Structural components of artificial turf football pitches have been improved in the last decade. The aim of this study was to explore the influence of structural components on the in situ mechanical behaviour of third-generation artificial turf football pitches. In total, 21 pitches were analysed according to the specified FIFA procedures. The results revealed that each of the pitches complies with the requirements of FIFA regulations. Pile length sample, stabilising bulk density, tuft/m2 and sub-base material all demonstrated a significant influence on the mechanical properties of the surface (p < 0.05). Finally, the selected structural parameters explained 77.9%, 59.8% and 54.3% of variance in rotational traction, vertical deformation and force reduction, respectively. These results show the importance of the selection of the structural components in the design of artificial turf football pitches.
FullerCWDickRWCorletteJ, et al. Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football players. Part 1: match injuries. Br J Sport Med2007; 41: 20–26.
2.
PárragaJASánchezA.Estudio comparativo sobre los costes de mantenimiento y rentabilidad económica, social y deportiva entre campos de fútbol con pavimentos de césped natural artificial en el ámbito Universitario. Rev Mot2002; 8: 21–46.
3.
MeyersMC.Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of game-related college football injuries on FieldTurf versus natural grass. Am J Sports Med2010; 20(10): 1–11.
4.
MeyersMBarnhillB. Incidence, causes, and severity of high school football injuries on FieldTurf vs. natural grass: a 5-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med2004; 32(7): 1626–1638.
5.
BurilloPGallardoLFelipeJL, et al. Mechanical assessment of artificial turf football pitches: the consequences of no quality certification. Sci Res Essays2012; 7(28): 2457–2465.
6.
BurilloPGallardoLFelipeJL, et al. Artificial turf surfaces: perception of safety, sporting feature, satisfaction and preference of football users. Eur J Sport Sci2014; 14(1): S437–S447.
7.
BurilloPFelipeJLGallardoA, et al. El césped artificial. La revolución del pavimento en el fútbol. Valencia: Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia, 2010.
8.
HughesMGBirdseyLMeyersR, et al. Effects of playing surface on physiological responses and performance variables in a controlled football simulation. J Sports Sci2013; 31(8): 878–886.
9.
NédélecMMcCallACarlingC, et al. Physical performance and subjective ratings after a soccer-specific exercise simulation: comparison of natural grass versus artificial turf. J Sports Sci2013; 31(5): 529–536.
10.
LawtonG.Pitch battle over artificial grass. New Sci2005; 2502: 35–37.
11.
ZanettiEM.Amateur football game on artificial turf: players’ perceptions. Appl Ergon2009; 40(3): 485–490.
12.
ZanettiEMBignardiCFranceschiniG, et al. Amateur football pitches: mechanical properties of the natural ground and of different artificial turf infills and their biomechanical implications. J Sports Sci2013; 31(7): 767–778.
13.
SevernKAFlemingPRClarkeJD, et al. Science of synthetic turf surfaces: investigating traction behavior. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2011; 225: 147–158.
14.
JamesITMcLeodAJ.The effect of maintenance on the performance of sand-filled synthetic turf surfaces. Sports Technol2010; 3(1): 43–51.
15.
Sánchez-SánchezJFelipeJLBurilloP, et al. Effect of the structural components of support on the loss of mechanical properties of football fields of artificial turf. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2014; 228(3): 155–164.
16.
EkstrandJTimpkaTHägglundM.Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study. Br J Sport Med2006; 40(12): 975–980.
17.
SteffenKAndersenTEBahrR.Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in young female football players. Br J Sport Med2007; 1: 1–6.
18.
PotthastWVerhelstRHughesM, et al. Football-specific evaluation of player-surface interaction on different football turf system. Sports Technol2010; 3(1): 5–12.
19.
FelipeJLGallardoLBurilloP, et al. Artificial turf football fields: a qualitative vision for professional players and coaches. S Afr J Res Sport Ph2013; 35(2): 105–120.
20.
DelaneyJ.Guidance notes on the construction, maintenance and performance of artificial turf pitches. Dublin: Football Association of Ireland, 2009.
21.
AllgeuerTTorresEBensasonS, et al. Study of shockpads as energy absorption layer in artificial turf surfaces. Sports Technol2008; 1(1): 29–33.
22.
KieftGJ. Quality monitoring of 50 artificial turf football fields. In: Proceedings of SportSURF seminar on maintaining performance of synthetic surfaces, Loughborough, Loughborough University, 4 March 2009.
23.
McLarenNFlemingPForresterS.Artificial grass: a conceptual model for degradation in performance. Proc Eng2012; 34: 831–836.
24.
AlcántaraEGámezJRosaD, et al. Analysis of the influence of rubber infill morphology on the mechanical performance of artificial turf surfaces for soccer. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2009; 223(1): 1–9.
25.
FlemingP.Artificial turf systems for sport surfaces: current knowledge and research needs. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2011; 225(2): 43–63.
VillwockMRMeyerEGPowellJW, et al. Football playing surface and shoe design affect rotational traction. Am J Sports Med2009; 37(3): 518–525.
28.
VillwockMRMeyerEGPowellJW, et al. The effects of various infills, fibre structures, and shoe designs on generating rotational traction on an artificial surface. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology2009; 223(1): 11–19.
29.
NaunheimRParrottHStandevenJA.Comparison of artificial turf. J Trauma2004; 57(6): 1311–1314.
WebbCForresterSFlemingP.Rotational traction behaviour of artificial turf. Proc Eng2014; 72: 853–858.
32.
ShortenMRHudsonBHimmelsbachJA. Shoe-surface traction of conventional and in-filled synthetic turf football surfaces. In: MilburnP (ed.) Proceedings of XIX international congress of biomechanics: 1–6Dunedin, New Zealand. International Society of Biomechanics, Pennsylvania2003.
33.
LivesayGARedaDRNaumanEA.Peak torque and rotational stiffness developed at the shoe-surface interface. Am J Sports Med2006; 34: 415–422.
