Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Despite the improved quality of synthetic turf surfaces, players are still expressing their discontent with the perceived
greater risk of sustaining abrasion injuries on them relative to natural turf. The validity of the current device, the
SecurisportÒ, used to measure the abrasiveness of synthetic turf playing surfaces has been challenged based on its unrea-
listic interaction with the surface throughout testing. It rotates on the surface at a speed of 40 6 1 r/min. The aim of this
study was to compare the abrasion measurements from the current Securisport device with those from a modified
device. The modified device moved across the surface in a linear direction at a speed of 5 m/s, replicating a soccer slide
tackle. Data were captured for three trials for each device on three different surfaces: sand-only infill, low-rubber infill
and high-rubber infill. Overall, it was found that there was a significant mean abrasion difference of 51.7% between the
two devices (p = 0.02) and also significant differences resided between the two devices at specific infill levels. The results
of this study found that the specific modifications to the current Securisport device, substantially changed abrasion mea-
surements on synthetic turf, therefore illustrating the need for further work to improve the validity of the Securisport.
Keywords
Abrasion, coefficient of friction, SecurisportÒ, surface testing, synthetic turf
Methodology
Securisport
The Securisport comprises a motor which generates
the movement of a test foot over a playing surface in a
continual circular motion for approximately 3 s
(Figure 1(a)). It contains an air pressure tank which is
inflated using a hand-held pump (Figure 1(b)). The
pump inflates an air pressure tank to the required verti-
cal force of 100 6 10 N, and this force is applied
directly to a test foot which attaches underneath the
main proportion of the device (Figure 1(c)). The test
foot (Figure 2) has a 15 3 8-cm piece of silicone skin
Figure 2. Test foot, with the silicone skin attached to it.
attached to the bottom of it which makes direct contact
with the synthetic turf surface during testing.
The device is connected to a computer via a USB
cable and specialised software enables a visual display
and data logging during testing. During a single test, it
completes five revolutions at a speed of 40 6 1 r/min,
and the coefficient of friction (CoF) between the skin
and the turf sample is recorded at a sampling frequency
of 40 Hz. This process is repeated three times, with a
new silicone skin attached to the test foot for each test.
amount of rubber added to the existing rubber, result- each infill system. The large SD values reflect the differ-
ing in an infill depth of 38 6 2 mm. Three trials were ences in abrasion results across the infill systems.
conducted with each device on the three different types There was a significant interaction between infill
of infill systems, and all trials were included in the anal- type and device (F = 10.66, df = 2, p = 0.002), and the
ysis. To calculate the abrasion measurement, the CoF mean values and dispersion of data for the two devices
between the test foot and the synthetic turf sample and each infill type are shown in Figure 4. As evident
was computed before and after each test. The process from Figure 4, there was greater variability between
of measuring the CoF followed the procedures set out trials with the modified device, and a significant differ-
by Federation International Football Association ence between the devices was found on the high-rubber
(FIFA).6 In short, the test foot with the silicone skin infill system only (p 4 0.001).
attached was placed onto a clean metal plate, and an
additional mass of 1300 g was added to obtain a total
mass of 1700 6 50 g. To measure the force required to Discussion
pull the silicon skin along the metal plate, the test foot
This investigation is the first time that data have been
was pulled over a sliding distance of 100 mm at a speed
published for the Securisport device, and even more
of 500 6 10 mm/min. The average force over a sliding
importantly that a modified version of the Securisport
distance of 40 and 80 mm was calculated, and the CoF
has been developed and tested for abrasion measure-
was determined by dividing that force by the normal
ments. The results established that there was a signifi-
force. Once the CoF values had been determined, the
cant mean difference of 51.7% (p = 0.02) between the
following equation was used to calculate the abrasion
Securisport and the modified device on the synthetic
measurement
turf. While it proved challenging to apply the speed
CoFafter CoFbefore and direction modifications to the modified device to
3100 = Abrasion (%) replicate how a human would move over the surface,5
CoFbefore
it could be suggested that one and or both variables
could have influenced this overall result. However, as
they do not occur independently in a player’s interac-
Statistical analyses tion with the surface in a slide tackle, the overall result
All data, from the 18 trials conducted, were entered is meaningful.
into Microsoft Excel and transferred into Statistical To add to the above result the mean abrasion
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 21) for measurement for the Securisport (mean = 86.2%,
analyses. Descriptive statistics were calculated to SD = 38.49%) and the modified device (mean =
describe the central tendency and dispersion of the 34.5%, SD = 91.33%), both fell outside the current
data. As there were no significant differences between standards for all football sports of 430% abrasion on
trials, trials were regarded as replicates, and hence, a synthetic turf surfaces.6 Although there were limited
two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted trials associated with these results, the fact that the
to determine whether the device used or the infill type modified device produced a measurement closer to the
tested had a significant effect on the percentage abra- standard than the already established Securisport was
sion measured on synthetic turf. The interaction alarming and further justifies that improvements to the
between the two devices and the three infill types was current device are vital. However, these overall results
also examined. A post hoc comparison, with a need to be interpreted cautiously as the differences
Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, was between the three infill systems were substantial. The
undertaken to identify the differences between the three large variations highlight the need to include a variety
infill types. Assumptions of normality and homoge- of products or systems in future testing.
neous variance of errors were tested by analysis of resi- In relation to the significant interaction between the
duals, and all assumptions were satisfied. Significance type of infill and device, only the interaction between
was assumed at the 5% level. the two devices and the high-rubber infill proved signif-
icant (p 4 0.001; Figure 4(c)). Most notably, once the
skin had moved over the synthetic turf using the modi-
Results fied device, the CoF of the skin was substantially lower
Overall, the mean abrasion value, across all nine trials than what it was before interacting with the turf. This
(three trials on each infill system), was higher for the finding suggests that having greater exposure to a rub-
Securisport (mean = 86.2%, standard deviation ber infill may actually polish the silicone skin more so
(SD) = 638.49%) compared to the modified device than abrading it. Without microscopic examination to
(mean = 34.5%, SD = 691.33%). The results from the confirm this assertion, the alarming mean differences
ANOVA established a significant mean difference of between the two devices on this infill type further justi-
51.7% between the two devices when measuring abra- fies the importance of improving the current
sion on synthetic turf (F = 6.91, df = 1, p = 0.02). Securisport device to ensure the safety standards are
However, this does not account for the differences on met for synthetic turf use.
Figure 4. Box-and-whisker plot representing mean abrasion percentage between: (a) two devices for a sand infill synthetic turf
surface, (b) two devices for a low-rubber infill synthetic turf surface and (c) two devices for a high-rubber infill synthetic turf surface.
The results for the other two infill types and their the primary outcome of different levels of abrasion
interaction with both devices were deemed not to be unquestionably emphasises the need for further work
significant as illustrated in Figure 4. However, all abra- to improve the current Securisport device so that it is
sion measurements on the sand infill and low-rubber more realistic and biofidelic in nature.
infill fell well outside the current standards established
for abrasion on synthetic turf for many sports.6 Again, Acknowledgements
this finding highlights the need for improvement in the
test device or method to provide more accurate values The authors would like to acknowledge Acoustoscan
to create product improvements and possibly alleviate for the use of the SecurisportÒ and TurfOne for provid-
some of the negative perceptions associated with play- ing the synthetic turf samples and infill systems. Rod
ing sport on synthetic turf surfaces. Hall is also thanked for his technical assistance.