SportsTurf provides current, practical and technical content on issues relevant to sports turf managers, including facilities managers. Most readers are athletic field managers from the professional level through parks and recreation, universities.
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/60100
ating how the field was constructed—including its base and drainage systems and the turf product used—then completing an on-site field evaluation which would include a review of the type and number of events held on the field. This evaluation can be rela- tively straight forward and simple to complete. Our experience has shown that the assessment should include the following test criteria: • The planarity of the field and observed surface imperfections. • G-max/HIC test data during the lifespan of the field. • Seam and inlay integrity of the turf product, including at all transitions from turf to the adjacent surfaces. • The quality of any past turf repairs. • The level and quality of the existing infill materials compared to the initial installation and design specifications. • General visual condition of the turf, including fiber evaluation (i.e., are fibers showing complete splitting, "hair splitting" or frac- turing?) • Average length of fiber loss to date due to wear and tear. Field traffic, grooming or other action may affect the fibers over a period of time. Compare the current measured pile heights versus pile height when the product was new. The projected length of fiber re- maining at the end of the warranty period is based on a projection of the average annual wear. • Drainage issues: Identify known or observed signs of drainage issues such as areas that pond or that are known be slow in draining after a rain event. Staff with knowledge of the field should be inter- viewed to understand the history of the field's drainage efficiency. • Field permeability. • Environmental testing of turf materials. We recommend that the warranty for the turf product be re- viewed to see if it is still in effect and, if so, what level of coverage may currently exist. An analysis of the recommended care of that turf company's product should be compared to the level of on- going maintenance, including equipment used and frequency of those maintenance practices. It is important to understand what steps the owner is taking in maintaining the field, and if those steps are positively or adversely affecting the quality of the current condi- tion of the turf. For most turf fields we have evaluated, turf managers are con- cerned that the typically have is that there are issues with the field surface that are not necessarily due to the physical makeup of the turf product: the fiber, infill, or backing material. Rather, some of the field's inlays may be coming apart; there may be a hole in the turf due to wear issues and insufficient turf care or proactive repair; or the field's base may not be draining properly or may have settled. In our experience, base issues and turf installation quality are typically the primary factors for a turf field to be considered in a poor state, not the product itself. This is not to say that the field's fibers may not be matted down, frayed, split or fractured, and that www.stma.org SportsTurf 23