↓ Skip to main content

Amateur football pitches: Mechanical properties of the natural ground and of different artificial turf infills and their biomechanical implications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Sports Sciences, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Amateur football pitches: Mechanical properties of the natural ground and of different artificial turf infills and their biomechanical implications
Published in
Journal of Sports Sciences, December 2012
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2012.750005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabetta M. Zanetti, Cristina Bignardi, Giordano Franceschini, Alberto L. Audenino

Abstract

Artificial turf is being used more and more often. It is more available than natural turf for use, requires much less maintenance and new products are able to comply with sport performance and athletes' safety. The purpose of this paper is to compare the mechanical and biomechanical responses of two different artificial turf infills (styrene butadiene rubber, from granulated vehicle tires, and thermoplastic rubber granules) and to compare them to the performance of natural fields where amateurs play (beaten earth, substantially). Three mechanical parameters have been calculated from laboratory tests: energy storage, energy losses and surface traction coefficient; results have been correlated with peak accelerations recorded on an instrumented athlete, on the field. The natural ground proved to be stiffer (-15% penetration depth for a given load), and to have a lower dynamic traction coefficient (-48%); the different kinds of infill showed significantly different stiffnesses (varying by more than 23%) and damping behaviour (varying by more than 31%). In running, peak vertical accelerations were lowest in the artificial ground with thermoplastic rubber granules, while, in slalom, both artificial grounds produced higher horizontal peak accelerations compared to the natural ground. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for athletic performance and injury risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 42 32%
Engineering 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 43 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sports Sciences
#2,834
of 4,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,893
of 286,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sports Sciences
#23
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.