Michael Mick Peterson PhD

1

• Michael Mick Peterson PhD
• University of Maine
• C. Wayne McIlwraith DVM, PhD
• Colorado State University

2
Recommendations of The Welfare and Safety of
the Racehorse Summit Keeneland Sales Pavilion
Lexington, Kentucky March 17-18,
2008
RECOMMENDATION 1 TRACK SURFACES Primary
Objective Promote consistent and safe track
surfaces conditions
3
What is Needed?

• Clearinghouse for surfaces data
• Reliable consistent testing
• Risk assessment data
• Sharing of methods
• Understand regional needs
• Create a culture of data

4
Practice Not Research

• Track Materials Synthetic Natural
• Non-linear More loadthe harder
• Strain rate dependent
• Synthetic creep
• Dirt shows dynamic softening
• Not easy or standard tests

5
Consistent Track Composition

• Consistent test methods
• New methods when needed
• Database of results for research
• Open to all usersNon-proprietary methods
• A Single Reliable Lab for the Industry

6
Measurement MethodsDirt Composition

• Many tests for dirt established
• Need comparative data
• Not repeatable between labs
• Clay mineralogy (X-Ray Diffraction)
• Fiber weight percentage

7
ImplementationX-Ray Diff. (XRD)

• Clay mineralogy
• East Coast vs. California
• No clay in most east coast tracks

8
Measurement MethodsSynthetic
Composition

• Wax composition
• Temperature sensitivity

New Funding
9
ImplementationQuality Control of Materials

• Sand Matterseven in synthetic surfaces
• Microscopy
• XRD Mineralogy

10
Implementation Wax DSC
Added wax
High temperature wax used initially
New wax reduces temperature sensitivity at
critical 100-125F
11
Laboratory for Analysis of Track Materials

• A central lab to compare between tracks
• Consistent data
• Current labsagriculture civil engineering
• Data for research
• Link to injury database
• Developing new tests of materials
• Coordinating high cost specialized testing XRD,
  DSC

12
Central Track Surfaces Lab

• Modeled on drug testing labs But this is on
  the ground floor
• National facility Regional duplication only
  if needed
• Initial seed money
• Capital costs
• Initial labor, training and certification
• Continuing funding
• Initial investors, forms part of the board to
  determine research priorities
• Tracks subscribe, standard package
• Pay per test on added materials and as needed

13
Maintenance Matters

• Different tracks do things differently
• Justified reasons
• Weather
• Design
• Usage
• Develop best practices

14
Maintenance Condition Reporting System
Start simple, research leads to expansion The
model start simple On-Track Injury catastrop
hic, then expand Jeff Blea Wayne McIlwraith
other injuries
15
Maintenance Condition Reporting System

• Weather data logging
• Data logger for at standard location
• Temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind, UV
  visible light, evaporation rate and track
  temperatures
• Linked to maintenancereporting database (and
  handicapping?)

16
Performance Testing

• The perfect surface needs to perform in the real
  world
• Temperature
• Moisture
• Maintenance
• Performance of the surface
• Shear strength
• Stiffness

Performance Testing
17
Performance testing

• On-site performance monitoring
• Research must show that the measures relate to
  safety of the horse
• Daily measurement of performance
• Periodic measurement of composition

Do the research and determine which factors pose
a risk
18
Surface has different function during phases of
gait Impact/loading

• Lower vertical modulus reduces strain rate and
  peak loads
• Shear failure reduces horizontal peak
  accelerations

19
Surface has different function Breakover/Propuls
ion

• Shear strength to support hoof during propulsion
• Control hoof rotation during turn

http//www.wyammyranch.com/horses/sangria.jpg
20
Biomechanical Hoof Tester

• Biomechanical Hoof Tester
• Started in 1998, testing in 2004
• Comparison of 26 tracks and 6 Synthetic Tracks
• During breaks (40 min)
• Simultaneously measure shear and hardness

21
SurfacePerformance
Vertical Variability
Shear Variability

• Location on the graphAmount of variability

22
Example What Happens? Rip, Till and then Set a
Racetrack?
Softer More Variable
Slightly Faster
A hard track is not necessarily low shear
23
Simpler Tests
Temperature

• Clegg hammerNo correlation to times at Del Mar
• Temperature was a better (and easier) predictor
• Clegg hammer may work on turf (not harrowed)

Time (sec.)
Clegg
24
Centralize Results for Research

• Central data repository
• Maintenance methods
• Performance testing
• Track composition
• Data can be tied to outcomes
• Learn as methods evolve

25
Funding to get to this Stage

• Initial funding AQHA Racing
• Second year of funding Oak Tree, Del Mar,
  Fairplex, CARF, Santa Anita, Hollywood, TOC
• Funding from Dolly Green, Southern California
  Equine Foundation and Oak Tree
• Pay for services from tracks since 2005
• Current research grant Grayson-Jockey Club
• Need a mechanism to implement the research

26
Laboratory Anticipated Cost and Revenue Model

• Not expected to be self supporting until fourth
  year,
• Depends on number of participating tracks
• Total capital costs 178,500
• Total labor costs (first three years) 205,000
• Capital costs primarily year 1 and 2
• Labor expenses growth through year 3
• After capital costs 20 tracks to support
  operation

27
Track Testing Machine

• Cost of first machine
• Requires additional design engineering
• Primary cost is end user software
• Significant on-site support for initial tests
• First machine, 208,000
• Machine 2 through 5
• Continuing improvement in machine software
• Real time database link
• Significant fabrication savings
• Overall cost 22 lower

28
Database and Monitoring

• Database costs and track personnel costs
• Make use of existing personnel
• IT people with backside experience
• Integrate into existing workflow
• Capital costs modest
• Weather station and wireless system 2600
• Hardware for maintenance system 3000

29
Philosophy

• Need to provide a common set of measures
• Measures based on
• Biomechanics
• Procedures
• Consistent track material
• Support research
• What surfaces are safe?
• When are they unsafe (climate, composition?)
• Provide tools lab support to evaluate materials

30
How to Move Forward

• All track maintain shear without excess hardness
• Multiple answers
• Climate
• Materials

• Basic performance tests consistently performed
• Evaluate the results safety performance!

31
The remaining question
Epidemiology?It only matters is we help horses
and riders
32
New Whip Rules

• Need to quantify effects of changes in rules
• New whips
• Test existing whips for compliance
• Quantitative measures

33
8 Whips in Initial Group
34
Testing of Impact

• Force from a whip depends on
• Compliance, kinematics and kinetics of the
  projectile (whip end)
• Compliance of the target (the horse)
• The impact event
• At least a 5 kHz response
• Peak loads of

35
Approach

• 2-d mechanism to move whip
• Based on simplified kinematics of an arm
• Motion from linear force springs and shock
  cords
• Dynamic load cell with compliant surface
  (Durometer)

36
Dynamic Measurement

• Load cell1 kN with 5 kHz bandwidth
• Amplifier
• Data acquisition
• Resonance higher than impact

37
What will we get?

• Look at
• Peak force
• Impulse time
• Compare whips for impact force
• Quantitative comparison
• Total Cost 4 months, 18,735,

38
Acknowledgements

• Initial support encouragement, Dan Fick AQHA
  Racing
• Continued research funding Grayson Jockey Club
  Research Foundation, Polytrack, Del Mar,
  Keeneland, Santa Anita, CARF, TOC, Fairplex,
  Dolly Green Foundation, Oak Tree Racing
  Association

39
(No Transcript)
40
The Ground Reaction
41
(No Transcript)