Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:55:54.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of coefficient of friction between the equine foot and different ground surfaces: an in vitro study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2006

Nicolas J Vos  and
Dirk J Riemersma
Nicolas J Vos
Affiliation:
University of Prince Edward Island, Atlantic Veterinary College, 550 University Avenue, Prince Edward Island CIA 4P3, Canada
Dirk J Riemersma
Affiliation:
Traberpark ‘Den Heyberg’, B299 Kevelaer, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Slippery surfaces are a continuous concern in equine veterinary practice during both treatment and orthopaedic work-ups, especially when horses have to trot on circles. Sliding of the equine foot on the ground with the potential of injury is prevented if the horizontally acting accelerating or decelerating forces on the foot do not exceed maximal friction. Friction can be calculated and therefore anticipated if the coefficient of friction (μ) between the foot of the horse and the particular ground surface is known. Friction between shod and unshod cadaver equine hooves and different ground surfaces (concrete, tarmac and rubber) was determined by pulling the hooves horizontally in a uniform motion. Horizontal forces (Fh) were measured on a force plate and with a portable digital electronic force meter. The coefficient of friction (μ) was calculated as the quotient between Fh and the gravity force (N) of the object, hence: μ = Fh /N. This study has shown that the coefficient of friction between equine hooves and a specific ground surface can be determined using a portable digital force meter or a force plate. Friction significantly depended not only on the type of surface but also on shoeing of the equine foot. Bare feet showed more friction with the hard surfaces (bricks and tarmac), the shod feet showing more friction with the rubber surfaces. Coefficients of friction could be used to estimate the possibility of injuries occurring in the equine industry during exercise and/or lameness or pre-purchase examinations.

Keywords

frictionfeetequinegroundsurface
Type
Research Paper
Information
Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , November 2006 , pp. 191 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Dyson, SJ (1998). Evaluation of the musculoskeletal system part 4: The use of flexion tests and small diameter lunging. In: Mair, TS (ed.), The Pre-Purchase Examination (pp. 95–100). Newmarket, UK: Equine Veterinary Journal.Google Scholar
2Dyson, SJ (2000). Lameness and poor performance in the sports horse: Dressage, show jumping and horse trials (eventing). Proceedings of the American Veterinary Medical Association 46: 308–315.Google Scholar
3Halliday, D, Resnick, R and Walker, J (2001). Chapter 6: Force and motion II. Fundamentals of Physics 6th edn. Part 1 (pp. 98–110). USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
4Ratzlaff, MH, Wilson, PD, Hutton, DV and Slinker, BK (2005). Relationships between hoof-acceleration patterns of galloping horses and dynamic properties of the track. American Journal of Veterinary Research 66: 589–595.Google Scholar
5Pardoe, CH, McGuigan, MP, Rogers, KM, Roowe, LL and Wilson, AM (2001). The effect of shoe material on the kinetics and kinematics of foot slip at impact on concrete. Equine Veterinary Journal 33: (Suppl.) 70–73.Google Scholar
6Burnfield, JM and Powers, CM (2006). Prediction of slips: An evaluation of utilizing coefficient of friction and available slip resistance. Ergonomics 49: (19) 982–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Cheney, J, Shen, C and Wheat, J (1973). Relationship of racetrack surface to lameness in the Thoroughbred racehorse. American Journal of Veterinary Research 34: 1285–1289.Google Scholar
8Hill, T, Carmichael, D, Maylin, G and Krook, L (1986). Track condition and racing injuries in Thoroughbred horses. Cornell Veterinary Jounal 76: 361–379.Google Scholar
9Parkin, TDH, Clegg, PD, French, NP, Proudman, CJ, Riggs, CM, Singer, ER, Webbon, PM and Morgan, KL (2004). Race- and course-level risk factors for fatal distal limb fracture in racing Thoroughbreds. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: (6) 521–526.Google Scholar
10Philips, CJC, Coe, R, Colgan, M, Duffas, C, Ingoldby, L, Pond, M and Postlethwaite, S (1998). Effect of hoof characteristics on the propensity of cattle to slip. Veterinary Record 142: 242–245.Google Scholar
11Phillips, CJC and Morris, ID (2000). The locomotion of dairy cows on floor surfaces with different frictional properties. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 623–628.Google Scholar
12Newton, R, Doan, B, Meese, M, Conroy, B, Black, K, Sebstianelli, W and Kramer, W (2002). Interaction of wrestling shoe and competition surface: Effects on coefficient of friction with implications for injury. Sports Biomechanics 1: (2) 157–166.Google Scholar
13Pratt, GW (1997). Model for injury to the foreleg of the Thoroughbred racehorse. Equine Veterinary Journal 23: (Suppl.) 30–32.Google Scholar
14Gustås, P, Johnston, C, Roepstorff, L, Drevemo, S and Lanshammar, H (2004). Relationships between fore- and hind limb ground reaction force and hoof deceleration patterns in trotting horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 36: 737–742.Google Scholar
15Buchner, HHF, Savelberg, HHCM, Schamhardt, HC, Merkens, HW and Barneveld, A (1994). Kinematics of treadmill versus over-ground locomotion in horses. Veterinary Quarterly 16: 87–90.Google Scholar
16Roepstorff, L and Johnston, C (1994). The influences of different treadmill constructions on ground reaction forces as determined by the use of a forcer-measuring horseshoe. Equine Veterinary Journal 17: (Suppl.) 71–74.Google Scholar
17McLaughlin, RM and Gaughan, EM (1998). Force plate gait analysis. In: White, NA and Moore, JN (eds), Current Techniques in Equine Surgery and Lameness (pp. 45–48). Philadelphia: WB Saunders.Google Scholar
18Back, W (2000). The role of the hoof and shoeing. In: Back, W and Clayton, HM (eds), Equine Locomotion (pp. 141–166). Philadelphia: WB Saunders.Google Scholar
19Barrey, E (1990). Investigation of the vertical hoof force distribution in the equine forelimb with an instrumented horse boot. Equine Veterinary Journal 9: (Suppl.) 35–38.Google Scholar
20Schamhardt, HC, van den Bogert, AJ and Hartman, W (1993). Measurement techniques in animal locomotion analysis. Acta Anatomica (Basel) 146: (2–3) 123–129.Google Scholar
21Burn, JF, Wilson, AM and Nason, GP (1997). Impact during equine locomotion: Techniques for measuring and analysis. Equine Veterinary Journal 23: (Suppl.) 9–12.Google Scholar
22Kai, M, Aoki, O, Hiraga, A, Oki, H and Tokuriki, M (2000). Use of an instrument sandwiched between the hoof and shoe to measure vertical ground reaction forces and three-dimensional acceleration at the walk, trot, and canter in horses. American Journal of Veterinary Research 62: 979–985.Google Scholar
23Roland, ES, Hull, ML and Stover, SM (2005). Design and demonstration of a dynamometric horseshoe for measuring ground reaction loads of horses during racing conditions. Journal of Biomechanics 38: (10) 2102–2112.Google Scholar
24Merkens, HW, Schamhardt, HC, van Osch, GJVM and Bogert, AJ (1994). Ground reaction force patterns of Dutch warmblood horses at normal trot. Equine Veterinary Journal 25: (Suppl.) 134–137.Google Scholar
25Merkens, HW and Schamhardt, HC (1994). Relationship between ground reaction force patterns and kinematics in the walking and trotting horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 17: (Suppl.) 67–70.Google Scholar
26Gustås, P, Johnston, C, Roepstorff, L and Drevemo, S (2001). In vivo transmission of impact shock waves in the distal forelimb of the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 33: (Suppl.) 11–15.Google Scholar
27Gronqvist, R, Hirvonen, M, Rajamaki, E and Matz, S (2003). The validity and reliability of a portable slip meter for determining floor slipperiness simulated heel strike. Accidents Analysis and Prevention 35: (2) 211–225.Google Scholar
28Li, KW and Chen, CJ (2004). The effect of shoe soling tread groove width on the coefficient of friction with different sole materials, floors, and contaminants. Applied Ergonomics 35: 499–507.Google Scholar
29Hanson, JP, Redfern, MS and Mazumdar, M (1999). Predicting slips and falls considering required and available friction. Ergonomics 42: (12) 1619–1633.Google Scholar
30Chang, WR, Kim, IJ, Manning, DP and Bunterngchit, Y (2001). The role of surface roughness in the measuring of slipperiness. Ergonomics 44: (13) 1200–1216.Google Scholar
31Burnfield, JM, Tsai, YJ and Powers, CM (2005). Comparison of utilized coefficient of friction during different walking tasks in persons with or without a disability. Gait Posture 22: (1) 82–88.Google Scholar
32Lanovaz, JL and Clayton, HM (1998). In vitro attenuation of impact shock in equine digits. Equine Veterinary Journal 26: (Suppl.) 96–102.Google Scholar
33Thomason, JJ (1998). Variation in surface strain on the equine hoof wall at the midstep with shoeing, gait, substrate, direction of travel and hoof angle. Equine Veterinary Journal 26: (Suppl.) 86–95.Google Scholar
34Pongers, JH (2003). Stroefheidsproblemen Bij Niet-afgestrooid Asfaltbeton. Rapport van Raad van Transportveiligheid October (pp. 1–143). The Netherlands: Road Traffic Commission.Google Scholar
35Applegate, AL, Curtis, SE, Groppel, JL, McFarlane, JM and Widowski, TM (1988). Footing and gait of pigs on different concrete surfaces. Journal of Animal Science 66: (2) 334–341.Google Scholar
36Marigold, DS and Patla, AE (2002). Strategies for dynamic stability during locomotion on a slippery surface: Effects of prior experience and knowledge. Journal of Neurophysiology 88: (1) 339–353.Google Scholar
37Phillips, CJC and Morris, ID (2000). The locomotion of dairy cows on concrete floors that are dry, wet, or covered with a slurry of excreta. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 1767–1772.Google Scholar