International Turfgrass Society Research Journal Volume 11, 2009

HUMAN-SURFACE INTERACTIONS: AN INTEGRATED STUDY

Igor Guisasola, Iain James*, Ceri Llewellyn, Mark Bartlett,Victoria Stiles and Sharon Dixon

ABSTRACT To improve the understanding of human-surface interactions in sport, integrated studies combining biomechanical and surface mechanical testing and modelling methods are required. This paper reports on interim findings from a three year study in the UK that investigates the behaviour of humans and natural turf surfaces during running. The objective was to determine the relationship between surface stiffness and vertical forces applied by humans when running. Using a portable pitch system, forces and movements for nine male subjects performing a running movement were characterised. These experiments determined that the loading rate on sand soil was significantly greater than on a clay loam soil (p < 0.05). The dynamic stiffness of the same materials was determined in a modified dynamic triaxial testing apparatus. This determined that the dynamic stiffness was significantly greater (p < 0.001) in the sand soil than the clay soil (explaining the observed biomechanical loading rate results). Furthermore the same experiment determined that the dynamic stiffness of a particular soil was dependent on the loading rateas the soils were loaded more quickly, they became more stiff (p < 0.001). When a clay soil is dried, its dynamic stiffness increases. These data have direct input into the understanding of how humans interact with sports surfaces and how the surface responds. Keywords: biomechanics; human-surface interaction; impacts; natural turf; soil dynamics; soil mechanics Igor Guisasola, Iain James*, Ceri Llewellyn, Mark Bartlett, Building 42a, Centre for Sports Surface Technology, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, MK43 0AL, UK. Victoria Stiles, Sharon Dixon, Exeter Biomechanics Research Team, School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. ^Corresponding author: (i.t.james@cranfield.ac.uk).

INTRODUCTION Natural turf related sports injury was reviewed by Stiles et al. (2009). In that review, the authors highlighted the need for integrated studies of surface and human mechanical behaviour to improve the understanding of (1) how players develop surface related injuries and (2) the surface response to loading by the player. Generally, studies of either type are scarce. The development of surface related injuries has been studied extensively for synthetic turf (Torg et al, 1974; McCarthy, 1989) and there are a number of epidemiological studies investigating injury incidence on synthetic turf (Fuller et al, 2007) and comparing it with injury incidence on natural turf among different cohorts (Ekstrand et al, 2006; Steffen et al, 2007). A number of studies have looked at injury incidence and related it to surface properties in natural turf (Orchard, 2002; Orchard et al, 2005; Chivers et al 2005). There number is limited however, despite the importance of natural turf in sports surface provision, both in elite competition and recreational sport. Biomechanical studies of player movement on synthetic turf are relatively numerous compared to natural turf and were reviewed by Dixon et al, (1999). The mechanical testing of natural sports surfaces has developed in order to measure pitch quality and to understand player-surface interactions (Canaway et al, 1990). In natural turf, these physical and mechanical properties have been shown to vary in space and time (Baker, 1991). Performance quality standards are useful in testing surfaces (Bartlett et al, 2009) but are of limited use in studying sports injury. This is principally due to strain rate and the magnitude of stresses applied. Researchers have attempted to develop more realistic testing devices for traction that include

dynamic load application (McNitt et al, 1997; Blackburn et al, 2005)however these devices are still approximations of the human-surface interaction. In integrated studies, human mechanical behaviour is studied simultaneously with surface mechanical behaviour. In a study of humans running on a soil surface of different density, Dixon et al (2008) characterised the loading of the human and the soil and modelled the stress distribution within the surface using elastic soil mechanics theory. Such approaches are a development towards an integrated human-natural surface behaviour model. This paper describes a study that has investigated human movement and loading of natural turf surfaces of different soils type in both biomechanics and soil mechanics laboratories. This integrated study is an advance in the understanding of humansurface interaction which is required to improve natural turf surface design and reduced injury risk. This paper addresses aspects of dynamic soil mechanical behaviour of a sand and a clay loam in laboratory simulation of the dynamic loading determined in the biomechanics laboratory (the outline methodology is described in Stiles et al., 2006, forces in Stiles et al, 2007 and kinematics in Stiles et al., 2008). The research tests the hypothesis that the dynamic stiffness of the sand is greater than the clay loam at field capacity moisture contents due to greater rigidity of the compacted sand particles. The dynamic stiffness is the ratio of recoverable (elastic) soil deformation to an applied dynamic load (such as a human running on the soil) as stiffness increases, the surface deforms less which affects energy return to the human during the leg contact phase with the surface. Soils are commonly considered to be plastic, they do not recover their original shape after a load is removed,

Table 1. Material characterization data for the two test soils used in the biomechanical and soil mechanical testing. Classification of particle sizes was as per the Soil Survey of England and Wales. Material Property Sand (2 mm - 63 nm), % (Coarse sand, 2 mm - 600|o.m) (Medium sand, 2 mm - 600fxm) (Fine sand, 2 mm - 600p.ni) Silt (63 - 2 nm), % Clay (< 2 jim), % Biomechanics experiment Dry bulk density, kg m'3 Volumetric Moisture content, % Degree of saturation, % Soil dynamics experiment Dry bulk density, kg m"3 Volumetric Moisture content, % Degree of saturation, % Sand 98 (23) (64) (11) 1 1 1700 31.6 81 SI 1750 20.7 53 Clay loam 29 (5) (14) (10) 44 27 1300 31.0 62 CL1 1600 27.0 60 CL2 1600 21.6 48

such as footprints left in a pitch after play; recoverable deformation (elastic strain) is thought to be negligible. Soils are actually elastic-plastic, they initially behave elastically until they reach a yield stress and deform plasticallyin quasi-static loading (at very low loading rates) the elastic component is small, but when soils are loaded dynamically, such as in running, the elastic component becomes more significant. Two soils were used throughout this studya sand and a clay loam. The materials were selected to emulate elitelevel sand construction and recreational level clay surfaces respectively (Table 1). METHODOLOGY Measurement of stress and stress-rate of loads applied by humans during running on natural turf To simulate human loading of soil it was first necessary to characterize two parameters: (1) peak vertical force and (2) peak vertical loading-rate. This was determined using a force plate (AMTI, Massachusetts, 960 Hz) in the sports biomechanics at Exeter University. This was a challenge in that the laboratory is indoors and not conducive to sustained turf

culture. The laboratory is indoors due to the requirements of the infra-red motion capture system used to study player movement in the same experiment (see Stiles et al., 2008 for details). To overcome the problem, the turf was installed using a 'portable pitch system'. Ten portable plastic trays (0.60 m x 0.40 m x 0.08 m) were turfed with ryegrass and comprised the two test soils (0.05 m depth). Soils were compacted to the maximum density achievable by manual rolling and plate compaction (1750 kg m"3 for the sand and 1300 kg m"3 for the clay loam). The turf was then established over the soil to bring the total depth to 0.08 m. Tray size was selected to match the force plate dimensions and limit tray mass for portability. Trays were stored outside between test periods to maintain turf health. Moisture content was controlled and before testing, the trays of turf located in the laboratory were clipped to 30 mm, having been maintained at a height of 35 mm. The trays were positioned sideways in the biomechanics laboratory on non-slip matting (6 mm thick) to form a continuous runway of one surface condition (Figure 1). The runway must be formed from the same soil and turf as the target force plate tray so that the runner is informed of the surface

Figure 1. Experimental layout. Grey shading indicate different turf conditions rotated onto the centre runway. Black areas are rubber deceleration areas. Subjects ran left to right, using the initial trays on the run way to inform their landing stride on the force platform under the target tray.

condition prior to landing on the force plate. A surrounding supportive runway of rubber matting and foam, covered with acrylic, was placed on either side of the turf runway for the safety of participants. Full details of tray locations in the laboratory can be found in Stiles et al. (2008). Test surfaces were rotated during a subject testing session as required to construct the testing runway (Figure 1). Nine male volunteers were recruited and consented to be participants in the study (approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter). All were soccer or rugby players of university or club standard and regularly participated in training and match playing sessions on a natural turf surface whilst wearing studded footwear. They were assigned standard metal studded soccer boots (of the same model: Nike Air Zoom Total 90) in their size (UK sizes, 9,10 & 11). Each subject ran on each soil type ten times, with each soil type replicated three times. Surface types were randomly assigned to each subject in turn. A constant running speed of 3.83 m s"1 was required between two sets of photocells set 1 m away from the centre line of the target tray. Participants were required to make a right-footed contact with

the target tray during each trial without adjusting their running stride and rhythm. Force-time history in the three principal Cartesian axes was recorded at 960 Hz. The force data were normalized by body weight (BW). Peak vertical force and the maximum vertical loading rate were determined by a combination of visual inspection and differentiation of a polynomial model of the stress-time data. Visual inspection was necessary to identify stress peaks due to different phases of loading (Figure 2). The highest rate of loading occurs in the impact (passive) phase and this was determined by differentiation. Stress-rate controlled loading of soil elements Dynamic loading rates were applied to the soils in an electromechanical dynamic triaxial soil testing apparatus (GDS DYNNTS 2Hz lOkN, GDS Instruments Ltd, Hampshire, UK). Test soils were confined in a quasi-rigid plastic tube of 115 mm diameter, 150 mm length, 5 mm wall thickness. The test specimen was mounted between an electromechanical ram and a 70 mm diameter Perspex cap fitted to a 10 kN force transducer. Testing was forcecontrolled using the proprietary software supplied with the triaxial equipment and a

Figure 2. Typical vertical force (Fz) - time profile during running, in this case for a heel-toe runner. Force is normalized by body weight (BW). Three phases can be identified, the passive (landing) phase, the active (thrust development phase) and the subsequent unloading phase during lift-off.

user-defined waveform to simulate the peak passive load described in Figure 1. The samples were confined in a plastic cylinder to remove sample dilation effects observed during preliminary tests using pressurised water to confine the sample as is typical in soil triaxial testing. The loading rates in (Figure 2) were converted from bodyweights to units of force/time for an average shoe contact area of 50 mm2 determined in the experiment using foot pressure insole data (RSScan, Belgium) analyzed in Matlab (MathWorks, USA). This determined peak loading rates to be 65 and 80 kN s"1 on the clay loam and sand soil respectively. It was not possible to achieve these peak loading rates due to limitations of the soil mechanics equipment. A peak loading rate of 6.5 kN s"1 was possible, although 10 times less than the human loading, this is still four orders of magnitude faster than the quasi-static strain rates of 5 x 10'4 kN s"1

used in 'quick'-undrained Mohr-Coulomb type strength testing of soils. To determine the effect of loading rate on stiffness a second loading rate of 0.65 kN s"1 was also tested. It was hypothesized that stiffness would increase with loading rate as soil particles would not have time to reorganize to accommodate plastic strain at the greater strain rate. A second hypothesis, that the stiffness of a clay soil increases as moisture content decreases, due to increased cohesion and inter-particle friction within the drier clay soil, was also tested by testing the clay soil at 6.5 kN s"1 at the moisture contents outlined in Table 1. All experiments were performed in duplicate. Axial force (kN) and axial displacement (mm) during loading were logged at 100 Hz and converted to stress (kN m" ) and strain (ratio of displacement to original length) respectively. Test duration was 30 cycles. Typically the

Figure 3. Cyclical stress-strain and elastic-plastic behaviour of the sand soil (SI) loaded at 6.5 kN s"1 for 50 cycles.

600

soils exhibited elastic-plastic stress-strain behaviour as illustrated in (Figure 3) For initial cycles, plastic behaviour dominates as the soil is compacted. Subsequently, the response is more elastic (more strain is recovered) and the stiffness of the material increases. The determination of the stiffness parameter is defined in Equation 1.
K K

RESULTS Measurement of stress and stress-rate of loads applied by humans during running on natural turf There was no significant difference between peak active forces for the two soils tested (Table 2, p > 0.05). Peak loading rate was significantly greater on the sand soil than the clay soil (Table 2, p < 0.05). The mean subject achieves an identical maximum load on the surface but this is achieved at a different rateaffecting running performance. Where the soil is
Table 2. Mean peak active force and peak loading rate for nine male subjects running on natural turf of two soil types (Stiles et al, 2007). Different superscript letters identify means separated by the least significant difference.
Material Sand Clay loam Peak active force 2.50 0.5 BW 2.53 0.6 BW Peak loading rate 101.48s 23.3 BW s 84.67" 22.9 BW s 1

d~ _

^max

Where kd is the secant dynamic stiffness modulus, a m a x is the maximum stress and e raax is the maximum strain in the cycle. After a number of cycles, the soil reaches a steady-state dynamic stiffness (where an increase in load is required to further deform the soil; Figure 3). The steady-state stiffness, kds was defined as the maximum stiffness.

Figure 4: Change in mean dynamic stiffiiess with repeated cyclic loading. volumetric moisture content, loading rate.

Legend titles are soil type, initial

- Sand, 20.7%, 0.65 kN s"1 Sand, 20.7 %, 6.5 kN s' 1

" Clay, 27.0%, 0.65 kN s"1 Clay, 27.0%, 6.5 kN s"1 Clay, 21.6%, 6.5 kNs" 1

_j
10

i
15

i
20

Number of cycles

loaded more quickly, this reduces footsurface contact timeincreasing running speed or reducing energy consumption for a fixed running speed. Stress-rate controlled loading of soil elements The change in mean stiffness with increasing cycles is shown in Figure 4, where the effect of loading rate and soil type on dynamic stiffness is evident. Steady-state stiffness and the number of cycles required to achieve the stiffiiess are
Table 3. Mean steady state dynamic soil stiffiiess k^ for all soil tests. Different Roman superscripts identify significantly different means for the soil x loading rate experiment; different Greek superscripts identify significantly different means for the clay loam x moisture content experiment; both as determined by the least Moisture content % v/v 20.7 20.7 27.0 27.0 21.6 Loading rate kNs"1 0.65 6.5 0.65 6.5 6.5

detailed in Table 3. Dynamic stiffness was greater at the higher loading rate for both soils (p< 0.001); it was also greater in the sand than the clay loam (p < 0.001). Drying the clay soil significantly increased stiffness (p < 0.001)( Figure 4). DISCUSSION The data presented are of direct significance in the understanding of humansurface interactions. Historically, studies of natural turf surfaces have been concerned with the plastic deformation of soilsusing parameters such as 'wear' and 'compaction'. To understand the impact loads on the body and surface it is essential to study and model dynamic behaviour. It is this that reveals the elastic behaviour of surfaces, as detailed above. The elastic-plastic behaviour of soils (particularly with significant silt and clay content), or in fact the soil-turf matrix, is what differentiates natural turf from synthetic turf. The plastic component increases the contact time between the human and the surface or the ball and the surface, reducing the peak

Material Sand (SI) Sand (SI) Clay loam (CL1) Clay loam (CL1) Clay loam (CL2)

Mean k<,s kN m"2 0.581" 0.844b 0.253 0.335<u 0.505p

impact on the body and moderating ball rebound behaviour. The elastic component is essential for energy return (to both the player and ball) and for resilience of the material. This study has investigated the dynamic behaviour of the soils only. By adding the grass plant, the amount of elastic strain before plastic yield is hypothesized to increase due to turf root compliance (Shipton, 2008). Plastic behaviour in synthetic turf is limitedsynthetic surfaces are dominated by elastic behaviour. Elasticity in synthetic surfaces is much higher so the materials tend to recover although under extreme loads they will fail (such as disintegration of infill, fibre breakdown and plastic fibre deformation). The grass-soil matrix exhibits more resilience to plastic deformationit can recover or be recovered (by intervention from groundstaff)synthetic surfaces cannot exhibit this behaviour to this extent. This is not to say that one is more desirable than anotherthere is a time, energy and financial cost to maintaining surfaces of both types and the resistance to wear of synthetic turf is important in high-usage community sports surface provision. This study highlights the difference in dynamic mechanical behaviour between soil types. Sand rootzones have a greater stiffness (dynamically) than even dry clay soils in this studythis has direct performance implications in elite sporting surfaces which are increasingly sand based. It also explains the difference in biomechanical loading (Table 2). The difference in soil type must be understood when comparative studies are conducted between synthetic and natural surfacesit appears that just as second and third generation synthetic surfaces are differentsuch heterogeneity also exists within natural turf surfacesand this

should be reflected in the reporting of injury studies. It is not sufficient to amalgamate all natural turf surfaces separation by soil type and moisture content should be considered. The engineering of natural turf surfaces can be improved by understanding that it is not only shear strength of soils that is important (for traction) and will vary between soil types and over time as soil water content changes but also dynamic stiffness, which is important in vertical loading such as in running. Soil dynamic stiffness will be related to hardness as measured by impact devices such as the Clegg, but the complex elastic-plastic behaviour is not described by such devices and further work on whether or not there are different injury patterns on different soil types and the dynamic stiffness of natural turf surfaces is necessary. CONCLUSIONS The dynamic stiffness of two soils used in the construction of sports surfaces was determined in the soil mechanics laboratory at Cranfield University. Increasing loading rate significantly increased stiffness of both a sand and a clay loam soil. Loading rates were scaled by a factor of 10 and 100 from those determined using the same soils in running experiments in the biomechanics laboratory, where loading rate by the human running was significantly greater on the sand than the clay loam soil. This behaviour was observed in the laboratory where the stiffness of the sand soil was significantly greater than the clay soil. Drying the clay soil increased soil stiffness. This study furthers the understanding of how elasticplastic soil behaviour affects the humansurface interaction in sport.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of this research by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under project EP/C512243/1. REFERENCES Baker, S. 1991. Temporal variation of selected mechanical properties of natural turf football pitches. J. Sport. Turf Res. Inst. 67:83-92. Bartlett, M.D., James, I.T., Ford, M., Jennings-Temple, M., 2009. Testing natural turf sports surfaces: the value of performance quality standards. Proc. IMechE., Part P: J. Sports Eng and Tech. 223(l):21-29. Blackburn, S, Nicol, A., Walker, C., 2005. Development of a biomechanically validated turf testing rig. In Proceedings of the International Society of Biomechanics XXth Congress-ASB 29th Annual Meeting. July 31- Aug 5. Cleveland, Ohio. Canaway, P.M., Bell, M.J., Holmes, G., Baker, S.W. 1990. Standards for the playing quality of natural turf for association football p29-47. Natural and Artificial playing Fields: Characteristics and Safety Features. ASTMSTP 1073, R.C. Schmidt, E.F. Hoerner, E.M. Milner, C.A. Moorhouse (Eds). American Society of Testing and Minerals, Philadelphia, 1990, p 29-47. Chivers, I.H., Aldous, D.E., Orchard, J. 2005. The relationship of Australian Football grass surfaces to Anterior Cruciate ligament injury. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 10:327-332.

Dixon, S.J., Batt, M.E., Collop, A.C. 1999. Artificial playing surfaces research: a review of medical, engineering and biomechanical aspects. Int. J. Sport Med. 20:209-218. Dixon, S.J., James, I.T., Blackburn, K., Pettican, N., Low, D. 2008. Influence of footwear and soil density on loading within the shoe and soil surface during running. Proc. IMechE., Part P: J. Sports Eng and Tech. 222(1):1-10. Ekstrand, J., Timpka, T., Hagglund, M. 2006. Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study. Br. J. Sport Med. 40:975-980. Fuller, C.W., Dick, R.W., Corlette, J., Schmalz, R. 2007. Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football players. Part 1: Match injuries. Br. J. Sport Med. 41(SI): i20-i26.

McCarthy, P. 1989. Artificial Turf: Does it cause more injuries? Phys Sportsmed. 17:159-164. McNitt, A.S., Middour, R.O., Waddington, D.V. 1997. Development and evaluation of a method to measure traction on turf surfaces. J. Test. Eval. 25:99-107 Orchard , J. 2002. Is there a relationship between ground and climatic conditions and injuries in football. J. Sport. Med. 32:419-432

Orchard, J., Chivers, I.H., Aldous, D.E., Benneil, K; Seward, H. 2005. Rye grass is associated with fewer noncontact Anterior Cruciate ligament injuries than Bermuda grass. Br. J. Sport. Med. 39:704-709 Shipton, P.M.R. 2008. The optimisation of rolling cricket pitches. Engineering Doctorate Thesis, Cranfield University, UK. Steffen, K., Andersen, T.E., Bahr, R. 2007. Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in young female football players. Br. J. Sport Med. 41(SI): i33-i37. Stiles, V.H., Dixon, S.J., James, I.T. 2006. An initial investigation of humannatural turf interaction in the laboratory p255-260. In E.F. Moritz and S. Haake (ed.) The Engineering of Sport 6, Vol 2. New York: Springer. Stiles, V.H., Dixon, S.J., Guisasola, I.N., James, LT. 2007. Biomechanical response to variations in natural turf surfaces during running and turning. In P. Fleming et al. (ed.) STARSS 2007, Proceedings of the First International Conference of the SportSURF Network. WEDC. Loughborough.

Stiles, V.H., Dixon, S.J., Guisasola, I.N., & James, I.T. 2008. Kinematic response to variations in natural turf during running, p 499-508. In E. Moritz and S. Haake (ed.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Engineering of Sport, Vol. 1. London: Springer Stiles, V.H., James, I.T., Dixon, S.J., Guisasola, I.N. 2009. Natural turf surfaces: the case for continued research. Sports Med. 39(l):65-84. Torg, J., Quendenfeld, T., Landau, B. 1974. The shoe-surface interface and its relationship to football knee injuries. J. Sport Med. 2:261-269.