Investigation of Equestrian Arena Surface Properties and Rider Preferences Danielle Holt

172 Pages·2013·3.4 MB·English

by  Carol Mills

Investigation of Equestrian Arena Surface Properties
and Rider Preferences

by

Danielle Holt

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of MSc (by Research) at
the University of Central Lancashire

April 2013
Declaration

Student Declaration

Concurrent registration for two or more academic awards

I declare that while registered as a candidate for the research degree, I have not been
a registered candidate or enrolled student for another award of the University or other
academic or professional institution
____________________________________________________________________

Material submitted for another award

I declare that no material contained in the thesis has been used in any other
submission for an academic award and is solely my own work
____________________________________________________________________

Collaboration

Where a candidate’s research programme is part of a collaborative project, the thesis
must indicate in addition clearly the candidate’s individual contribution and the extent
of the collaboration. Please state below:

Signature of Candidate ______________________________________________________

Type of Award MSc by Research

School Sport, Tourism and the Outdoors

i
Abstract

A synthetic surface with inconsistent mechanical properties is considered to be a
risk factor for injury in horses. Research has been carried out involving the use of
surface testing equipment predominantly on race tracks to improve knowledge on
surface properties that are implicated in a higher risk of injury. The preference of the
rider is also an important consideration and has previously affected the choice of
surface. The study investigated the effect of moisture, compaction and drainage on
different equine arena sand and fibre surfaces and also the preferences of riders
regarding surface properties. A Biomechanical Hoof Tester (maximum load, load rate,
range of horizontal acceleration, vertical deceleration, shear modulus and hysteresis),
Clegg Hammer (hardness) and Torque Wrench (traction) were used as a suite of
mechanical tests to investigate the effects of three different moisture levels (6.83 ±
1.01%, 17.45 ± 0.76%, 21.19 ± 0.9%) and three different surface densities (1.624±0.008
g/cm3, 1.690±0.016 g/cm3, 1.705±0.019 g/cm3) on four equine sand and fibre arena
surfaces. In order to test numerous surfaces under the same controlled conditions,
eight test boxes (L100cm x W98cm x D20cm) were made, where four surfaces were laid
on gravel and four laid on permavoid units, an innovative drainage system. The
responses of riders regarding preferred amount of traction and ‘way of going’ were
established using a survey. Traction significantly increased (P<0.001) with increasing
moisture level however, was not affected by the compaction treatments or drainage
type. Hardness and hysteresis were significantly (P<0.001) higher at a low moisture
content and vertical deceleration was significantly (P<0.001) higher at a low and medium
moisture content. The surfaces laid on gravel also generated significantly (P<0.001)
higher values. Maximum load, load rate and shear modulus were significantly (P<0.001)
lower at a low moisture level. The range of horizontal acceleration was significantly
(P<0.001) higher when the surfaces had a medium moisture content. The measured
variables were significantly (P<0.001) higher when the surfaces had a high density
except for the shear modulus. The respondents of the survey preferred a ‘moderate
amount of traction’ and a ‘firm surface with a bit of give’. The surfaces with a medium
(17.45%) to high (21.19%) moisture content when laid on permavoid had the most
favourable results when taking into account all of the measured parameters. The low
moisture content (6.83%) was associated with a higher energy loss and vertical
deceleration on impact with the surface especially when the surfaces had a high density,
thereby increasing the risk of injury. The lower maximum loads measured at this
moisture content would also have a negative effect on performance. The study has
shown that surface properties of different sand and fibre arena surfaces can be altered
through not only changing the amount of moisture and compaction but also drainage
type and surface composition.
ii
Contents

Section Title Page
number
Preliminaries Declaration i
Preliminaries Abstract ii
Preliminaries Contents iii
Preliminaries Acknowledgements ix
1.0 Literature Review 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Risk factor for injury 1
1.3 Hoof surface interaction 2
1.4 Surface types 5
1.4.1 Sand with additives 5
1.4.2 Other surface types 6
1.4.3 Wax 6
1.4.4 Drainage systems 7
1.5 Surface properties 8
1.5.1 Surface hardness 8
1.5.2 Shear resistance 11
1.5.3 Surface density 12
1.5.4 Surface moisture content 13
1.6 Current guidelines 14
1.6.1 Athlete preferences 16
1.7 Surface Testing 17
1.7.1 Clegg Hammer 18
1.7.2 Torque Wrench 18
1.7.3 Biomechanical Hoof Tester 19
1.8 Aims and Objectives 21
2.0 Materials and Methods 22
2.0.1 Ethical considerations and Health and Safety 22
2.0.2 Study design 22
2.1 Field Based Study 23
2.1.1 Materials 23
2.1.2 Developmental and pilot work 26
2.1.3 Experimental protocol 27
2.1.4 Sampling technique 27
2.1.5 Statistical Analysis 35
2.2 Questionnaire Based Study 37
2.2.1 Rider preferences survey 37
2.2.2 Pilot work 37
2.2.3 Experimental protocol 37
2.2.4 Statistical Analysis 39
3.0 Results 40
3.1 Field Based study 40
3.1.1 Maximum impact force used to compact the surfaces 44
3.1.2 Traction 45
3.1.3 Surface hardness 47
3.1.4 Maximum load on impact 51
3.1.5 Load rate 55
3.1.6 Range in horizontal acceleration 58
3.1.7 Maximum vertical deceleration 61
3.1.8 Shear modulus 64
3.1.9 Hysteresis 66
3.1.10 Summary of results 72
3.2 Questionnaire Based study 74
3.2.1 Preferred amount of traction 76
3.2.2 Preferred way of going 76
3.2.3 Training, competition and preferred surfaces 78
iii
Contents

3.2.4 Summary of results 82
4.0 Discussion 83
4.1 Traction 83
4.2 Hardness 86
4.3 Maximum load and load rate 89
4.4 Horizontal and vertical acceleration 93
4.5 Surface damping 96
4.6 Ideal treatment combinations 99
4.7 Conclusion 102
5.0 References 104
6.0 Appendices I
Appendices Appendix I: Ethics II
Appendices Appendix II: Risk assessments XXIV
Appendices Appendix III: Rider preference survey XXXV
Appendices Appendix IV: Composition testing XLIV
Appendices Appendix V: Timetable for data collection XLVI
Appendices Appendix VI: Block diagram formula XLIX

iv
Contents

Figures

Figure Title Page
number
1.0 Literature Review
1.1 Stages of the stance phase. 4
2.0 Materials and Methods
2.0.1 Study design 22
2.1.1 A surface testing device which shows two axes of motion and the 28
configuration of the instrumentation on the test machine.
2.1.2 Front panel image from LabVIEW. 31
2.1.3 A print screen from LabVIEW of the raw data signals and noise 32
signal interruption.
3.0 Results
3.1 Field Based Study results
3.1.1 The mean bulk density of the surfaces in each test box. 43
3.1.2 Mean (±SE) maximum impact force used by all the researchers to 44
compact the surfaces to create a medium compaction level and
high compaction level.
3.1.3 Interactions between mean traction values for moisture level and 46
test box number.
3.1.4 Mean (±SE) hardness values for the first drop of the Clegg 47
Hammer according to test box number and compaction level.
3.1.5 Mean (±SE) hardness values for the fourth drop of the Clegg 48
Hammer according to test box number and compaction level.
3.1.6 The mean (±SE) range in hardness values from drop1-4 49
according to moisture and compaction level.
3.1.7 The range in hardness values from drop 1-4 obtained from the 50
different text boxes for all the treatments applied.
3.1.8 The mean (±SE) maximum load for the different drop numbers, 51
compaction and moisture levels.
3.1.9 Interactions between mean (±SE) maximum load values for 52
moisture level and test box number.
3.1.10 Interactions between mean (±SE) maximum load values for 53
compaction level and test box number.
3.1.11 The range in maximum load values obtained from each of the test 54
boxes for all of the treatments.
3.1.12 A Load- time graph obtained during the first drop of the 55
Biomechanical Hoof Tester.
B Load- time graph obtained during the third drop of the
Biomechanical Hoof Tester
3.1.13 The mean (± SE) load rate for the different drop numbers, 56
compaction and moisture levels.
3.1.14 Interactions between mean load rates for moisture level and test 57
box number.
3.1.15 The range in load rate values obtained from each of the test 58
boxes for all of the treatments.
3.1.16 The mean (± SE) range of horizontal acceleration for the different 59
drop numbers, compaction and moisture levels.
3.1.17 Interactions between mean ranges of horizontal acceleration for 60
moisture level and test box number.
3.1.18 The horizontal acceleration range obtained from each of the test 61
boxes for all of the treatments.
3.1.19 The mean (± SE) maximum vertical deceleration for the different 62
drop numbers, compaction and moisture levels.
3.1.20 Interactions between mean (±SE) maximum vertical deceleration 63
for moisture level and drainage type.

v
Contents

3.1.21 The range in maximum vertical deceleration values obtained from 63
each of the test boxes for all of the treatments.
3.1.22 Correlation between surface hardness recorded with the Clegg 64
Hammer (drop 2, 3, 4) and maximum vertical deceleration
recorded with the Biomechanical hoof Tester (drop 1, 2, 3) for the
low moisture and high compaction level.
3.1.23 The median shear modulus of the surfaces for the different drop 65
numbers, compaction and moisture levels.
3.1.24 The range in shear modulus values obtained from each of the test 65
boxes for all of the treatments.
3.1.25 The mean (± SE) hysteresis for the different drop numbers, 67
compaction and moisture levels.
3.1.26 Interactions between mean hysteresis for moisture level and test 68
box number.
3.1.27 Interactions between mean hysteresis for compaction level and 69
test box number.
3.1.28 The range in hysteresis values obtained from each of the test 70
boxes for all of the treatments.
3.1.29 Load-displacement curves for TB1 and TB5 according to moisture 71
A, B, C and compaction level recorded during the first drop of the
Biomechanical Hoof Tester.
3.2 Questionnaire Based Study Results
3.2.1 Proportion of riders from the different disciplines responding to the 74
survey.
3.2.2 The number of responses relating to the preferred amount of 76
traction a surface provides.
3.2.3 The number of responses relating to the preferred way of going a 77
surface provides.
3.2.4 Training, competition and preferred surface types of the riders 78
who responded to the survey.
3.2.5 The number of riders who train indoors (n=30) or outdoors 80
(n=200) and in which conditions the surface provides them with an
optimal performance on their horse.

vi
Contents

Plates

Plate Title Page
number
2.0 Materials and Methods
2.1.1 Test boxes 1-4 situated on top of the limestone chipping 24
2.1.2 Test boxes 5-8 situated on top of the permavoid units 25
2.1.3 The elephant foot tamper being used to compact the first layer of 25
sand
2.1.4 Measuring the bulk density of the reference surface 26
2.1.5 The Biomechanical Hoof Tester which has been constructed so 30
that it is possible to mount it to a vehicle in order to change the
impact site
2.1.6 Clegg Impact Testing device 33
2.1.7 The Torque Wrench and the studded shoe fitted to the base of the 34
weights
3.0 Results
3.1.1 Test box eight (sand and low fibre and low wax on permavoid) 43
under a low level of compaction.

vii
Contents

Tables

Table Title Page
number
2.0 Materials and Methods
2.1.1 Sub-base and surface combinations for the different test boxes 25
2.2.1 The questions used in the survey 38
3.0 Results
3.1 Field Based Study results
3.1.1 Surface composition 40
3.1.2 Particle size distribution of each surface 40
3.1.3 Sub-base and surface combinations for the different test boxes 41
3.1.4 Mean moisture contents according to moisture level 41
3.1.5 Mean bulk density of all the surfaces under different compaction 42
levels.
3.1.6 Mean (±SE) air temperature above and below the surface during 45
data collection.
3.1.7 Mean (±SE) traction according to test box and moisture content. 46
3.1.8 Mean (±SE) maximum load according to test box and moisture 53
content.
3.1.9 Mean (±SE) maximum load according to test box and compaction 54
level.
3.1.10 Mean (±SE) load rate according to test box and moisture content. 57
3.1.11 Mean (±SE) range of horizontal acceleration according to test box 60
and moisture content.
3.1.12 Mean (±SE) hysteresis according to test box and moisture content. 68
3.1.13 Mean (±SE) hysteresis according to test box and compaction level. 69
3.1.14 Summary of the main findings for how the different parameters 72
were affected by different moisture and compaction levels.
3.2 Questionnaire Based Study results
3.2.1 Different level of riders and how they were categorised according to 75
competition level.
3.2.2 Chi-square test for the training, competition and preferred surface 79
types.
3.2.3 Chi-square test for the conditions in which the indoor or outdoor 81
training surface provides the best performance.
3.2.4 Summary of questionnaire results. 82

viii
Acknowledgements

I would like to start by saying thank you to Myerscough College for funding my MSc
and providing me with the opportunity to work with some amazing people.

I would like to say thank you very much to my supervisory team including Sarah Hobbs,
Jaime Martin, Charlotte Brigden and my two advisors Alison Northrop and Andy Owen.
The project would not have been possible without your help and expertise with data
collection, statistics, LabView, written work and your endless explanations. Thank you
for being patient with me and I have learnt so much from all of you and feel priveliged
to have worked with you.

Thank you to Glen Crook for building the test boxes and helping with the construction
work and during my data collection.

Thank you to David Elphinstone who has always been there for advice and for teaching
me the correct way to paint an office!

Thank you to Em Blundell for showing me the ropes, helping with the data collection
and using your ‘elephant foot tamping’ skills.

Thank you to Laura Dagg for pointing me in the right direction at the start. We had
some great times in the research office and wish you could have stayed longer!

Thank you to Jimmy May and his team for helping with the construction work.

Thank you to the yard and events team for putting up with my daily digging and
tamping before data collection.

A special thanks goes to Keni. I could not have asked for any more support and
patience from you during this busy year. You have always been there for me and kept
my spirits up and I appreciate your help shifting and compacting nearly 3 tonnes of
sand with me  x

Thank you to my friends and family for your perpetual support and believing in me.
Even though I have not managed to see you all as much as I had liked, I know you
have always been there for me x

Finally thanks to the horses I have and work with .....At the end of the day, that is why I
am here in the first place!! You are the ultimate stress-buster and excellent listeners! X

ix