2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.04.070
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of test methods to quantify shock attenuating properties of athletic footwear

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
9
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
3
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, as opposed to previous studies in which shoe aging was performed by human participants in real conditions (Brueckner, Heidenfelder, Odenwald, & Milani, 2011;Heidenfelder et al, 2009), the aging protocol was implemented on a mechanical machine, thus avoiding the questions of long-term biomechanical adaptation and homogeneity in shoe's aging levels. Our results are consistent with the previous ones in which shoes were fatigued by human participants with decreased damping capacity (Cook, Kester, Brunet, & Haddad, 1985) and increased ST of the shoes with aging (Schwanitz, Möser, & Odenwald, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Indeed, as opposed to previous studies in which shoe aging was performed by human participants in real conditions (Brueckner, Heidenfelder, Odenwald, & Milani, 2011;Heidenfelder et al, 2009), the aging protocol was implemented on a mechanical machine, thus avoiding the questions of long-term biomechanical adaptation and homogeneity in shoe's aging levels. Our results are consistent with the previous ones in which shoes were fatigued by human participants with decreased damping capacity (Cook, Kester, Brunet, & Haddad, 1985) and increased ST of the shoes with aging (Schwanitz, Möser, & Odenwald, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…larger area under the force-displacement curve). Furthermore, the stiffness of most velar bone mimics were within the range of previously measured midsole stiffnesses (30-429 N/ mm 38,[43][44][45] ). These values include previous studies that tested midsoles from different manufacturers, different test geometries (whole shoe or midsole section), different materials (PU, EVA, or EPS), and with different mechanical testing procedures (displacement versus load-controlled compression).…”
Section: Tablesupporting
confidence: 74%
“…ASTM F1614 specifies three ways of assessing heel forces experienced wearing athletic shoes: (A) the falling weight impact test, (B) the compression force controlled machine and (C) the compression displacement controlled machine. Schwanitz et al (2010) used Test methods A and B alongside a hydraulic impact test of their own to compare the test procedures on five commercial brands of running shoe. Their conclusions are cautionary because mechanical energy was "absorbed by the same shoe in a different manner dependent on the used test procedure.…”
Section: Test Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%