DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH SLIP-RESISTANT OUTSOLE USINGHYBRID RUBBER SURFACE PATTERN TO PREVENT SLIPSAND FALLS ON CONTAMINATED FLOORSTakeshi Yamaguchi1, Kenichi Kasuga2, Satoru Ishizawa2 and Kazuo Hokkirigawa1
1

Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, 6-6-01 Aramaki-Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku,Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan
2Kohshin Rubber Co., Ltd, 2-1-11 Kawaramachi, Wakabayashi-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 984-0816,
Japan

The present study examined whether a new footwear outsole with tread blocks andthe hybrid rubber surface pattern increases slip-resistance and reduces the risk of fall
during walking on a liquid-contaminated floor surface. Fourteen adult males
participated in gait trials on a stainless steel floor contaminated with a glycerol
solution. Subjects were asked to walk straight and turn 180° at the end of the floor
to return to the starting position. The frequency of trials with a slip and those with afall were examined, and the slip velocity and slip distance of the slipping foot werecalculated using kinematic data collected from a three-dimensional motion capturesystem. For comparison, commercially available boots used in food factories andrestaurants were also tested. The newly developed footwear reduced the frequencyof slips (p < 0.001), slip distance (p < 0.001), and slip velocity (p < 0.001)
compared to the conventional boots, resulting in a significantly reduced risk of fall.
The results indicate that the rubber outsole with a hybrid rubber surface pattern iseffective in preventing slip-related falls during walking on floors contaminated withwater or oil.

Introduction
Falls are the leading cause of occupational accidents in Japan (Kawajiri, et al., 2001). Slips are themost frequent event leading to falling accidents (Courtney, et al., 2001; Ministry of health, labour
and welfare, 2011). Most slip and fall accidents in a work place occur on liquid-contaminated floor
surfaces (Leclercq, et al., 1995; Manning & Jones, 2001)
A high static coefficient of friction (SCOF) and dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) areneeded at the shoe–floor interface during walking to prevent slip initiation and to stop a slip, if it
occurs. Previous biomechanical studies on the safety limits of SCOF and DCOF (Fong, et al.,2009; Grönqvist, et al., 2003; Nagata, et al., 2009) indicated that SCOF and DCOF values > 0.4
are required at the shoe–floor interface to prevent a slip and fall during level walking.
Surface pattern designs of footwear outsoles, including the tread pattern (macroscopic pattern)
and surface roughness (microscopic pattern), are helpful to drain liquid from the shoe–floor
interface to increase slip resistance, i.e., coefficient of friction (Chang, et al., 2001; Li & Chen,2005). However, the design criteria for a shoe sole pattern with a sufficiently high SCOF andDCOF on contaminated surfaces was unclear.
Yamaguchi et al. (2012) found that a rectangular rubber block with a rough surface has high
SCOF and low DCOF values, whereas a rubber block with a smooth surface has low SCOF and- 241 -high DCOF values on a smooth stainless steel surface contaminated with a glycerol solution. Basedon this finding, they developed a rubber block with a surface pattern of rough and smooth surfaces(hybrid rubber surface pattern, see Figure 1). They demonstrated that the rubber block with therough surface area ratio r, a ratio of the surface area of the rough surface component to that of asingle tread block, of 50% had SCOF and DCOF values > 0.4 on the contaminated surface(Yamaguchi, et al., 2012). These results indicate that the hybrid rubber surface pattern would beapplicable to the surface pattern of a footwear outsole to prevent slips and falls.
In the present study, new footwear sole, using a hybrid rubber surface pattern, was developedand tested to determine its efficacy for increasing slip resistance and reducing the risk of fall due toa slip on a contaminated floor surface. We hypothesized that the developed footwear, using thehybrid rubber surface pattern reduces 1) the risk of slip occurrence, slip distance and slip velocity
when a slip occurs and 2) the risk of fall due to slip during turning on a contaminated surface.

Figure 1. Rubber block with a hybrid surface pattern

Methods
Test footwear

Figure 2 shows the test footwear. Footwear A was a commercially available boot, which isconventionally used in food factories and restaurant kitchens (Figure 2(a): ZONA G3, Kohsin
Rubber Co., Ltd., Sendai, Japan). The comparative footwear had tread blocks with a pearskinfinish surface and a round chamfered edge. Footwear B was a sneaker-type footwear with anoutsole of tread blocks and the hybrid rubber surface pattern (Figure 2(b)). The footwear B wasdeveloped in this study. The ratio of the surface area of the rough surface to that of a single tread
block (rough surface area ratio) was 50% for the outsole with the hybrid rubber surface pattern.
The outsoles of both types of footwear were made from nitrile butadiene rubber (shore hardness:58 (A/15) for footwear A; 45 (A/15) for footwear B).

Subjects

The study included 14 healthy adult males with an average age of 23 years (range: 21–25 years).
Mean ±standard deviation for height and weight of the subjects was 1.74 ± 0.03 m and 61.4 ±4.7 kg, respectively. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of National
Nishitaga Hospital, Japan, and informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to study
initiation.

Experimental procedure

Figure 3(a) shows a schematic representation of the experimental set-up. A stainless steel floor (2m × 1 m × 2 mm), polished with #400 abrasive paper, was mounted on a walkway and covered
with a glycerol solution (glycerin concentration: 70 wt%; viscosity: 19.7 mPa•s). A six-camera
motion measurement system (Vicon 370; Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, UK) recorded threedimensional motion data at a sampling rate of 60 Hz from four infrared-reflective markers
attached bilaterally to the toe and heel parts of the footwear.

- 242 -

Subjects were asked to walk straight and turn 180° at the end of the stainless steel floor, thenreturn to the starting position, as shown in Figure 3(b). They were instructed to walk at a selfselected pace and to do whatever came naturally to prevent a falling. Subjects wore a safety
harness to help balance. Subjects were tested with the two types of footwear in separate sessions.
The order of testing footwear conditions was balanced across subjects. Three replications of thetrial session for the same conditions were conducted (total: six trials for each subject). All trials
were videotaped.
(a)

(b)

Figure 2. Test footwear; (a) Footwear A (outsole with tread blocks and a pearskin-finishsurface); (b) Footwear B (outsole with tread blocks and the hybrid rubber surface pattern)(a)(b) Stainless steel

1m

floor covered withglycerol solution

Infrared cameras(6 frames)
Full-bodysafety harnessz
2mxy
Stainless steel floor
covered with a glycerolsolutionyInfrared reflectivemarkers(on toe and heel)zEndxStart

Figure 3. Schematic representation of (a) the experimental set-up and (b) instructedmovement; 180° turn after walking straight on stainless steel floor

Data Analysis

The frequency of trials in which a fall occurred was examined for each footwear type. We
defined a fall when the subject’s feet were off the floor and when they were completely
suspended by the harness after losing balance due to a slip. Whether subjects fell or not wasidentified based on video data. For trials in which it was difficult to identify a fall from the video
data, vertical coordinates of the heel and toe reflective markers were used to determine whether
both of the subject’s feet were off the floor. When the moving distance of the heel marker during
the stance phase (from heel-contact to toe-off) was > 6.0 mm, which was the mean value of themarker fluctuation, it was identified as a slip.
Slip distance and slip velocity (sliding velocity of the supporting foot) were calculated foreach trial using the position data of the reflective marker attached to the toe part of the footwear,
to examine the severity of slip. The coordinate data for the reflective markers were digitallysmoothened using a two-order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 10 Hz.
The slip distance, D, was calculated by the following formula:
22(1)where, xtoe(m) and ytoe(m) are the coordinates of the toe markers in the x and y directions at slip
initiation, and xtoe(n) and ytoe(n) are the coordinates of the toe markers in the x and y directions atslip termination. The highest value of sliding distance among all slipping steps in each trial wasDxtoe n  xtoe m ytoe n  ytoe m- 243 -used as the maximum slip distance, Dmax, for analysis.
The velocity of the toe marker was calculated using the following formula:22(2)where, i is the frame number. The maximum velocity of the toe marker in each trial was used as
the maximum slip velocity, vmax, for analysis.
The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).
The paired t-test was used to identify differences in the mean frequency of the trials with slip,maximum slip distance, and maximum slip velocity as dependent variables for both types offootwear. A significance level of 0.05 was used for analysis.
vi60 xtoe i  xtoe i  1 ytoe i  ytoe i  1

Results
The mean frequency of trials in which a slip occurred, mean maximum slip distance (Dmax) andslip velocity (vmax) for both types of footwear are summarized in Table 1. The mean frequency oftrials with slip for footwear A and footwear B was 97.6% and 66.7%, respectively. A paired t-test
indicated that these frequency values were significantly different (p < 0.001); therefore, footwear
B reduced the frequency of slip occurrence by 30.9 points compared to footwear A. Such a lower
frequency of slip occurrence with footwear B was achieved possibly because of higher SCOF at
the shoe–floor interface. The statistical analysis indicated that the mean Dmax and vmax values for
footwear B were significantly lower than those for footwear A (p < 0.001). Footwear B reduced
the mean Dmax and vmax values by 97% and 90%, respectively, compared to footwear A.
Particularly, the mean slip distance for footwear B was 9.6 mm, which was almost the same as
the mean value of the marker fluctuation (6.0 mm); therefore, the slip distance for footwear B
was negligibly small. Slip distance and slip velocity are indicators of the risk of fall caused by an
induced slip during walking, and greater slip distance and slip velocity are associated with agreater frequency of falls (Brady, et al., 2000; Cham & Redfern, 2002). Therefore, lower slip
distance and slip velocity do not lead to a fall with footwear B that could be achieved by higher
DCOF at the shoe–floor interface. These results support our first hypothesis.
The mean frequency of trials in which a fall occurred for both types of footwear is presented
in Figure 4. The frequency of fall trials for footwear A and B were 54.8% (23/42) and 0%,
respectively; no subjects fell while testing footwear B. The result supports our second hypothesis.

Discussion
Superior slip-resistance as well as efficacy in reducing the risk of fall with footwear B, which had
the hybrid rubber surface pattern on the tread block of the outsole, was possibly because of high
SCOF and DCOF values of the hybrid rubber surface pattern (Yamaguchi, et al., 2012).
As shown in Figure 5(a), when the tread block with the hybrid rubber surface pattern contacts
a floor surface covered with glycerol solution, the glycerol solution film is drained and removed
because of the high contact pressure by the rough surface asperities, resulting in a direct contact
between the asperities of the rough surface component and the floor surface. Thus, SCOF would
reach a high value, resulting in a low frequency of slips for footwear B.
Even when a slip occurs because of a high traction coefficient caused by gait characteristics
such as large step length (Yamaguchi & Hokkirigawa, 2008; Yamaguchi, et al., 2008), theanterior right edge of the smooth surface component prevents infiltration of the glycerol solution
into the contact interface and deformation of the tread block increases the contact pressure at theanterior part of the block (Besdo, et al., 2010), which allows the smooth surface part to contact
directly with the floor surface (Figure 5(b)). Therefore, DCOF would reach a high value,
resulting in low slip distance and slip velocity for footwear B.
In contrast, footwear A, which has the tread blocks with a pearskin-finish surface, hasrounded surface asperities. Therefore, the contact pressure between the asperities and the floor- 244 -

surface was not high enough to drain the solution film from the contact interface, which resulted
in a low SCOF value at the slip initiation and DCOF during sliding.
Table 1. Frequency of trial with slip and maximum slip distance and velocity [mean (SD)]
Footwear A
Footwear B
p values(conventional)(hybrid pattern)
Frequency of trials with slip, %97.6 (8.91)
66.7 (22.7)<0.001
Maximum slip distance, m
0.32 (0.16)
0.01 (0.01)<0.001
Maximum slip velocity, m/s
1.85 (0.87)
0.18 (0.17)<0.001(a)(b)

Figure 4 Frequency of trials with fall and without fall; (a) footwear A (conventional);(b) footwear B (hybrid surface pattern)
(a)

(b)

Figure 5: Mechanisms of low slip and fall frequency for the outsole with the hybrid rubbersurface pattern; (a) before slipping; (b) during slipping

Conclusions
A new footwear sole, using a hybrid rubber surface pattern, was developed and tested todetermine whether it was efficacious in increasing slip-resistance as well as reducing the risk offall caused by a slip during walking on a contaminated floor surface. The frequency of slips, slip

- 245 -

distance, and slip velocity for the new footwear sole were significantly lower than those for thecomparative footwear, which resulted in no falls during trials. The results of the current study
indicate that the newly developed footwear outsole will contribute to prevent slip and fall
accidents in work places.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Dr. Hiroshi Onodera at National Nishitaga Hospital for his
excellent help in the trials and for his valuable comments and suggestions.

References
Besdo, D., Heimann, B., Klüppel, M., Kröger, M., Wriggers, P. & Nackenhorst, U. (2010).
Elastomere Friction, Theory, Experiment and Simulation, Germany: Springer.
Brady, R.A., Pavol, M.J., Owings, T.M. & Grabiner, M.D. (2000). Foot displacement but not
velocity predicts the outcome of a slip induced in young subjects while walking. Journal of
Biomechanics, 33, 803-808.
Cham, R. & Redfern, M. (2002). Heel contact dynamics during slip events on level and inclined
surfaces. Safety Science, 40, 559-576.
Chang, W.R., Kim, I.J., Manning, D.P. & Bunterngchit, Y. (2001). The role of surface roughness
in the measurement of slipperiness. Ergonomics, 44, 1200-1216.
Courtney, T.K., Sorock, G.S., Manning, D.P., Collins, J.W. & Holbein-Jenny, M.A. (2001).
Occupational slip, trip, and fall-related injuries -can the contribution of slipperiness beisolated? Ergonomics, 44, 1118-1137.
Fong, D.T.P., Hong, Y.J. & Li, X. (2009). Human walks carefully when the ground dynamic
coefficient of friction drops below 0.41. Safety Science, 47, 1429-1433.
Grönqvist, R., Hirvonen, M., Rajamaki, E. & Matz, S. (2003). The validity and reliability of a
portable slip meter for determining floor slipperiness during simulated heel strike. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 35, 211-225.
Leclercq, S., Tisserand, M., Saulnier, H. (1995). Tribological concepts involved in slipping
accidents analysis. Ergonomics, 38, 197-208.
Li, K.W. & Chen, C.J. (2005). Effects of tread groove orientation and width of the footwear pads
on measured friction coefficients. Safety Science, 43, 391-405.
Manning, D.P. & Jones, C. (2001). The effect of roughness, floor polish, water, oil and ice onunderfoot friction: current safety footwear solings are less slip resistant than microcellularpolyurethane. Applied Ergonomics, 32, 185-196.
Nagata, H., Watanabe, H., Inoue, Y. & Kim, I.J. (2009). Fall Risks and Validities of VariousMethods to Measure Frictional Properties of Slippery Floors Covered with Soapsuds. InProceedings of the 17th World Congress on Ergonomics (CD-ROM). Beijing, China.
Kawajiri, Y. Suzuki, Y. & Nagata, H. (2001). Ergonomics studies on analyzing the risk ofaccidental falls in high-rise construction works (Special Research Report No.22). Tokyo:
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan.
Statistics and information department, Minister's Secretariat, Ministry of health, labour andwelfare. (2011). Vital statistics of Japan 2009. Japan: Health and Welfare Statistics
Association.
Yamaguchi, T., Umetsu, T., Ishizuka, Y., Kasuga, K., Ito, T., Ishizawa, S. & Hokkirigawa, K.
(2012). Development of new footwear sole surface pattern for prevention of slip-related falls.
Safety Science, 50, 986-994.
Yamaguchi, T. & Hokkirigawa, K. (2008). ‘Walking-mode maps’ based on slip/non-slip criteria.
Industrial Health, 46, 23-31.
Yamaguchi, T. Hatanaka, S. & Hokkirigawa, K. (2008). Effect of step length and walking speed
on traction coefficient and slip between shoe sole and walkway. Tribology Online, 3, 59-64.

- 246 -