Effects of equine racetrack surface type, depth, boundary area, and harrowing on dynamic surface properties measured using a track-testing device in a laboratory setting

Abstract

The dynamic behaviour of racetrack surfaces during hoof impact is a likely risk factor for racehorse injuries and fatalities. A track-testing device that simulates equine hoof impact was used to assess the effects of surface type (dirt, synthetic), surface depth (2, 3, 4 layers), test boundary area (929, 6,606, 11,381 cm 2 ), harrowing, and impact angle (0°, 20°from vertical) on dynamic surface properties. Surfaces were tested within a laboratory trackin-a-box. Surface type and depth, boundary area, and harrowing significantly affected dynamic surface properties during impacts (P \ 0.05). The synthetic surface was generally less stiff, and had 26-73% lower maximum impact forces and load rates, than the dirt surface. Harrowing decreased stiffness and differences between dirt and synthetic properties. Measured surface stiffness was larger for the smallest depth and boundary area, but most surface properties were not significantly different between the larger boundary areas. Surfaces were less stiff with angled impacts than vertical impacts.

Discrimination of two equine racing surfaces based on forelimb dynamic and hoof kinematic variables at the canter

“…This result is not surprising, since AWW surfaces have a high deformation capacity (Setterbo et al, 2011). However, on a given surface and under standardised conditions of a horse's speed, the maximal longitudinal force was positively associated with slip distance during braking, while there was no association (or only a poor association) between maximal vertical force at mid-stance and vertical sink.…”

Dynamic properties of a dirt and a synthetic equine racetrack surface measured by a track‐testing device

“…Because repeat impact is similar to a horse impacting a precompacted hoof print on the track, these results highlight the importance of track maintenance. Similarly, an impact device study at a dirt track [5] and a laboratory study [10] showed large differences in impact device measurements as a result of maintenance and/or lack of maintenance. Trainers should be cautious of training and high‐speed exercise on pretrampled track surfaces because of the greatly increased stiffness.…”

“…Large differences in the dynamic behaviour of dirt and synthetic race surface materials were observed in a laboratory study [10], but compaction of the surface materials did not simulate conditions at the parent racetracks. The main objective of this study was to compare the dynamic behaviour of dirt and synthetic race surfaces in situ , using single and repeated vertical and angled impacts.…”

Modeling equine race surface vertical mechanical behaviors in a musculoskeletal modeling environment

“…Impact testing was performed at three drop heights (i.e. 3 impact velocities) across multiple sites, over four days at each racetrack, to simulate a racehorse's hoof impacting the surface at fast trot or slow gallop (Setterbo et al, 2011). Further, initial and repeat impacts were performed at each location to determine surface behavior of harrowed and consolidated material.…”

“…Race surface behaviors have been quantified using impact devices designed to replicate the effective mass of a horse's hoof striking a race surface at fast trot or slow gallop (Peterson et al, 2004;Setterbo et al, 2011). The floor force model in musculoskeletal modeling software (Neptune et al, 2000) was designed to simulate stiff laboratory surface mechanics, and is unable to reproduce measured race surface mechanical behaviors.…”