between fibres.
6
7 3 Comparison of changes in surface roughness with the steady-state COF provides further
8
9 4 evidence for the validity of the Securisport Sports Surface Tester. Surfaces F1 and F3 had
10 5 greatest and least change in s-skin surface roughness. Although surface F1 also had the
11
12 6 greatest steady-state COF, indeed the s-skin sample tore away from the test foot during these
13
14 7 tests, surface, surface F3 had the second greatest steady-state COF despite minimal damage
Fo
15 8 to the s-skin. Thus, although s-skin surface roughness measurements can provide a valid
16
17 9 means of assessing the damage done to the s-skin on the different surfaces, this does not
18
10 necessarily reflect the skin-surface frictional behaviour, i.e the results suggest no direct link
rP
19
20 11 between measured COF and change in s-skin surface roughness.
21
22
12 This study was based on the Securisport Surface Tester, specified by international governing
ee
23
24 13 bodies of sport, such as FIFA, to assess s-skin friction of 3G artificial football pitches.
25
26 14 Although previous studies have criticised the Securisport because of its lack of biofidelity
rR
27
28 15 (Ingham, 2013; Verhelst, Rambour, Verleysen, & Degrieck, 2009) these studies did not
29 16 specifically evaluate the device or present evidence of more appropriate test inputs. Current
30
17 knowledge on the mechanics of players sliding on artificial turf surfaces is lacking and poses
ev
31
32
33 18 a limitation to the design of better testing devices. Outcomes of this study provide
34 19 recommendations for the future direction of mechanical assessment of skin-surface behaviour
ie
35
36 20 of artificial turfs. To quantify frictional behaviours of surfaces, and so allow comparisons
37
w
38 21 among surfaces, more consistent s-skin roughness conditions throughout testing are necessary.
39 22 Thus, for assessments of friction, a more robust surrogate s-skin that will not undergo highly
40
On
41 23 dynamic and surface-specific changes in surface roughness is required. While for assessment
42
43 24 of damage to the s-skin, the current s-skin is appropriate. However, direct measurement of
44 25 roughness is likely to be more reliable than the indirect method currently used.
45
ly
46
47 26 From frictional profiles obtained from the Securisport trials, there was a general trend of
48 27 larger frictional changes occurring during the initial rotations taper off to oscillations about a
49
50 28 stable coefficient of friction. The major surface-specific changes in the s-skin occurred during
51
52 29 the first two rotations where the COF peaked for all the surfaces, so a useful modification
53 30 would be to alter the operation of the Securisport to improve consistency and realistic
54
55 31 movement profiles. In addition, the repeated rotation of the test foot also disturbs the carpet
56
57 32 fibre and infill for subsequent rotations. Hence, a possible improvement would be to monitor
58
59
60 11
1
2
3 1 the frictional behaviour as a moving test foot is lowered onto the turf surface and brought to a
4
5 2 controlled stop in a linear motion. This motion improves representation of decelerations of a
6 3 player as he/she slides on the playing surface, and so provide greater insights to frictional
7
8 4 mechanisms involved in skin-surface interactions.
9
10 5
11
12
13 6 5. Conclusions
14
Fo
15 7 The Securisport Sports Surface Tester is the current industry-standard equipment to assess
16
17 8 skin-surface frictional behaviours of artificial-turf surfaces. The results of this study question
18 9 the validity of this mechanical device, primarily because of the changing roughness states of
rP
19
20 10 the s-skin throughout the test that do not then isolate the contribution of the sport surface in
21
22 11 the measurement of the COF. Thus, the measured COF is not related to the actual s-skin
ee
23 12 damage and therefore the existing Securisport does not provide a reliable measurement of s-
24
25 13 skin damage. This is particularly relevant for comparisons of frictional behaviours of
26
rR
27 14 artificial turf systems, which is the basis of the testing standards and product development.
28 15 This study has also demonstrated that the direct measurement (via 3D scanning) of s-skin
29
30 16 surface roughness before and after Securisport testing provides a useful means to assess s-
ev
31
32 17 skin damage for a given surface. Notably, this damage should be considered independently to
33 18 frictional behaviours of surfaces as the two are not necessaily related. The current results also
34
ie
35 19 inform debate on the development of techniques to assess s-skin-surface frictional behaviours

36
37 20 of artificial turf systems.
w
38
39 21
40
On
41 22 Acknowledgements
42
43
44 23 The authors thank Labosport (UK) Ltd, for providing access to the Securisport Surface Tester
45
ly
24 and for the test samples. This study is part of a PhD program under the Institute for Sports
46
47 25 Research (ISR), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and Loughborough University,
48
49 26 UK.
50
51 27
52
53 28 References
54
55
56
29 ASTM International. (2009). ASTM Standard F 1015, 2003 (2009). Standard Test Method
57 30 for Relative Abrasiveness of Synthetic Turf Playing Surfaces. West Conshohocken, PA:
58 31 ASTM International. http://doi.org/10.1520/F1015-03R09
59
60 12
1
2
3 1 Basler, R. S. W. (1989). Skin injuries in sports medicine. Journal of the American Academy
4 2 of Dermatology, 21(6), 1257–1262. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0190-
5 3 9622(89)70340-6
6
7 4 Bloemen, M. C. T., Van Gerven, M. S., Van Der Wal, M. B. a, Verhaegen, P. D. H. M., &
8 5 Middelkoop, E. (2011). An objective device for measuring surface roughness of skin
9 6 and scars. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 64(4), 706–715.
10 7 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.03.006
11
12 8 Burillo, P., Gallardo, L., Felipe, J. L., & Gallardo, A. M. (2014). Artificial turf surfaces:
13 9 Perception of safety, sporting feature, satisfaction and preference of football users.
14 10 European Journal of Sport Science, 14(S1), S437–S447.
Fo
15 11 http://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.713005
16
17 12 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.
18
13 Derler, S., Schrade, U., & Gerhardt, L. C. (2007). Tribology of human skin and mechanical
rP
19
20 14 skin equivalents in contact with textiles. Wear, 263(7–12), 1112–1116.
21 15 http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2006.11.031
22
16 Eiland, G., & Ridley, D. (1996). Dermatological Problems in the Athlete. Journal of
ee
23
24 17 Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 23(6), 388–402.
25 18 http://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1996.23.6.388
26 19 Evans, P. D., & Cullis, I. (2008). Effect of sanding and coating with UV-cured finishes on the
rR
27
28
20 surface roughness, dimensional stability and fire resistance of oriented strandboard. Holz
29 21 Als Roh- Und Werkstoff, 66(3), 191–199. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-008-0238-4
30 22 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). (2012a). FIFA Quality Concept for
ev
31 23 Football Turf - Handbook of Test Methods. Retrieved from

32
33
24 http://quality.fifa.com/PageFiles/382/FQP Handbook of Requirements 2012.pdf
34 25 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). (2012b). FIFA Quality Concept
ie
35 26 Requirements Manual. Retrieved from

36 27 http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/footballturf/01/13/56/08/fqcha
37
w
38
28 ndbookofrequirements(january2012).pdf
39 29 Fleming, P. (2011). Artificial turf systems for sport surfaces: current knowledge and research
40 30 needs. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports
On
41
31 Engineering and Techonology, 225, 43–62.
42
43 32 Fuller, C. W., Clarke, L., & Molloy, M. G. (2010). Risk of injury associated with rugby union
44 33 played on artificial turf. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(5), 563–570.
45
ly
46 34 Fuller, C. W., Dick, R. W., Corlette, J., & Schmalz, R. (2007). Comparison of the incidence,
47 35 nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male
48 36 and female football players. Part 2: training injuries. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
49 37 41 Suppl 1, i27–32. http://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2007.037275
50
51 38 Fuller, C. W., Ekstrand, J., Junge, A., Andersen, T. E., Bahr, R., Dvorak, J., Hägglund, M.,
52 39 McCrory, P. and Meeuwisse, W. H. (2006). Consensus statement on injury definitions
53 40 and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. British Journal of
54 41 Sports Medicine, 40(3), 193–201.
55
56 42 Goiato, M. C., Pesqueira, A. A., Santos, D. M. Dos, & Dekon, S. F. D. C. (2009). Evaluation
57 43 of hardness and surface roughness of two maxillofacial silicones following disinfection.
58
59
60 13
1
2
3 1 Brazilian Oral Research, 23(1), 49–53. http://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-
4 2 83242009000100009
5
6 3 Hufenus, R., Affolter, C., Camenzind, M., & Reifler, F. A. (2013). Design and
7 4 characterization of a bicomponent melt-spun fiber optimized for artificial turf
8 5 applications. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 298(6), 653–663.
9
10 6 Ingham, C. (2013). Linear vs . Rotational Skin Friction. A deductive evaluation of the
11 7 Securisport tests suitability for the analysis of skin friction on football turf (Unpublished
12 8 master's thesis). University of Strathclyde, UK.
13
14 9 Lenehan, K. A. and Twomey, D. M. (2015). Abrasion testing on synthetic turf: A
10
Fo
15 modified device. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P:
16 11 Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, Online First
17 12 doi:10.1177/1754337115612657.
18
13 Meyers, M. C., & Barnhill, B. S. (2004). Incidence, causes, and severity of high school
rP
19
20 14 football injuries on FieldTurf versus natural grass: a 5-year prospective study. The
21 15 American Journal of Sports Medicine, 32(7), 1626–1638.
22
16 Nemli, G., Akbulut, T., & Zekoviç, E. (2007). Effects of some sanding factors on the surface
ee
23
24 17 roughness of particleboard. Silva Fennica, 41(2), 373–378.
25 18 Pacheco, M. del C. L., Martins-Costa, M. F. P. da C., Zapata, A. J. P., Cherit, J. D., &
26 19 Gallegos, E. R. (2005). Implementation and analysis of relief patterns of the surface of
rR
27
28
20 benign and malignant lesions of the skin by microtopography. Physics in Medicine and
29 21 Biology, 50(23), 5535. http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/23/008
30 22 Roberts, J., Osei-Owusu, P., Harland, A., Owen, A., & Smith, A. (2014). Elite Football
ev
31 23 Players’ Perceptions of Football Turf and Natural Grass Surface Properties. Procedia
32
33
24 Engineering, 72(0), 907–912. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.150
34 25 Sandkuehler, P., Torres, E., & Allgeuer, T. (2010). Polyolefin materials and technology in
ie
35 26 artificial turf I: Yarn developments. Sports Technology, 3(1), 52–58.

36
37 27 Trojahn, C., Dobos, G., Schario, M., Ludriksone, L., Blume-Peytavi, U., & Kottner, J. (2015).
w
38 28 Relation between skin micro-topography, roughness, and skin age. Skin Research and
39 29 Technology, 69–75. http://doi.org/10.1111/srt.12158
40
On
41 30 Twomey, D. M., Petrass, L. A., & Fleming, P. R. (2014). Abrasion injuries on artificial turf:
42 31 A real risk or not? South African Journal of Sports Medicine, 26(3), 91–92.
43 32 http://doi.org/10.7196/sajsm.563
44
45 33 van den Eijnde, W. A., Peppelman, M., Lamers, E. A., van de Kerkhof, P. C., & van Erp, P. E.
ly
46 34 (2014). Understanding the Acute Skin Injury Mechanism Caused by Player-Surface

47 35 Contact During Soccer A Survey and Systematic Review. Orthopaedic journal of sports
48 36 medicine, 2(5), 2325967114533482.
49
50 37 Verhelst, R., Rambour, S., Verleysen, P., & Degrieck, J. (2009). Temperature development
51 38 during sliding on different types of artificial turf for hockey. In International Conference
52 39 on Latest Advances in High-Tech Textiles and Textile-Based Materials (pp. 90–95).
53
54 40 Zanetti, E. M. (2009). Amateur football game on artificial turf: players’ perceptions. Applied
55 41 Ergonomics, 40(3), 485–490. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.09.007
56 42
57
58
59
60 14
1
2
3 1 Tables and Figure Captions
4
5 2
6
7
8 3 Table 1. Product specifications of carpets and infills used in the study
9
10 Fibre
Pile width Pile length Fibres/ Fibres/
11 Carpets Material Tufts/m2 thickness
12 (mm) (mm) tuft m2
(mm)
13 Monofilament Polyethylene 1 40 26400 12 316800 0.30
14
Fibrillated Polyethylene 10.5 60 18200 2 36400a 0.10
Fo
15
16
17 Bulk
Size range
18 Infillsb densityc
(mm)
rP
19 (g/cm3)
20 Sand 0.25 – 0.71 1.56
21 Styrene-
22 butadiene 0.8 – 1.8 0.45
ee
23
rubber (SBR)
24
25 a
4 Each 10.5 mm-wide fibre is pre-slit with 7 staggered slits and when fully split, produces 8
26 5 fibre-strands
rR
27 6 b
Data obtained from technical specification sheets of respective infills
28 c
7 According to test method ASTM D5603, 8
29
30 8
ev
31
32 9
33
34
ie
35 10 Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of measured properties of the prepared surface systems
36 11 before testing
37
w
38
39 Surface Carpet type Infill type Infill depth (mm) Free-pile height
40 system (pile length in mm) (mm)
On
41 code
42 M1 Monofilament (40) None 0.0 40.0a
43 M2 Monofilament (40) Sand 20.7 ± 0.1 18.0 ± 0.1
44 M3 Monofilament (40) SBR 22.4 ± 0.2 17.1 ± 0.2
45
ly
46
M4 Monofilament (40) Sand 35.3 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.2
47 M5 Monofilament (40) SBR 35.0 ± 0.4 4.2 ± 0.2
48 F1 Fibrillated (60) None 0.0 60.0a
49 F2 Fibrillated (60) Sand 33.8 ± 0.1 22.8 ± 0.1
50 F3 Fibrillated (60) SBR 36.6 ± 0.1 17.0 ± 0.1
51 F4 Fibrillated (60) Sand 51.0 ± 0.1 3.3 ± 0.1
52
F5 Fibrillated (60) SBR 52.1 ± 0.1 4.0 ± 0.1
53
a
54 12 Full pile-length exposed
55
56
57
58
59
60 15
1
2
3 1 Table 3. Summary of the static, maximum and steady-state COF values measured on each test
4
5 2 surface. The values are the mean ± standard deviation based on three trials for each test
6 3 surface.
7
8
9
10 Test Surface Static COF Maximum COF Steady-state COF
11
12 M1 0.61 ± 0.03 1.12 ± 0.05 0.97 ± 0.02
13 M2 0.53 ± 0.02 0.91 ± 0.05 0.78 ± 0.02
14 M3 0.56 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.05 0.75 ± 0.02
Fo
15 M4 0.72 ± 0.01 0.78 ± 0.07 0.59 ± 0.01
16 M5 0.70 ± 0.02 0.71 ± 0.01 0.59 ± 0.01
17
F1 0.67 ± 0.01 1.46 ± 0.07 1.26 ± 0.04
18
F2 0.65 ± 0.03 1.05 ± 0.06 0.74 ± 0.09
rP
19
20 F3 0.64 ± 0.05 1.23 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.07
21 F4 0.68 ± 0.03 0.68 ± 0.02 0.54 ± 0.02
22 F5 0.73 ± 0.02 0.73 ± 0.02 0.58 ± 0.01
ee
23
24 4
25
26 5
rR
27
28 6 Figure 1. Carpet types, a) is a ‘Monofilament’ and b) a ‘Fibrillated’. Note the slit film yarn in
29
30 7 b) can be opened to form a ‘honeycomb’ type structure reportedly useful to ‘hold’ the infill.
ev
31
32 8 Figure 2. Schematic showing the measurement of infill depth and free-pile height of a filled
33
34 9 artificial turf surface (not drawn to scale).
ie
35
36 10 Figure 3. The Securisport ® apparatus, showing the key components of this current industry
37
w
38 11 standard test.
39
40 12 Figure 4. COF profiles of trials conducted on test surfaces a) M1 and b) F4, demonstrating
On
41
42 13 the repeatability of the Securisport results.
43
44 14 Figure 5. COF profiles of a) monofilament surfaces M1 – M5 and b) fibrillated surfaces F1 –
45
ly
46 15 F5. The five rotations are demarcated by the vertical lines, at intervals of 1.5s. The transition
47
48 16 from a solid line to a dashed line for surface F1 denotes the point at which the s-skin sample
49 17 detached from the test foot, beyond which the data collected were excluded from analysis.
50
51
52 18 Figure 6. Decrease in infill depth for each surface, determined by the difference between
53 19 infill depth measured before and after each trial. Error bars indicate the standard deviation for
54
55 20 each data set.
56
57
58
59
60 16
1
2
3 1 Figure 7. Root mean square surface roughness value (Sq) of the original s-skin and the s-skin
4
5 2 after Securisport testing on each of the test surfaces. Error bars indicate the standard
6 3 deviation for each data set.
7
8
9 4 Figure 8. Microscope images at a magnification of 10x of a) original s-skin, b) s-skin after
10 5 testing on surface M4 and c) s-skin after testing on surface M5.
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
Figure 1. Carpet types, a) is a ‘Monofilament’ and b) a ‘Fibrillated’. Note the slit film yarn in b) can be
26
rR
27 opened to form a ‘honeycomb’ type structure reportedly useful to ‘hold’ the infill.
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27 Figure 2. Schematic showing the measurement of infill depth and free-pile height of a filled artificial turf
28
29 surface (not drawn to scale).
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41 Figure 3. The Securisport ® apparatus, showing the key components of this current industry standard test.
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17 Figure 4. COF-time profiles of trials conducted on test surfaces a) M1 and b) F4, demonstrating the
18
repeatability of the Securisport results.
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 Figure 5. COF versus time profiles of a) monofilament surfaces M1 – M5 and b) fibrillated surfaces F1 – F5.
55 The five rotations are demarcated by the vertical lines, at intervals of 1.5s. The transition from a solid line
56
to a dashed line for surface F1 denotes the point at which the s-skin detached from the test foot, beyond
57
58 which the data collected was excluded from analysis.
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24 M2 M3 M4 M5 F2 F3 F4 F5
25
26
Monofilament Fibrillated
rR
27
28
Figure 6. Decrease in infill depth for each surface, determined by the difference between infill depth
29
30 measured before and after each trial. Error bars indicate the standard deviation for each data set.
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30 Figure 7. Root mean square surface roughness value (Sq) of the original s-skin and the s-skin after
ev
31 Securisport testing on each of the test surfaces. Error bars indicate the standard deviation for each data
32
33 set.
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30 Figure 8. Microscope images at a magnification of 10x of a) original s-skin, b) s-skin after testing on surface
ev
31
32 M4 and c) s-skin after testing on surface M5.
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems Skin Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This item was submitted to Loughborough's Research Repository by the author.

Skin friction related behaviour of artificial turf systems

© Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Skin-Friction Related Behaviour of Artificial Turf Systems

Journal: Journal of Sports Sciences

Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript

Keywords: artificial turf, securisport, turf components, skin-friction, abrasion

41 22 Keywords: artificial turf, skin-friction, abrasion, turf components, Securisport

27 14 frictional behaviours of artificial turf. To achieve a range of frictional behaviours, several

35 19 of 0.57±0.03, independent of the carpet or infill used.

35 19 inform debate on the development of techniques to assess s-skin-surface frictional behaviours

31 23 Football Turf - Handbook of Test Methods. Retrieved from

35 26 Requirements Manual. Retrieved from

35 26 artificial turf I: Yarn developments. Sports Technology, 3(1), 52–58.

46 34 (2014). Understanding the Acute Skin Injury Mechanism Caused by Player-Surface

You might also like