See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227645433

Testing shock absorbing materials: The application of viscoelastic linear

model

Article  in  Sports Engineering · February 2002

DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-2687.2002.00085.x

CITATIONS READS

16 1,490

3 authors:

Juan Vicente Durá Gil Ana Cruz García Belenguer

Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia
44 PUBLICATIONS   193 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   279 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jose Solaz
Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia
33 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

API-ecosystem for cross-sectorial exchange of 3D personal data (BODYPASS) View project

Development of new technologies for the flexible and eco-efficient production of customized healthy clothing, footwear and orthotics for consumers with highly
individualised needs. (FASHIONABLE) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Solaz on 01 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Testing shock absorbing materials: the application
of viscoelastic linear model
J. V. DuraÂ, A. C. GarcõÂa and J. Solaz
Grupo de BiomecaÂnica Deportiva, Instituto de BiomecaÂnica de Valencia (IBV), (46980) Paterna, Valencia, Spain

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to show a test method which measures the possibility of
using the viscoelastic linear model in shock absorbing materials and its advantages
regarding to actual standard tests. Applying the viscoelastic linear model and frequency
analysis it is possible to study the behaviour of the dynamic rigidity and loss tangent as
function of the frequency. The practical case described in the paper shows how it is
possible to obtain the same results with the standard test used by IAAF (International
Amateur Athletic Federation) and european standards for measuring shock absorption
with materials which have different loss tangent and different dynamic rigidity.

Keywords: shock absorption, standard tests, viscoelastic linear model

The material tests that appear in literature can

Introduction
Viscoelastic materials are used extensively in sports
shoes and sports surfaces. The use of these mate-
rials as a means for preventing degenerative joint
diseases is based on the attenuation of shock waves,
which move along the human locomotion system
while running or jumping.
It has been shown that the elements usually
damaged by degenerative changes (meniscus,
intervertebral disk) are generally referred to as
natural shock absorbers, and one of their functions
is to attenuate the incoming shock waves travelling
towards the skull. Viscoelastic materials are used as
arti®cial shock absorbers and several studies have
shown that viscoelastic materials reduce the
amplitude of the incoming shock waves bearing
upon the musculoskeletal system because of the
heel strike (Schwellnus et al. (1990), Voloshin et al.
(1981)).
Correspondence address:
Juan V. DuraÂ, Instituto de BiomecaÂnica de Valencia (IBV),
Parque Tecnolgico de Valencia, Avda. Juan de la Cierva, n°24,
Apartado de Correos 199, (46980) Paterna Valencia Tel.:
96 136 60 32, Fax: 96 136 60 33. E-mail: jvdura@ibv.upv.es
be divided into those which measure some pa-
rameters, such as force, acceleration, or deforma-
tion as a result of a drop test, and those which
study the stress-strain relation characteristics of
these materials. These tests have some shortcom-
ings. One of them is forces, accelerations, and
deformations measured during the impact can
depend on the dropping mass, the dropping
height, and the area of contact against the surface
(Nigg (1990)). In most of the tests, only the peak
magnitudes are considered, which also have the
disadvantage of lost information, which can be
useful for understanding the cushioning abilities
of materials. The tests, which determine the
stress-strain characteristics of the materials, are
in most cases done with load histories usually
slower than those occurring in real situations.
Because of the viscoelastic nature of the materials,
their dynamic rigidity can increase with frequency.
This means that if this parameter is studied with
loads of lower frequencies than the real ones, a
material can seem soft when it is really hard under
real conditions.
In the case of sports surfaces one of the most
extended standard tests is a drop test which tries to

Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd · Sports Engineering (2002) 5, 9±14 9

Testing materials with viscoelastic linear model · J. V. Dura et al.
simulate the frequency contents, which appears in
the impacts that athletes usually produce when the
heel strikes against the surface. This test uses the
`arti®cial athlete' and uses the maximum force as
the parameter, which de®nes a good or bad surface
(Dura et al. (1999)). The arti®cial athlete has been
proposed by the CEN/TC 217 Sports Surfaces for
the future European standard and has been adopted
by the IAAF to approve athletic tracks for interna-
tional competitions. But the maximum force
parameter does not explain all the properties of
the materials (Dura et al. (1999)) and in some cases
the athletes have a good opinion even if the track
does not accomplish the IAAF requirements: 35%
of force reduction (Dura (2000)).
In this paper it is shown that it is possible to
obtain the same result using the standard test
de®ned in the IAAF manual combining different
properties of the viscoelastic materials. Two
parameters are of main interest in the study of
materials intended for cushioning: rigidity and
energy-absorbing capacity. These parameters are
not necessarily correlated. For example, a quite soft
material can be very elastic (not absorbing) and, in
contrast, a quite rigid material can be viscoelastic
(energy absorbing).
The linear model is easier to handle mathemat-
ically and for this reason it is often used in ®nite
element analysis (FEA). Then, it is also important
to have test methods to check the applicability of
viscoelastic linear model in FEA. It is usual to ®nd
papers which apply this model without previous
checking, and the test method proposed in this
paper could be a possibility to decide if it is possible
to apply FEA for simulating or not.
In viscoelastic materials, energy absorption and
rigidity depend on frequency. High frequencies are
associated with rapid impacts, which are considered
the most harmful to the musculoskeletal system
(Radin EL et al. (1991), Radin EL et al. (1985)).
Then, if the rigidity and the shock-absorbing
characteristics are analysed as a function of fre-
quency, it is possible to know which frequencies are
preferably absorbed. In the case of the musculo-
skeletal system, as the response time is about 30
10
milliseconds (Nigg (1983)), then high frequency
could be considered around 25±30 Hz or more.
Methods
Information on the dynamic rigidity and shock-
absorbing characteristics of a material can be
obtained from its complex impedance using the
viscoelastic linear model and the Fourier analysis
(Tschoegl (1989)).
Assuming a material has linear behaviour, its
complex impedance (G) is de®ned as the stress (r)
to strain (e) ratio.
r
G…x† ˆ …1†
e
Considering a harmonic stress excitation of fre-
quency equal to x, let the stress ratio be given by:
r…x† ˆ r0 sin…xt† …2†
Then, the steady-state strain is:
e…x† ˆ e0 sin…xt ÿ d…x†† …3†
with d(x) as the phase shift angle. In complex
presentation,
r0
G…x† ˆ …x†e jd…x† ˆ G1 ‡ jG2
e0
r0
ˆ …x†‰cos d…x† ‡ j sin d…x†Š …4†
e0
Where the real part is related to the stored energy
in each cycle and the imaginary part is related to
the lost energy in each cycle. The ratio of imag-
inary part to real part (tand) is equal to the rate of
lost energy to the stored energy in one cycle and is
usually called `loss tangent'. The loss tangent is
then a parameter which expresses the energy
absorption capacity of a material in the sense of
energy not transmitted to the body.
The module (jGj ˆ r0 =e0 …x†) of the complex
impedance gives the dynamic rigidity of the
material.
As any given time-dependent signal can be
expressed as a linear superposition of in®nite
harmonic signals by means of Fourier transforma-
tion, the complex impedance can be obtained as the
Sports Engineering (2002) 5, 9±14 · Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

transfer function at each frequency de®ned as the
ratio of load and displacement at that frequency.
Assume that G is linear, time invariant system,
then the Power Spectral Density function of e (Pee)
is related to the Cross Spectral Density function of
e and r (Per) as
Per …x† ˆ G…x†Pee …
The magnitude-squared coherence between e and
r, or Coherence Function, is
jPer …x†j2
Cer …x† ˆ …
Pee …x†Prr …x†
This quotient is a real number between 0 and
1, which measures the correlation between e and
r at the frequency x. If this quotient were not
near to 1, the linear supposition could not be
assumed. The linear viscoelastic model is easier
to handle mathematically and for this reason is
implemented in most ®nite element analysis
software packages. Baraud et al. (1999) have
shown that the application on viscoelastic lineal
behaviour in ®nite element analysis (FEA) could
be a good technique for designing sports surfaces
with shock absorbing properties tuned to athletes
necessities. One of the shortcomings for applying
FEA with viscoelastic materials is to check the
linear behaviour. Then, the Coherence Function
gives us a manner to measure the linearity of
viscoelastic materials.
Based on in this theoretical model a test has been
developed by the Institute of Biomechanics of
Valencia (Garcia et al. (1994)) which consists in
eight consecutive impacts over the samples of
material. The impacts are described in Fig. 1:
The principal characteristics of the impact are:
Preload: 300 N.
Maximum load: 500 N.
Impact slope: 10 N/ms. This means 20 ms to
achieve maximum load.
The preload, load and impact slope parameters
have been de®ned in order to:
Permit a controlled force test with a dynamic
testing machine.
Have a frequency content over 35Hz.
Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd · Sports Engineering (2002) 5, 9±14
J. V. Dura et al. · Testing materials with viscoelastic linear model
5†
Figure 1 Test load history.
The material tests have been done using an
6† Instron (model 8501) dynamic testing machine
controlled by a computer. Analogic electric output
signals of the load and displacement transducers
were obtained. These signals were used as input
signals for a Rockland cross-channel spectrum
analyser (model 5802B) to obtain the load and
displacement spectrums and the transfer function
as a function of frequency. Mean values of the eight
consecutive impacts are considered for each meas-
ure in each test sample. Three samples are tested
for one material. The sample size is 100 ´ 100 mm.
The impact area has a size similar to a heel, a circle
of 50 mm diameter.
The frequencies of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 35Hz are
analysed separately in order to know the materials
behaviour at different frequencies. Then 6-values
of the rigidity and loss tangent are obtained. The
general behaviour of the materials is analysed using
the mean value of the rigidity and loss tangent. The
means are calculated from 18 values (6 frequen-
cies ´ 3 samples).
Three different materials used in sport surfaces
have been tested following the test described above
and with the `arti®cial athlete' following the
method described in the IAAF manual:
Material A: PVC 6 mm thickness.
Material B: Synthetic rubber 13 mm thickness.
Material C: Synthetic rubber 6.5 mm thickness.
The method described in the IAAF manual consists
of measuring the maximum impact force with the
`arti®cial athlete' over the sports surface and
calculating the force reduction percentage in com-
parison to a very rigid surface, such as concrete
(Dura et al. (1999)).
11
Testing materials with viscoelastic linear model · J. V. Dura et al.

reduction. Then it is logical that material B has the

Results
highest loss tangent. But only the different loss
The results obtained with the standard test des- tangents could not explain the differences in force
cribed in the IAAF (Force Reduction parameter) reduction parameter, because the materials A and C
manual are in Table 1. are very similar according to force reduction and
The materials A and C are practically the same different according to loss tangent.
according to the Force Reduction parameter. This
means that A and C will be considered at the same
level following the rules established by the IAAF
and the European standards. Material B is more
shock absorbent and will pass the limits established
by IAAF: minimum 35%.
In the following, the results obtained from the
transfer function are shown. The Coherence Func-
tion value has been greater than 0.99 in all cases
and frequencies until 35Hz. This means that the
use of viscoelastic linear model is possible.
Table 2 and Fig. 2 show the mean dynamic
rigidity for all samples and frequencies.
A is clearly the most rigid material. B is the less
Figure 2 The mean dynamic rigidity for three surfaces using all
rigid, C a little more rigid than B. Low dynamic frequencies. The errors shown are standard errors calculated
rigidities will produce high force reduction. Then using analysis of variance.
it is logical that material B has the lowest rigidity.
But only the different rigidities could not explain Table 3 Mean loss tangent results
the differences in force reduction parameter,
because the materials A and C are very similar Material Loss tangent STD error
according to force reduction and quite different A 0.73 0.04
according to rigidity. B 1.04 0.04
C 0.50 0.04
Table 3 and Fig. 3 show the mean loss tangent
for all samples and frequencies.
B has the highest loss tangent. A has a medium
loss tangent value and C has the lowest loss
tangent. High loss tangent will produce high force

Table 1 Force reduction results

Material Force reduction

A: PVC 6mm thickness 19%
B: Synthetic rubber 13 mm thickness 37%
C: Synthetic rubber 6.5 mm thickness 20%

Table 2 Mean dynamic rigidity results

Material Rigidity (kN/M) STD Error

A 69 010 2037 Figure 3 The mean loss tangent for three surfaces using all
B 1 346 2037 frequencies. The errors shown are standard errors calculated
C 5 741 2037
using analysis of variance.

12 Sports Engineering (2002) 5, 9±14 · Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd


Figure 4 The dynamic rigidity versus frequency for three
surfaces.
Figure 5 The loss tangent versus frequency for three surfaces.
Then it is necessary to combine the two prop-
erties, loss tangent and dynamic rigidity, in order to
explain the complete material behaviour.
B has the best shock absorption behaviour
because it combines the two shock absorbing
properties: lower dynamic rigidity and higher loss
tangent. This is related with the higher force
reduction parameter of 37%.
A and C have similar force reduction parameter
(around 20%) but they use a different mechanism.
A uses high loss tangent and C uses low dynamic
rigidity. This different behaviour could have effects
depending on the intended use of the materials. For
example, when thinking on sports uses higher loss
Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd · Sports Engineering (2002) 5, 9±14
J. V. Dura et al. · Testing materials with viscoelastic linear model
tangent could reduce performance because the
surface returns less energy to the athlete.
Figure 4 shows the evolution of dynamic rigidity
as a function of frequency for each material.
It could be theorized that materials with low
rigidities and high loss tangent at high frequencies
will be better for sport uses, because they reduce
the effect of high frequencies, which are considered
the most harmful (Radin EL et al. (1991) Radin EL
et al. (1985)). Using this theory, A shows clearly the
worst behaviour because dynamic rigidity increases
faster with frequency.
Figure 5 shows the evolution of loss tangent as a
function of frequency for each material. In this
case, it is dif®cult to obtain a clear conclusion if the
tendencies with frequency are compared. The
conclusion is similar to the one obtained with
the mean loss tangent. The most shock absorbent
material is B, even in high frequencies. A is below
and C is the worst, if loss tangent only is consid-
ered.
Conclusions
The frequency analysis methodology allows us to
obtain additional information to the one obtained
with the force reduction parameter used in the
IAAF manual and european standards. The fre-
quency analysis allows us to distinguish between
two strategies for shock absorption: high loss
tangent and low dynamic rigidity.
In this manner it is possible to compare materials
although their force reduction parameter is the
same. For example this happens with materials A
and C. And, perhaps, to produce products intended
for different uses: walking or standing with com-
fort, running or jumping with good protection and
performance, etc.
The Coherence Function gives an index that
measures the linearity of viscoelastic materials in
function of the frequency. This methodology of
testing materials could be used for testing the
viscoelastic linear behaviour and checking the
shortcomings of ®nite element analysis.
The load history should be adapted in function
of the test necessities in order to simulate the forces
13
 Testing materials with viscoelastic linear model · J. V. Dura et al.
that appear in real conditions. The possibilities of
simulating real loads will depend on the dynamic
testing machine characteristics. One of the short-
comings of these testing machines is the necessity
of preload for test control, because the preload
limits the range of deformation and could intro-
duce residual stress which could change the mate-
rials properties. New testing machines with
improved dynamic control may reduce preload
and improve the test.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish Intermin-
istry Commission for Science and Technology
(Reference Number SAF94-0518) and MONDO
S.P.A.
References
Baraud, G., Nigg, B.M. & Stefanyshyn, D. (1999) Energy
storage and return in sport surfaces. Sports Engineering,
3(2), 173±180.
DuraÂ, J.V. (2000) Opinion study: application of IAAF rules
in the Valencia region. International association for Sports
Surfaces Sciences YEAR 2000 FORUM. Schaffhausen.
DuraÂ, J.V., Hoyos, J.V., Lozano, L. & MartõÂnez, A. (1999)
The effect of shock absorbing sports surfaces in jumping.
Sports Engineering, 2(2), 103±108.
14
View publication stats
Garcia, A.C., DuraÂ, J.V., Ramiro, J., et al. (1994) Dynamic
Study of Insole Materials Simulating Real Loads. Foot &
Ankle International, 15(6), 311±323.
IAAF (1995) Track and ®eld facilities manual. (eds C.
Tollemar, M. Gee, A. Guy, F. Roskam, P.A. Rottenburg),
International Amateur Athletics Federation, Monaco.
Nigg, B.M. (1983) External force measurements with sport
shoes and playing surfaces. In: Biomechanical aspects of sport
shoes and playing surfaces, (eds B.M. Nigg, B.A. Kerr), pp.
11±23. University of Calgary, Canada.
Nigg, B.M. (1990) The validity and relevance of the tests
used for the assessment of sports surfaces. Medical Science
Sports Exercise 22(1), 131±139.
Radin, E.L., Martin, R.B., Burr, D.B., et al. (1985)
Mechanical Factors in¯uencing cartilage damage. In:
Osteoarthritis: Current Clinical and Fundamental Prob-
lems, (ed. JG Peyron), pp. 90±99. CIBA-Geigy, Paris,
France.
Radin, E.L., Yang, K.H., Riegger, C., et al. (1991) Rela-
tionship between lower limb dynamics and knee joint
pain. Journal of Orthopaedic Residence, 9(3), 398±405.
Schwellnus, M.P., Jordaan, G. & Noakes, T. (1990)
Prevention of common overuse injuries by the use of
shock absorbing insoles. A prospective study. American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 18(6), 636±641.
Tschoegl, N.W. (1989) The Phenomenological Theory of
Linear Viscoelastic Behaviour. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Voloshin, A. & Wosk, J. (1981) In¯uence of arti®cial shock
absorbers on human gait. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research, 160, 52±56.
Sports Engineering (2002) 5, 9±14 · Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd