MTC TURF NEWS – Arthur Eddy, ASLA, LEED AP

As a synthetic turf maintenance provider, we see a lot of synthetic turf fields. We have been monitoring fields to try and get an understanding of why the same field in different locations has two vastly different life cycles. We happened to maintain two turfs designed and installed by the same exact parties, had the same exact turf system produced by the same manufacturer but had dramatically different results.

The systems were a pretty standard 2.5″ monofilament with sand/rubber infill. Both fields were relatively old at 11-years-old. Field ‘A’, had limited fiber breakdown, consistent infill depth of 41mm and averaged around 125 GMax. Field ‘B’, had an increased fiber breakdown, consistent infill depth of 28mm and average around 135 GMax. If you utilized the standard of care of 165 GMax by the ASTM F355 method, the GMax was mid-range and not driving a major concern. Both fields had a fairly limited maintenance schedule.

The major difference between the two fields was infill depth and the breakdown of fiber in Field ‘B’. We investigated to find out why there was a dramatic difference in wear on the field even though these two fields were generally the same. It was evident that there were two major differences:

1. Field ‘A’ was locked when not in use.
   
2. Field ‘B’ had athletic field lights.
   

The impact of the field lighting on Field ‘B’ was:

* increased hours of use

* increased use due to constant field accessibility related to no locked gates

Seeing that maintenance practices were limited on Field ‘B’, the wear and breakdown of fiber on Field ‘B’ was increasing exponentially. In a good rainstorm, fiber on Field ‘B’ was piling up along the sidelines.

Does this mean that if a field is used extensively, the length of life will decrease? While heavy use does impact a surface and can limit the life of a surface, like anything, the increased use requires more attention and frequency. Field ‘B’ could have easily been more in line with Field ‘A’ had the infill been lifted and decompacted on a regular basis. Added infill to those high use areas and proper levelling would have reduced the increased wear of the fiber.

One thing that was apparent in this comparison on both fields was that the primary United States standard of testing for GMax was not indicative of the major problems occurring on the field. Field ‘B’ had a compacted infill from high use and less infill which would require us to look beyond GMax. We also knew that the maintenance practice (we were going to decompact the field) could potentially have a negative impact on GMax. So why decompact? When we looked beyond GMax, we could see a larger problem. We reviewed vertical deformation; the field was well below the 6mm-11mm range. This means that the surface was firm and as a maintenance practice we had to get into the rubber and lift that rubber to break it up. Additionally, the rotation resistance on the field was well below the 25 Nm – 50 Nm range.

The moral of the story of the Tale of Two Turfs is that maintenance is critical and the practice of maintenance should reflect the amount of use your field receives. Tracking hours of use can help to formulate an appropriate program for ensuring the field is receiving the most appropriate maintenance practices. Unlike natural grass, once the fiber of synthetic turf breaks down, there are a limited number of ways to bring it back and most are impactful on performance of the field. Lastly, as a sports turf manager who is managing a synthetic turf field, exploration beyond the GMax test is essential to ensure that the field is safe and performing to its optimal value.

Arthur Eddy is CEO of RePlay Maintenance in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. Connect with Art at aeddy@replaymaintenanceusa.com or (877) 641-1819.

The post Maryland Turfgrass Council – A Tale of Two Turfs appeared first on The Turf Zone.