This page contains technical papers and educational documents that have been developed in response to frequently asked questions. Explore this page if you are looking for independent technical and educational documents regarding sports surfacing. We routinely post articles and blog posts on Facebook and LinkedIn. We maintain up-to-date versions of all of those posts here on our website. Downloading information directly from ASET will ensure you have the latest version.
Thousands of students interact with sport and play surfaces during the life of the surface. Each student or athlete participates on the surface several times during their life. A surface can easily have more than 500,000 chances to protect a child or athlete during its lifespan. Properly performing surfaces also provide liability protection to communities and owners. Losing a key athlete to a preventable injury can also have significant revenue implications on a sports program or business.
This paper was developed for hardwood sport floors, but it applies equally to indoor sport floors and dance surfaces. Today’s specifications address performance in the lab but do little to ensure that the specified performance is delivered to the athlete. In fact NONE of the last 18 new courts tested provided all of the specified safety and performance levels. This document contains some new ideas about specifying the actual performance of a sport/play/dance surface.
More and more schools are considering Synthetic Turf fields. This document is intended to help schools understand the benefits and limitations of a synthetic turf field. It provides some general answers on the life expectancy, and replacement/testing/maintenance costs, as well as reviews some new turf designs and introduces some new tests that are entering the market to more fully capture a field’s safety and performance properties.
Preventing head injuries is a growing trend in sports and recreation venues. ASET is now testing protective pads, mats and landing pits to verify that they provide proper safety to the athletes and users that they protect. Our Gmax and HIC testing have helped companies develop safer wall pads, wrestling mats, trampoline centers, and extreme sport obstacle courses.
ASET has developed the equipment necessary to perform a variety of laboratory and field tests on running tracks. Our equipment enables us to perform many ASTM standardized tests as well as all of the onsite tests required by the IAAF. Field testing can help schools ensure that their new installation performs and protects as specified. Field testing can also provide schools with quantitative assessments of the condition of their track, which enables them to make smarter decisions about when and if to replace the surface.
Most projects specify the Gmax and HIC requirements for the surface. Many projects simply use the limits established within ASTM F1292. These specifications often provide a false sense of security or safety because too few realize that the limits within F1292 were established to prevent fatalities and permanent disabilities, not injuries. Additionally, allowing new surfaces to have values close to the limits does not take into account that many surfaces harden over time, and thus the surface may quickly fail to comply with F1292. This article provides background on playground testing, and it provides examples from two projects where ASET provided on-site testing. It can serve as a starting point for architects and owners to develop their own versions of these specifications.
Educational White Papers
There are more options than ever to specify the performance of a new indoor sports surface. We have been asked numerous times to explain the similarities and differences in the standards that are most commonly used in North America. This paper outlines numerous standards used to evaluate area elastic (wood) sports surfaces and provides a comparison table of the main standards used in North America.
This article explores the new repeatability and reproducibility information presented within ASTM F2569. It provides examples for comparing results using this information and suggestions for how reproducibility limits should be considered in project specification and field testing.
This article summarizes the performance criteria of the new EN 14904 standard. Many of the performance criteria from DIN 18032-2 have been included in this standard, so most will find that it is very easy to migrate from DIN to EN.
This article introduces the concept of placing similar performance systems into types or categories. This concept may prove especially useful for owners and architects wishing to select sports-specific flooring, and it also allows performance to be included in projects where budgets previously did not support the selection of a ‘DIN Certified’ product.
This article summarizes the performance criteria from the DIN standard 18032 part II. A description of the criteria and the calculations involved is included.
This article provides a summary of the requirements of both the DIN 18032 Part II (1991) standard and the DIN 18032 Part II (2001) pre-standard. This article also explains the difference between the standard and the pre-standard as well as the reasons for the development of the pre-standard.
This article explains why ASET Services suggests that systems be retested 7 years within the North American market. Reasons range from changes in the definitions of grading rules to changes to the components of items used within the sports surface system. Changes in the raw materials of wood based systems and in the formulations of various components of synthetic materials may result in changes in performance. Rigorous in-situ testing programs in Europe make such re-testing unnecessary as products are continually retested.
This article defines some commonly used performance terminology used within the North America gymnasium and indoor sports surface market. It is intended to allow better communication between purchasers/spec-writers and manufacturers/suppliers by providing technically correct definitions and explanations.
This article explores 10 reasons for differences between the preliminary results used in bid specifications and the actual performance of your installation. This article explains how commissioning your installation, or validating your performance, can help ensure that the finished installation meets your expectations. It provides some example clauses that can be included to compensate for the differences in the actual and preliminary performance levels.
The article outlines the reason why ASET records the stiffness of key components and layers in sport surfaces and products as they are delivered. It introduces why our measurements may be different than the manufacturer and how owners and architects can use that information to help validate that the right system or components have been delivered.
This article contains an introduction to the newly developed ASTM Indoor Court standard, F2772. The methods are briefly explained in this article, while more detailed can be found in above DIN and EN articles. The article also explains the force reduction classes as called out in the standard. Lastly this article provides some commentary on the standard.
This paper outlines the differences between the requirements of the German standard and the realities of the North American sports surface market.
For now the sports surface performance standard best suited to North America appears to be the new European Norm EN 14904. However, it is still ASET Services’ opinion that North America needs a standard of it’s own.
This paper contains performance and thickness data collected off of an 8 year old track that was certified to IAAF Level-2 requirements at the time of installation.
This paper contains performance an thickness data collected off of an 8 year Hardwood court that was promoted and specified as being “DIN-2001-Certified.”
This paper contains force reduction data collected off of an 10 year old heavily used hardwood court that was promoted and specified as being “DIN-1991-Certified”during the project specification process.
Elliott, P. W. 2006. 10 Reasons why your performance may not match performance submittals. Presented at the NIRSA 2006 Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL (0.06 MB)
Elliott, P. W. 2005. Understanding and Applying Standards to Indoor Sport/Play Surfaces. Presented at the NIRSA 2005 Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL (0.8 MB)
Elliott, P. W, 2004. DIN 18032 Basics: What Are These Contraptions?. Presented at the MFMA (Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association) 2004 Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. (File Size 726 kB)
Continental Divide (400kBfrom ASET Website) or (3.4MB from Athletic Business Website) Appeared in the July 2004 issue of Athletic Business Magazine. This is an article which explores the application of international sports surface standards in the North American market. ASET Services’ President, Paul Elliott, was one of the reference sources used in the article. This article is posted with permission of Athletic Business© Magazine. If you choose the version from Athletic Business, you will be required to complete the free website registration form before you can view the article archive.