Natural and Reinforced Grass, Experiences Learned and Shared, 2011 PDF

Natural and reinforced grass
Football pitches
---- Quality assessment----
Experiences learned and shared

by
Sportfloor TechnologieS
Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011
page 1/48
INTRODUCTION
What exactly is a natural grass pitch? _____________________________________
STADIA GRASS PITCH QUALITIES

Some questions and answers concerning natural grass football pitches___________
Natural grass types and qualities_________________________________________
Footballistic and technical qualities differences______________________________
Natural grass grown outside of a stadium
harvested in turf farms _____________________________________________ 10
grown in box systems______________________________________________ 13
Reinforced natural grass
reinforced with organic or artificial fibres within the grass roots_______________ 15
reinforced with implanted fibres_______________________________________ 17
reinforced with artificial fibres of a turf carpet____________________________ 19
Typical pitch constructions_______________________________________________ 24

Line markings_________________________________________________________ 28
ADDITIONAL PITCH INSTALLATIONS

Water sprinkler _______________________________________________________ 29
Soil heating __________________________________________________________ 31
Artificial lightening_____________________________________________________ 33
Artificial aeration below the root zone______________________________________ 34
MAINTENANCE__________________________________________________
36
Cost comparison between the three mayor turf systems________________________ 37

Example of detailed yearly maintenance cost________________________________ 38
APPENDIX
Competition regulations_________________________________________________ 41
Extracts of studies and publications of reinforced grass_______________________
42
Detailed footballistic test results__________________________________________ 46

Test template for natural and reinforced grass pitches_________________________ 47
Author
Rolf Hediger
Expert in sport surfaces / floorings; 30 years of experiences
Director of a sport surface installation company; 1980 - 1997
Sport expert, Sportfloor TechnologieS, since 1997
Consultant of UEFA, Fifa, the Italian Football Federation (LND) and EFTG
Initiator of the UEFA test manual and test criteria (2003); todays FIFA Football Turf 2Star criteria
UEFA study comparing natural grass and Football Turf (footballistic qualities compared to injuries)
in European stadia used by professional teams in the Champions League 2006-2008 und during the Euro08
Address
28, Corgeon
CH-1095 Lutry
Switzerland
info@sportfloor.ch
www.sportfloor.ch
Documentation
Publication from the industry, Football Associations and communities
page 2/48
INTRODUCTION
What exactly is a natural grass pitch?
Natural grass is something so common in our lives that we take its very existence, and rampant use, for granted. But
what is grass and why do we spend so much time obsessing over it? Grass is the familiar name given to the family of
plants known as the graminae. The graminae family consists of over 6,000 species, making it one of the largest in life.
Grass, as a family, isn't limited to being something to just play football on. Bamboo rice, corn and oats are part of the
grass plant family and so are the plants that make sugar, liquor, bread, and many other staples of the average kitchen
table. Though it may not seem obvious, even lawn grass contains the building blocks of all plant life: stems, roots,
leaves, and yes, flowers. The flowers are quite obvious in grass plants like corn or even wheat. But in garden grass, you
have to get on your hands and knees to see how the grass functions and reproduces. The secret to grass, if there is one,
is the fact that it all its growing takes place from what is known as the crown: a part of the stem that is at or near the
surface of the ground. Grass is adaptable and relatively easy to garden. You can mow a lawn and as long as the crown
level isn't affected, the grass grows back. Likewise, if you grow grass and slice it from the ground as turf, as long as the
crown remains intact, the roots underneath can be sliced through below their tips. Grass reproduces by the seeding
process, but also by stems that emanate from the crown. Stems that grow above the surface are called stolons. Stems
below the surface are called rhizomes.
STADIA PITCH QUALITIES

Some questions and answers concerning natural grass football pitches
What do the Football Associations require concerning the different types and qualities of grass used in its
competitions?
There are no regulation and recommendations whatsoever concerning the grass types and qualities used for
football and so far no studies have been published by Football Federations.
What does the football player wish / request of a grass pitch?
A soft, not too deep surface.
A full / dense and humid grass cover.
An optical nice looking green surface.
What does the spectators like?
An optically nice looking green pitch cover.
How many hours of play a natural grass pitch can be used?
A natural grass pitch can, under normal circumstances, be used only a few hours per week, calculated over a
full year between 400 to max. 700 hours, in order to keep a pitch in perfect condition.
What about stadium pitches used for European Championship matches?
In modern stadium, the surfaces can very often not be used as they are covered with:
Artificial lighting to make the grass growing especially in the shades of the arena roofs.
Covers over the entire pitch in order to blow warm air onto the pitch in order to grow the grass during the winter
months.
page 3/48
Natural grass quality

Pitches used for UEFA championship matches during the season 2005 / 2006
Extremes overused pitches
and pitches covered with sicknesses
An average stadia grass density.
compared to an ideal grass density
page 4/48
Perfect root density without too much thatch
Some renowned Greenkeeper of mayor stadium in Europe do think that the ideal composition
of a 100% natural grass pitch should be composed of:
70 90% Lolium Perenne
30 10% Poa pratensis
During the FIFA World Cup 2006 in Germany, two grass solutions have been adopted for all stadia pitches
Type A
70% Festuca arundinacea
10% Lolium perenne
20% Poa protensis
Type A
80% Festuca arundinacea
20% Poa pratensis
Poa pratensis= Kentucky blue grass = Common Meadow Grass = = Smooth stork meadow grass = Pturin
des prs = Wiesenrispe
Lolium perenne = Ray-grass (english) = Perennial Ryegrass = Weidelgrass
Festuca arundinacea = Ftuque leve = Tall fescue = Rohr-Schwingel
Characteristics
Lolium Perenne
Poa pratensis
Fine leaves
Less playing resistance
Good playing resistance

Good resistance against sicknesses
Fast growing
Need more maintenance and fertilisation

Good resistance for a low cut, around 20mm
Slow growing
Note: it seems that poa potencies can cause problems
because of its very strong roots which can lead to high
traction values = possible injuries.
Lolium Perenne
Poa pratensis
page 5/48
This graph show the type and composition of grass used in some of the mayor stadiums
and if any reinforcement is used, which type of reinforcement
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ma
MI
MO
Lolium perenne
Poa supina
Lolium & Poa in unknown proportion
DD GrassMaster
B1
B2
Poa pratensis
Kentucky Blue
Limonta Sport
Fibreturf
It is estimated that an excellent football pitch has about 25000 to 40000 grass leafs per m2,
which means an average of 300 Million grasses leafs per football pitch!
A comparison: Golf Greens contain about 100000 to 200000 leafs par m2
page 6/48
Maybe some stupid questions

Many football pitches in mayor stadium are reinforced with all types of artificial fibres systems or grow natural grass
within artificial turfs.
Are Football pitches with implanted artificial fibres or similar systems assimilated to natural grass?
At which moment a football pitch is no longer considered natural?
Is it when the numbers of artificial fibres per m2 are 10%, 20% or above 50% of a pitch?
Mix of natural grass and artificial fibres (National Stadium, San Marino)
Answer
At the moment, 2010, the Football Associations (FIFA and UEFA) do not take this evolution into account.
They are considering that a pitch which has any kind and number of natural grass within the playing surface is to be
considered as natural grass. No any kinds of approvals or tests are required as with artificial pitches.
page 7/48
Artificial help to reinforce and grow the natural grass

To strengthen the natural grass, in some stadia grass pitches, the grass root zone is reinforced with artificial or
organic fibres. Additional equipment is also installed in order to keep the grass growth as soil heating and aeration
systems below the root zone and above the turf as well as artificial lighting.
Implanted artificial fibres and artificial lighting (London, Emirate Stadium)
Artificial aeration below and above the pitch
page 8/48
Footballistic and technical quality differences

Footballistic and technical tests have been by UEFA made on European stadia with natural and
reinforced grass pitches used for UEFA championship matches during the seasons 2006 to 2008 as
well as during the EURO08.
The stadia pitches have been tested by 5 different FIFA accredited test laboratories and the tested
pitches are
97 Football Turf
29 natural grass
6 reinforced natural grass

During the same period the number and type of injuries where recorded by Prof. Ekstrand, a member
of the UEFA Medical committee, and a correlation between the footballistic pitch results and the injury study
data has been made.
Some test apparatus
Ball roll, Rotational resistance and Shock absorption / Energy restitution / V-deformation
Results
Until today, UEFA has not published the test report, therefore no detailed comments can be
made.
In general, the pitch results show significant technical and footballistic quality differences between the
tested pitches. Due to the technical and footballistic characteristics, the natural grass pitches have to
be divided into two groups; on one hand pitches with natural grass (pure top soil) and on the other
hand natural grass including different systems of root reinforcements.
Ball roll distance
Test results on different football pitches in mayor European stadia
40
35
Lenth of the ball roll in m compared to the grass height in mm

mm
minimum
maximum
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Arsenal
Barcelona
Eindhoven
Eindhoven
Malta
Moscow
Milan
Porto
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
september
september
Locomotif
Contrary
to general belieff ebruary
(coaches
and ground keepers),
the grass density
(grass cover) defines the ball speed and not the height of the grass!
Arsenal april
page 9/48
NATURAL GRASS GROWN OUTSIDE OF STADIA

Natural grass harvested in turf farms
Harvesting in rolls from 0.30m to 2.20m width and 15 to 35mm thickness
Installation during the EURO08 in Basel
page 10/48
Installation for the European Champions final in Moscow (Luzhniki) 2008
page 11/48
Covering the artificial turf with a natural grass pitch for the EURO08
Experiences during the EURO08 in Bern Wankdorf (Switzerland) and Salzburg (Austria)
After the EURO08, removal of the natural grass

Construction scheme for the EURO 08 in Bern and Salzburg
page 12/48
Natural grass grown in box systems
Preparation and filling the modules with sand
Levelling the height ready to plant the grass
The modules are ready for the installation in the stadium
page 13/48
The installation in the stadium
page 14/48
REINFORCED NATURAL GRASS

Grass reinforced with organic or artificial fibres within the grass roots
The marked overall improvement in football pitches probably really started in the late 70s and early 80s, with the
introduction of sand - dominant root zones.
However as an infrastructure with 100% sand is unstable, various fibre reinforcement techniques in sanddominant root zones represented a significant step forward in tackling the basic lack of stability inherent in such
root zones.
Two such techniques firstly, the Fibreturf system of random fibre orientation developed in the USA in order to use
a stadium for concerts and other non sportive events and secondly, the DESSO GrassMaster system of stitched
fibre.
This type of pitches are now relatively commonplace and are to be found in many top-class pitches and also on
the numerous training and academy pitches of the top tier clubs.
However, sand-dominant root zones by their very nature produce harder surfaces than soil root zones; fibrereinforced sand-dominant root zones even more so. The development of maintenance techniques, particularly
Verti-draining and other forms of solid-tine aeration, has been very important, therefore, in enabling the grounds
staff to exercise control over the somewhat conflicting requirements of hardness v stability.
The majeure problems of all this type of pitches

are felt and thatch!
page 15/48
Fibrelastic, a product of Fibresand UK

Fibrelastic pitches are both more player friendly and more grounds man friendly than existing fibre reinforced
sand dominant pitches and, as such, represent a further step forward in root zone technology for natural turf
pitches. This particular grass root reinforcement lessens the surface hardness, reducing the risk of player injury,
and improves both the surface resilience and traction.
A typical Fibrelastic Root zone (FERZ) would comprise 80% by volume sand and 20% by volume organic matter
reinforced with both Polypropylene and Elastane fibres. The reinforced root zone is totally premixed at our
modern production facility and delivered to site in bulk tipper vehicles.
A typical Football or Rugby pitch of 7,500 m2 would require 1,200 tonnes of FERZ to form the upper root zone at
a depth of 100mm. The importance of this procedure makes it essential for the Fibrelastic pitch to be laid by a
qualified and specialist sports turf contractor.
Fibrelastic is different to other fibre reinforced sand dominant pitches such as Desso GrassMaster and XtraGrass.
These rely on synthetic grass fibres as the root zone stabiliser.
The aim has been achieved by mixing silica sand, organic matter, rigid polypropylene fibres and flexible elastane
fibres to produce a completely homogeneous blend which is termed a Fibrelastic Root zone (FERZ).
The fully pre-mixed blend is then supplied to site for the sports field contractor to lay typically as a 100mm thick
upper root zone followed by surface preparation, fertilisation and seeding in order to produce the final natural turf
finish.
This elastication of the pitch provides a much more player-friendly surface, with less jarring of the limbs and a
lower risk of injury. It is also less prone to surface disturbance, giving ball players a better grip.
Its easier to look after than most current pitches because its just as hard wearing but doesnt get as many divots.
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
In order to keep making progress and particularly in order to address the hardness v stability situation, Fibresand
UK in 2007, after a two year research programme at the STRI, introduced a new dual fibre reinforced root zone
termed Fibrelastic.
The Fibrelastic rootzone system should ensure a firmer more resilient playing surface and comprises silica sand,
organic matter, rigid polypropylene fibres and flexible elastane fibres, which produce an elastication of the pitch.
As a result, the surface should be less tiring and more player friendly, with injuries to knees, ankles and lower
backs less likely to occur. It also should make the surface less prone to disturbance, giving players a better grip.
The aim of the product was threefold: Firstly, a reduction in surface hardness = less jarring of limbs and lower risk
of player injury. Secondly, an increase in surface resilience = more energy feedback to players feet, therefore, a
less tiring surface. Thirdly, a further increase in root zone cohesion = increased traction, therefore, les surface
disturbance.
The overall result of these three factors is a surface which has all the attributes of a typical fibre-reinforced sand
dominant surface but which feels considerably softer and more akin to a soil based pitch in good condition.
For more details, refer to Appendix: extracts of studies and publications concerning Turfgrids, Fibersoil and similar products
page 16/48
Grass reinforced with implanted artificial fibres

GrassMaster, a product of Desso
page 17/48
1. The leaf blades reside above the tops of the synthetic tufts creating a fully natural grass surface. If the turf
canopy is worn away, the sand based filled synthetic matrix continues to provide a consistent, sure-footed
playing field.
2. The grass roots become entwined in the matrix of synthetic tufts and, unimpeded, grow downward through
the plastic mesh and into the foundation material below.
3. The predominantly sand fill layer is selected to be compatible with our sites foundation material,
minimizing the potential for layering and assuring high water infiltration rates through the turf.
4. The tough plastic mesh immediately below the vertical fibres acts as the anchor for the components above
it and provides additional horizontal subsurface load bearing capacity. Depth around 20cm every 2x2cm
and above the ground between 15-20mm.
This means a reinforced Grass Master Football pitch contains approximately
20 Million synthetic fibers

together with
300 Millions of natural grass fibers
page 18/48
Natural grass reinforced with artificial fibres of a turf carpet

XtraGrass, a product of Greenfields
XtraGrass is a grass reinforcement system natural grass grows through a specially woven synthetic turf fabric.
1. The presence of the XtraGrass reinforcement, with or without polystyrene amendment in the root zone, does
not significantly affect plant development.
2. The addition of polystyrene amendments to the root zone of the XtraGrass system significantly reduces
hardness of the surface, resulting in values well within the acceptable range for football.
3. Ball rebound resilience followed a similar pattern to hardness, with all values within the acceptable range.
4. All trials with XtraGrass reinforcement had significantly higher traction values than the un-reinforced natural
grass reference trials. The advantage of using XtraGrass reinforcement is evident in that even under high
intensity wear it still has better traction than un-reinforced natural turf subjected to moderate wear.
5. Infiltration rates for all treatments XtraGrass were very good.
6. Furthermore no hydrological barriers are being created for drainage and irrigation water to be obstructed to
move to lower levels of the playing field.
7. The results for hardness, ball rebound and traction from the XtraGrass reinforcement are comparable with
measurements made by STRI on professional natural turf football pitches during studies in 2000-2005.
Installation
XtraGrass will be supplied to site in 1,4m wide rolls or alternatively pre-manufactured into rolls of 4,2m width.
Each roll or section of rolls will be laid on the prepared root zone surface ensuring the level and evenness of the
root zone will remain within the required specification. The joints will be sewn together using a hand operated
sewing machine with cotton thread. After the rolls have been sewn together the carpet is stretched over the pitch
surface, the root zone mix topdressing will be applied via a special topdressing unit either tractor mounted or
stand alone. The root zone mix will be dried for this purpose. The infill rate is set for 10-15mm of material at each
application, followed by a tractor mounted brush in order to lift the XtraGrass fibres. The total infill rate of 4550mm will be achieved after 3-4 applications. Once the final level and surface evenness has been achieved the
XtraGrass fibres will stand up and show for a minimum of 80%. A pre-seeding fertilizer application will be added
to the root zone prior to seeding.
page 19/48
The pitch will be seeded using a Brillion type of seeder ensuring the integrity of the XtraGrass system will not
be damaged. The type of grass seed and application rates as well as seeding depth is depending on the climate
conditions at the project location and will be specified during the initial site meetings.
After seeding the pitch will be rolled with a light land roll to cover and fix the seed in the top of the root zone
protecting it from washing out or animal damage. Regular watering will commence after seeding in order to
encourage the germination of the grass. Once the grass has germinated and the plants reach a length of 50mm,
the initial cut will be made using a pedestrian rotary mower. A detailed maintenance program will be prescribed to
ensure swift settlement of the grass within the XtraGrass system.
Advantages
The stability of the pitch is enhanced substantially by combining the strengths of synthetic and natural turf
Increased hours of use on natural turf: up to 1000 hours of playing time can be achieved with the correct
maintenance program
Can be grown as big roll, 40-50mm thick, and cut turf.
The open structure avoids compaction, which can be enhanced by additions in the lower root zone
XtraGrass allows traditional turf management practices to be carried out
The increased strength of the sward and stability of the pitch, pitches can be used for different sports, such as
rugby and soccer
Excellent playability in poor weather conditions due to excellent stability and water permeability
The synthetic turf fibres have a green natural grass-like appearance and protect root zone and grass plants
Level and smooth surface
Easy to exchange (parts of) the pitch with new XtraGrass turf.
PITCH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA - STRI TESTS
page 20/48
Green Live, a product of Limonta

Green Live is a grass reinforcement system where natural grass grows within a special organic infill material and
artificial fibres.
page 21/48
Base: Volcanic gravel

Artificial grass: Limonta Diamond 60mm
Infill: Organic performance Infill Pro-Geo
Seeding: Lolium perenne and Poa pratensis
Usage: 5-6houres a day, summer and winter
Maintenance
Clipping ( mowing: 2-3 x per week in the growing season
Fertilisation every 2 months
Harrowing, brushing and removal of the thatch 2 x a month
Over seeding: executed the traditional way
No maintenance work for:
Top dressing, coring, sodding, verti-cutting, addition of sand, aeration
Preventive weed control: no weeds do grow in this type of pitch
Pest control: no preventive treatments (only of any symptoms manifest / are visible)
Watering
5-6mm water per day
Spring 2 x per week
Summer 3 x per week
Autumn 1 x per week
Winter nothing
page 22/48
Installation in the National stadium of San Marino
page 23/48
SOME EXAMPLES OF PITCH CONSTRUCTIONS

Constructions in Germany; according to DIN 18 035/4
Ray grass
Top soil mixed with volcanic gravel, 5cm; or
Top soil & sand 50/50 15cm (coarse sand 30%, fine sand 15%, chalk 1.5%, argil less than 5%, organic material
min.3.5%, azotes min. 0.1%, potassium 0.025 and 0.05%, PH 5 to 8)
Crushed rock 10 20cm
Drainages on top every 120cm, depth 35cm, with 5cm with round gravel min. 5cm all around
Drainage below every 6 to 12m, diam. 60-80mm, depth min. 30cm, slope min.03%
Bottom of the excavation, slope 0.5 - 1%
Stade de Gerland in Lyon, France
50% ray grass and 50% poa pratensis

Prefabricated turf
Supporting layer: 160mm volcanic soil (pouzzolane - scoria carboniferous)
Gravel layer: 10/20 of 15mm
Gravel layer: 20/40 of 40cm
Drainages: every 6 to 10m, diam. 80 to 100mm
Bottom of the excavation, slope 0.5 - 1%
Stade de Genve, Switzerland
50% ray grass and 50% poa pratensis

Prefabricated turf
Support: 150mm volcanic soil (pouzzolane 0/6 - scoria carboniferous)
Layer of pouzzolane 15cm
Gravel layer, 30cm
Drainages
Bottom of the excavation
page 24/48
Example of cross sections

System with drainages
System without drainages (water permeable bottom of excavation)
Example: Stade de Genve
page 25/48
Construction experiences outside of Europe

Example from Asia
Construction parameter
River gravel as foundation
Standard drainage system
5cm not washed see sand
Grass cover with 50% Princess and 50% Sydney couch (20/20kg/m2)
The field and its surrounding with a grass cover without any treatment.
Comparison of two infrastructure composition on the same pitch. Sydney couch grass and treated invader
grass (yellow colour). Bigger invaders have to be removed by hand-picking.
A pitch with excellent deep growing roots and a mixture of Sydney and Princess Grass
page 26/48
A pitch with Sydney blue couch

Comparison: irrigated pitch and non irrigated and treated spectator area
Base with purely natural top soil
and enhanced with sand
Example from South-Africa

S
S
South African sports fields contain warm-season grass types, usually Kikuyu (Durbans Moses Mabhida stadium is
the only match venue containing a warm-season grass called Cynoden) as Kikuyu grass doesnt perform well in the
salty environment of Durban because it is inexpensive and drought tolerant.
The FIFA however demanded that all World Cup matches must be played on cool season Ryegrass, because it is
aesthetically more pleasing in colour for the television-screen. This is possible, because the World Cup is being
played during the South African winter, when the Kikuyu goes dormant.
TTTherefore, all 72 playing fields (fields containing Rye grass spread all over the country are dedicated to the World
Cup) assigned for the World Cup 2010 were recently renovated with fraise mowing to remove the top of the Kikuyu
plants leaving only the roots. These roots are very important as they serve as a reinforcement of the turf and create a
base for the roots of the Ryegrass to hold on to.
The pitches were then aerated using a Verti-Drain, cracking the soil with solid tines and thus creating ideal growing
conditions for the new seed which was sown using a Speed-Seed.
This seeder creates close on 1900 holes per m2 with random dispersal of seed to leave no drill lines.
TTThe procedure was finished off with the surface receiving a thin layer of sand from, for example, a Rink brush
spreader. This ensured the seed was allowed the maximum soil contact for optimum germination. This is followed by
very heavy irrigation, between 100.000-150.000 litters per field per day, so that the thirsty Ryegrass could grow and
develop quickly. (Information from STRI)
page 27/48
Line markings
Visible displacement of the pitch playing lines to avoid overuse of the grass
Note:
The security zone for UEFA is minimum 3m, however this depend national regulation.
In addition, it is recommended to add a stabilised 3m surrounding between the security zone and the spectators.
Elements such as filed markings goalpost etc, have to be according to the laws of the game and the local competition regulation.
page 28/48
ADDITIONAL PITCH INSTALLATIONS

Water sprinkler
Water sprinkler installed at the edge of the pitch
This type of sprinklers should not be installed in the middle of the pitch, as they can endanger the
players.
page 29/48
If irrigation systems are installed within the pitch, they must be small enough as not to affect and
endanger the players.
Multiple irrigation system used in San Marino for a reinforced natural grass pitch
page 30/48
Soil heating
Samples of soil heating systems (with water or with electricity)
page 31/48
Example
page 32/48
Artificial lightening
Arsenal, Emirate Stadium
Quote Paul Burgess, Greenkeeper of Arsenal

In order that the system is useful it needs 9 units for a half pitch, which cost approx. 1 Mio. SFr, with
running cost per year of SFr.180000.- . During the winter months, the lighting is used every day / 24h
during 6 months (except on match day).
Result: the grass cover will never be below 90% (if the additional daily maintenance is done).
page 33/48
Artificial aeration below the root zone

SubAir system
The SubAir system applies a vacuum within the subsoil drainage pipe network to increase the rate at which water
is moved from the surface and through the soil profile. The management of subsoil moisture also helps with
temperature moderation in the entire soil profile.
SubAir also applies pressure to force air from the subsoil pipes through the soil profile. This patented technology
creates air movement that provides aeration while moderating temperature in the root zone.
The SubAir aeration and moisture removal system promotes healthier, stronger playing surfaces through moisture
content management, subsurface aeration, and root zone temperature control. As a result, SubAir provides
optimum aerobic subsurface growing conditions.
SubAirs team of agronomists and engineers has developed a complete system to accelerate moisture removal
and increase gas exchange. The SubAir Sport system helps provide an optimal growing environment for any
playing surface increasing playability and producing a more enjoyable experience for players and spectators.
Through the use of the AirWave monitoring and control system, SubAir Sport is automated based on data
received from the field.
A SubAir Elite vault, housing the blower that provides both vacuum and pressure mode, is connected to the piping
network. A Distributed Separator is connected to the greens drainage network. This patented assembly
separates the air from the water so that the air flows to the SubAir vault and the water drains to the outfall. A Dual
Valve is used on the end of each outfall to create an air lock. This directs the air through the soil profile so it does
not escape through an open ended pipe.
page 34/48
OSMO-DRAIN System
The system for the
Aeration
Ventilation
Watering
Drainage
of Football pitches can be installed into an existing pitch par a special cut machine. On the edge of the pitch every 25cm
a cut is made with a width of 16mm. During the same work action, a tube is laid without mixing the different subsoil
stratus. The only visible part of the work will be outside of the playing surface for the access tubes.
Aeration and ventilation
Air can be compressed pushed through the tubes into the sub-soil. Each sector of the pitch can be treated individual.
Within one hour the full pitch can be treated. On the contrary it is possible to make an aspiration of ambient oxygen from
the top of the pitch into the sub-soil.
Watering and drainage
Depend the amount of rainfall or the size of the shade covering, the water quality can be adjusted for each sector
individually and gradually.
Access pipes..
and installation of the tubes
Existing pitch with a new installation
page 35/48
MAINTENANCE
Example by Redexim
A pitch being over seeded with the
Speed Seed, a machine which is
producing nearly 2000 holes per m2
for the seed to drop in. Immediately
behind the Speed Seed, the soil was
penetrated vertically by hollow coring
tines installed on the Verti-Drain
Mustang.
Thus, the soil and the seed were
brought to the surface of the field.
This was followed by a drag mat,
which pulled the seed and soil
mixture into the millions of holes
ensuring a maximum germination
A pitch being over seeded with the

Speed Seed, a machine which is
producing nearly 2000 holes per m2 for
the seed to drop in. Immediately behind
the Speed Seed, the soil was
penetrated vertically by hollow coring
tines installed on the Verti-Drain
Mustang.
Verti-Drain model hollow cores the

stadium pitch 300mm deep in order to
establish a perfectly draining
subsurface, before the new grass cover
was brought on.
After the installation of a new grass

cover of approximately 3 cm thick,
it was then immediately followed by a
treatment with the Verti-Drain
Mustang with thin solid tines, in order
to establish quickly the contact of the
new grass cover with the
underground.
A top dresser spreads the sand
between the grass blades, 2 weeks
before the first game.
page 36/48
MAINTENANCE COST
Cost comparison between the three mayor turf systems
Natural grass
Reinforced natural grass (example : GreenLive)
Football Turf (artificial turf)
GRASS TYPE
Maximal hours of usage per year
natural grass
Reinforced
natural grass
Football Turf
500 - 700
700 - 1000
1800
Pitch size: 105 m x 68 m plus 3m security

Cleaning
2 hours per week
7500.00
7500.00
Decompaction
7'900.00
Line marking
9'600.00
9'600.00
Mowing
17'200.00
17'200.00
Rolling
3'800.00
Irrigation
3'600.00
12'000.00
12'000.00
Fertilisation
4'700.00
4'700.00
Treatments
1'600.00
1'600.00
Slitting
2'500.00
Verti-cutting
6'500.00
Replacements
4'300.00
Dressing
3'000.00
Emptying the sprinkler system during the winter
5'000.00
400.00
400.00
Harrowing
4'500.00
Over seeding
2'500.00
5'000.00
400.00
Replacement or removal of granules
2'500.00
Brushing
4'500.00
Divers (fuel and power)
2'500.00
2'500.00
2'500.00
83'500.00
62'500.00
26'000.00
COST PER ONE HOUR OF PLAY
140.00
75.00
15.00
PITCH CONSTRUCTION COST

DURING 10 YEARS
RENOVATION COST
DURING 20 YEARS
600000.00
1'700'000.00
1'500'000.00
225.-
265.-
95.-
100'000.-
300'000.-
600'000.-
190.-
190.-
70.-
TOTAL COST
page 37/48
Example of a detailed yearly report from a community in the Geneva area

Usage in hours of a football pitch during one year
Janvier
Fvrier
Mars
Avril
Mai
Juin
Juillet
Aot
Septembre
Octobre
Novembre
Dcembre
Total
Entretien
Electricit / lumire terrain / an:
32 KW x 52 sem. X 5,6 h
MO / Nettoyage du terrain par an : 2 heures par semaine
MO / Elimination des dchets :
1 heure par semaine
MO / Nettoyage des vestiaires :
2-4 vestiaires
1. Dcompactage
2. Marquage
3.Tonte
4. Dbroussaillage clture
5. Roulage terrain
6. Arrosage
7. Engrais
8. Traitements terrain
9. Traitements cltures
10. Fendeuse
11. Carottage sur-semi
12. Placage
13. Sous-sablage
14. Mise en eau / hors gel
15. Divers travaux d'entretien
TOTAL entretien
TOTAL DES COUTS D'ENTRETIEN ANNUEL
(*) variable : le prix de revient de la MO
Cot par heures (816)
Cot par heures (816) de jeux par jouer (22)
Cot de la construction neuf, dure de vie 30 ans
Cot d'un plaquage aprs 15 ans
Cot d'entretien pendent 30 ans, 27 x 100'000.Cot de l'amortissement, 15 ans 600'000.- & 250'000.Cot total sur une dure de vie de 30 ans
Cot par heures (816)
Cot par heures (816) de jeux par jouer (22)
60 m3/30 tonnes x 28 semaines (*)
Recyclage
estimation faite 500 kg au m3
HOURS
0
51
102
102
102
51
0
51
102
102
102
51
816
9'318.40
104.00
52.00
195.00
0.2175
48.32
48.32
48.32
7'865.55
9'610.24
17'171.52
745.44
3'787.20
11'900.80
4'727.40
1'621.28
877.20
2'524.80
6'417.20
4'212.64
3'000.00
386.56
2'512.64
77'360.47
2'026.75
5'025.28
2'512.64
9'422.40
77'360.47
96'347.54
118.00
5.40
600'000.00
250'000.00
2'700'000.00
600'000.00
4'150'000.00
170.00
7.70
30.00
160.00
4'800.00
page 38/48
Cot de revient dtaill

1. Dcompactage confi une entreprise extrieure
Priode et frquence : de 1 x par an 1 x tous les 2 ans
2. Marquage
Priode
8 mois
Frquence
1 x par semaine
Dure
1 heure
Mo interne
32 heures
Heures machine
32 heures
Matriels
20 kg = CHF 132.-- par semaine
3.Tonte
Priode
Avril octobre = 28 semaines
Frquence
1,5 x par semaine en moyenne
Dure
1 heure
Mo interne
1 h x 1,5 x 28 semaines (tonte)
Heures machine
1 h x 1,5 x 28 semaines (tonte)
Mo interne
0.75 h x 1,5 x 28 sem. (ramassage)
Heures machine
0.75 h x 1,5 x 28 sem. (ramassage)
4. Dbroussaillage clture
Frquence
3 x par anne
Dure
1,5 heure
Mo interne
1,5 x 3
Heures machine
1,5 x 3
Recyclage
compris sous point 3
5. Roulage terrain
Priode
Avril-octobre sans l't = 10 sem.
Frquence
1,5 x par semaine
Dure
1,5 heure
Mo interne
1,5 h x 1,5 x 10 semaines
Heures machine
1,5 h x 1,5 x 10 semaines
6. Arrosage
Priode
Mai septembre = 20 semaines
Frquence
3 arrosages par semaine
Consommation
3 x 86 m3 x 20 semaines
Mo interne
1 h x 3 x 20 semaines
Matriels
Remplacement pices d'arrosage
7. Engrais
Frquence
5 x par anne
Dure
1,5 heure
Mo interne
1,5 h x 5
Heures machine
1,5 h x 5
Matriels
5 x 7 sacs de 25 kg/CHF 99.-8.Traitements terrain
Frquence
2 x par anne pour 6'000 m2
Dure
2 heures
Mo interne
2hx2
Heures machine
2hx2
Matriels
30 litres x 2
9. Traitements cltures
Frquence
2 x par anne pour environ 50 m2
Dure
2,5 heures
Mo interne
2,5 h x 2
Heures machine
2,5 h x 2
Matriels
1 litre x 2
10. Fendeuse
Priode
Fvrier octobre
Frquence
10 x par anne
Dure
1,5 heure
Mo interne
1,5 x 10
Heures machine
1,5 x 10
7'865.55
32.00
32.00
32.00
48.32
120.00
132.00
1'546.24
3'840.00
4'224.00
42.00
42.00
31.50
31.50
48.32
120.00
48.32
120.00
2'029.44
5'040.00
1'522.08
3'780.00
4.50
4.40
48.32
120.00
160.00
217.44
528.00
22.50
22.50
48.32
120.00
1'087.20
2'700.00
5'160.00
60.00
1.26
48.32
6'501.60
2'899.20
2'500.00
7.50
7.50
35.00
48.32
120.00
99.00
362.40
900.00
3'465.00
4.00
4.00
60.00
48.32
120.00
15.80
193.28
480.00
948.00
5.00
5.00
2.00
48.32
120.00
17.80
241.60
600.00
35.60
15.00
15.00
48.32
120.00
724.80
1'800.00
page 39/48
11. Carottage sur-semi

Frquence
2 3 x par anne pour 6'000 m2
CARROTTAGE
Dure
2 heures
Mo interne
2hx3
Heures machine
2hx3
Matriels
0,015 kg x 6'000 m2 x 3
PASSAGE DE LA GRILLE
Dure
0,75 heure
Mo interne
0,75 h x 3
Heures machine
0,75 h x 3
PASSAGE DU ROULEAU
Dure
0,75 heure
Mo interne
0,75 h x 3
Heures machine
0,75 h x 3
EPANDAGE PAILLE
1 X par anne
Dure
4 heures
Mo interne
4hx3
Heures machine
4hx3
Matriels
2 rouleaux CHF 100.-- pice
12. Placage
Pour une surface d'environ 200 m2
Frquence
1 x par anne
Dure
2 jours pour 2 personnes
Mo interne
2 jours x 8 heures x 2 personnes
Heures machine
0,5 jour x 8 heures x 5 personnes
Matriels
13. Sous-sablage confi une entreprise extrieure
Frquence
1 x tous les 2 ans
14. Mise en eau / hors gel
Priode
Printemps - automne
Frquence
2 x par anne
Dure
4 heures
Mo interne
4hx2
15. Divers travaux d'entretien
Priode
Toute l'anne
Frquence
1 x par semaine
Dure
1 heure
Mo interne
1 h x 52
6.00
6.00
270.00
48.32
120.00
9.00
289.92
720.00
2'430.00
2.25
2.25
48.32
120.00
108.72
270.00
2.25
2.25
48.32
120.00
108.72
270.00
12.00
12.00
2.00
48.32
120.00
100.00
579.84
1'440.00
200.00
32.00
20.00
200.00
48.32
48.32
8.50
1'546.24
966.40
1'700.00
3'000.00
8.00
48.32
386.56
52.00
48.32
2'512.64
page 40/48
APPENDIX
UEFA Competition regulations
The UEFA competition regulations are edited new each year and refer to:
Technical Recommendations and Requirements for the Construction or Modernisation of Football Stadium,
and
Regulations of the UEFA Champions League
The regulations require a playing field in perfect playing condition:

absolutely smooth and level
with an efficient watering system
equipped with a underground heating system in cold climates
with a recommended field area of 120m x 80m
with playing dimensions of 105m x 68m
with a natural grass cover or an artificial turf*
Article 7 Playing surface
1
The stadium must be equipped with either a natural playing surface or a Football Turf (artificial turf).
A Football Turf must meet all of the following conditions:

a) it must have been granted the required FIFA licence, which can only be delivered after the turf in question
has been tested by a FIFA-accredited laboratory as meeting the FIFA quality standards for artificial turf;
b) it must meet all the requirements of the national legislation in force;
c) its surface must be green.
UEFA Cup and UEFA Champions League competitions

If the cover is a Football Turf, intended to be used for an UEFA competition, then the pitch has to be certified
according to the FIFA Quality Concept 2 Star system and must show a valid test certificate (validity: maximum 12
months).
UEFA competitions for Under-17, Under-19, Under-21 and women
Type of test certificate depending of the UEFA product manager; minimum according to IATS.
Swiss Competition regulations

The field of play must be absolutely smooth and level.
It must be equipped with a drainage system to eliminate the possibility of its becoming unplayable due to flooding.
It must comply with the following dimensions and requirements
Stadium category
Super league
Challenge league
1st league
Regional leagues
Length
Width
105m
68m
100m
64m
100m
64m
or proportionally maximum 10% less
Additional requirements
Slope
Length: max. 0.5%
Width: max 1%
The stadium must be equipped with either a natural playing surface or a Football Turf (artificial turf).
Stadium category
Super league
Challenge league
1st league
Regional leagues
Football Turf
FIFA 2 Star
min. FIFA 1 Star
min. CEN-EN
page 41/48
Extracts of studies and publications

Turfgrids, Fibersoil
Copyright 2007 Fibersoils. Geofibers, TurfGrids, and Sportgrids
This study was conducted to determine the effect of various types and rates of soil reinforcing materials on soil bulk density, soil water content, surface
hardness, and turfgrass density of a high-sand root zone exposed to three levels of simulated traffic (wear). Six soil reinforcing materials were mixed at
varying rates with a high-sand root zone. These included DuPont Shredded Carpet, Netlon, Nike Lights, Nike Heavies, Turfgrids, and Sportgrass. Three
levels of wear were imposed on each treatment. The types and rates of reinforcing materials had varying effects on surface hardness, bulk density,
water content, and turf density of the root zone. Surface hardness and soil bulk density were correlated during the 2-yr test period (r = 0.63). The
reinforcing treatments that lowered soil bulk density and surface hardness were DuPont Shredded Carpet, Nike Lights, and Nike Heavies. Reinforcing
material treatments that increased or did not affect soil bulk density generally resulted in increased surface hardness compared with nonamended
controls. These treatments included Netlon and Turfgrids. Surface hardness generally became more pronounced as the level of wear increased for
Netlon, Turfgrids, and Sportgrass treatments. The Sportgrass treatment consistently measured lower in soil water content than the control and had a
turfgrass density lower than the control on all rating dates in 1996 but did not differ from the control in 1997. Athletic field managers considering using
reinforcing materials should be aware that the type of material and rate influence athletic field surface hardness.
Table 5. Mean surface hardness, soil bulk density, and soil water content values for treatments across all wear levels.
SOIL REINFORCING MATERIALS have been mixed with high-sand athletic field root zones in an attempt to improve surface stability. Although
some of these materials have demonstrated improved playing surface quality through greater surface stability, there is evidence that certain reinforcing
materials increase soil bulk density and surface hardness (Baker, 1997). Surfaces that are hard can be dangerous to athletes (Rogers and Waddington,
1990). Reinforcing materials considered for use in athletic field root zones should provide surface stability benefits without increasing surface hardness
to unacceptable levels.
Baker (1997) reviewed much of the research on synthetic reinforcing materials for turfgrass soils and proposed two broad categories: (i) randomly
oriented fibers, filaments, or mesh elements and (ii) horizontally placed fabrics. Most randomly oriented fiber reinforcing materials studied in turf consist
of relatively short polypropylene fibers. Baker and Richards (1995) incorporated both straight and crimped polypropylene fibers (36 mm in length and
113 m in diameter) into sandy soils at rates up to 7.5 g kg-1. At the 4.0 g kg-1 rate they reported increased surface hardness on two of the 11 rating
dates. When the rate was increased to 7.5 g kg-1, significant increases in surface hardness were reported on eight of the 11 rating dates. During dry
conditions at the end of the study, the fiber reinforcing materials made the surface harder than the range the researchers considered acceptable for
player/surface impact. Mesh elements were first evaluated as a soil reinforcing material by researchers attempting to increase the strength of sand for
engineering applications such as support beneath building footings (Mercer et al., 1984; McGown et al., 1985). Mercer et al. (1984) stated that to
optimize soil strength, the size and shape of the filaments comprising mesh elements must be related to the size of soil particles in which they are
placed. In order not to weaken the soil, the addition of mesh elements must not significantly decrease soil bulk density (Mercer et al., 1984). Mercer et
al. (1984) found that at mesh contents up to 5.5 g kg-1, the bulk density of the mixture was the same or greater than the sand alone. Turfgrass scientists
have evaluated mesh elements, similar to those described by Mercer et al. (1984), as reinforcing materials for athletic field root zones. Under simulated
soccer-type wear, Baker (1997) reported no significant effect of mesh elements on the retention of grass cover, ball rebound, or surface hardness. In a
study without simulated wear treatments, Beard and Sifers (1993) found an increase in soil water content and a small decrease in surface hardness
values with increasing concentrations of mesh elements. In another mesh element study using a method different from Beard and Sifers (1993) to
assess surface hardness, Canaway (1994) reported a general increase in surface hardness as the rate of mesh elements in sand increased.
Richards (1994) conducted a laboratory study in which mesh elements were mixed with sand and compacted in 100-mm diam. cylinders. The results
indicated reduced soil bulk density and increased total porosity of the mixture with increasing rates of mesh elements. These results are not consistent
with the civil engineering work of Mercer et al. (1984) where the mesh elements either slightly increased or had no effect on soil bulk density. Another
type of reinforcing material that has been amended into turfgrass soils is shredded carpet. McNitt and Landschoot (2001b) mixed shredded carpet
fibers into a sand-based modular turf system and found a reduction in divot size and surface hardness. Shredded carpet is the shredded remains of
predominately nylon carpet fragments that include both pile and backing. The yarn-like fibers range in length from 20 to 610 mm. Although shredded
carpet has not been widely studied in turf systems, some engineering research has shown that increasing rates of continuous yarn up to 1 m in length
increased soil strength significantly more than an equal weight of shorter yarn (Leflaive, 1982). Whereas the strength imparted by shorter fibers is due
to friction between individual soil particles and the fibers, Leflaive (1982) explained that continuous yarn increases soil strength by coiling tightly around
groups of soil particles. In addition, the random looping and crossover of yarn fibers results in a tightening of slack sections as further soil loading
occurs, thus increasing reinforcement. The conflicting soil bulk density results obtained by civil engineers and turfgrass researchers for mesh element
reinforcing materials and the varying results obtained for surface hardness of reinforced sand indicate that additional research is needed on the effects
of soil reinforcing materials in high-sand athletic field root zones. Also, shredded carpet should be evaluated as an amendment in high-sand root zones
to determine its effect on surface hardness, soil bulk density, and soil water content under different levels of wear. The objective of this study was to
evaluate the effects of varying rates and types of soil reinforcing materials on the surface hardness, soil bulk density, and soil water content of a sand
root zone after wear is applied.
Descriptions of Reinforcing Materials

Randomly Oriented Fibers, Filaments, or Mesh Elements
DuPont Shredded Carpet. DuPont Shredded Carpet was obtained from DuPont Nylon (Chestnut Run Plaza, Wilmington, DE) and is the shredded
remains of carpet fragments that include both pile and backing. The shredded carpet is not commercially available, but is a component of a sand-based
modular turfgrass system called GrassTiles (Hummer Sports Turf, Lancaster, PA). DuPont Shredded Carpet is 70% nylon, 12.2% calcium carbonate,
10.7% latex, and 7.1% polypropylene on a weight basis (V.J. Kumar, 1998, personal communication). On the basis of 100 randomly selected carpet
fibers, the average length was 135 mm, and the range was 20 to 610 mm. Fifteen carpet fibers were randomly selected and measured for width. The
width of a carpet fiber averaged 2.4 mm and ranged from 0.5 mm to 4 mm. The compressed and uncompressed density of a mass of shredded carpet
was measured using a 1000-mL cylinder. The uncompressed density was determined by measuring the dry weight of shredded carpet required to
loosely fill a 1000-mL cylinder. The compressed density was measured using the same mass of carpet compressed in the 1000-mL cylinder using a 1kg weight. The compressed and uncompressed densities of the shredded carpet were 0.153 and 0.073 g cc-1, respectively.
Netlon. The Netlon discrete mesh elements were supplied by Netlon Ltd. (New Wellington, St. Blackburn, U.K.). The mesh is manufactured from
extruded polypropylene and has a mass per unit area of 52 g m-2. The filament thickness is 0.50 mm (vertical medial diameter) and 0.48 mm (horizontal
medial diameter). The filaments are arranged in a grid, creating rectangular openings that are 6.7 by 7.1 mm. Each element is 100 by 50 mm.
Nike Reuse-A-Shoe Materials. The Nike Reuse-A-Shoe materials are the shredded remains of used athletic shoes. In the shredding process, the
entire shoe is granulated before the components are separated by screening and floating and sinking in water. The Reuse-A-Shoe materials currently
do not have a size specification. Their gradation is a result of passing granulated shoes through a 16-mm screen in the primary granulator and a 19-mm
shaker screen. The materials that make up a shoe vary substantially. Most shoes have uppers, midsoles, and outsoles (Malloch, 1996). The most
prevalent materials in the upper shoe component are nylon, synthetic leather (polyester with polyurethane coating), leather, cotton, polychloroprene
(neoprene sleeves), polyester, polyurethane open cell foam, and cellulose. The midsole contains polyurethane and ethylene vinyl acetate and the
outsole contains styrene butadiene rubber, polybutadiene (synthetic rubber), and natural rubber (Malloch, 1996). Nike supplied two materials from the
Reuse-a-Shoe program for this study: Nike Lights and Nike Heavies. Samples of the materials produced at the Wilsonville, WA, processing site were
taken on 6 Sep. 1996 by technicians working on the project (Malloch, 1996). The Nike materials were analyzed by the technicians for purity, density,
and gradation. The Nike Lights contained 740 g kg-1 uppers, 230 g kg-1 midsole, and 30 g kg-1 outsole. The Nike Heavies contained 150 g kg-1 uppers,
510 g kg-1 midsole, and 340 g kg-1 outsole. The compressed and uncompressed densities of the Reuse-a-Shoe materials were measured to make a
comparison with the Shredded Carpet used in this study. The uncompressed density of each material was determined by weighing loosely placed
samples in a 1000-mL cylinder. A compressed density was measured by applying a 1-kg weight to each material in the 1000-mL cylinder. The
compressed and uncompressed densities of the Nike Lights were 0.107 and 0.053 g cc-1, respectively. The compressed and uncompressed densities
of the Nike Heavies were 0.244 and 0.200 g cc-1, respectively.
page 42/48
Turfgrids. Turfgrids is a commercially available, polypropylene fiber reinforcing material manufactured by Synthetic Industries, Inc. (Chattanooga, TN).
It is 99.4% polypropylene and individual fibers are 38-mm long and 5-mm wide. Each individual fiber is fibrillated to form a net-like structure of finer
fibers (fibrils). When mixed with soil, each fiber expands and the net-like configuration of fine fibers is randomly-oriented throughout the root zone.
Horizontally Placed Fabrics

Sportgrass. Sportgrass is a commercially available product manufactured by Sportgrass, Inc. (McLean, VA). Sportgrass consists of a polypropylene
woven backing with 24 yarn strand ends per 25.4 mm in the lineal direction and 11 yarn strand ends per 25.4 mm in width. Yarn strands are 11 000
denier (1.0 denier is equal to the fineness of a yarn weighing 1.0 g for each 9000 m). The woven backing is tufted with fibrillated polypropylene tufts. In
the lineal direction there are 16 tufts per 102 mm. In width, the tufts are 9.5 mm apart. The pile height is 32 mm. The individual tufts form a net-like
configuration when expanded. A fibrillated tuft is 6700 denier (W. Cook, 1998, personal communication).
Treatment Rates
Treatment rates of reinforcing materials were based on industry recommendations, previous research, and preliminary lab tests. The preliminary
laboratory tests included mixing different rates of reinforcing materials (except Sportgrass) with the sand and peat mixture used in the main field study.
The root zone was mixed on a volume basis using nine parts sand to one part sphagnum peat. Two hundred-millimeter-diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe
was filled 150-mm deep with each mixture and compacted with a Proctor Hammer (American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999). Bulk density,
total porosity, aeration porosity, and capillary porosity were determined for each mixture using a tension table and methods similar to those listed in
American Society for Testing and Materials (1997). Two rates were chosen for Netlon and Turfgrids; 3 and 5 g kg-1. The 3 g kg-1 rate of reinforcements
for the Netlon and Turfgrids were based on standard industry recommendations for sports fields (Netlon Advanced Turf, Blackburn, UK; and Synthetic
Industries, Chattanooga, TN). The 5 g kg-1 rate for both of these products is considered high for sports fields and is primarily recommended for turfgrass
horse racing track installations. Rates exceeding 5 g kg-1 were not used in this study because of the difficulty in maintaining a homogenous blend of
sand root zone and reinforcing material in preliminary studies. Preliminary studies indicated that the DuPont Shredded Carpet could be mixed
effectively at rates up to 30 g kg-1. Nike Lights and Nike Heavies treatments could be mixed at rates higher than 30 g kg-1, but due to a lack of available
material and to make a rate comparison with the DuPont Shredded Carpet 30 g kg-1, the 30 g kg-1 rates were chosen. Since little data exists for the
DuPont Shredded Carpet, four rates were chosen. The rates were 5, 10, 20, and 30 g kg-1.
Plot Construction
Field plots were established at the Joseph Valentine Turfgrass Research Center in University Park, PA, in September of 1995. The plot area consisted
of an underdrained gravel layer, 150-mm deep, overlaid by a 65-mm intermediate layer. A 100-mm layer of the sand and sphagnum root zone mix
that was used during the preliminary testing was installed over the intermediate layer. The mix was donated by the Fertl-Soil Company, Kennett Square,
PA (Table 1). A grid of 3.05- by 3.05-m treatment plots was laid over the level root zone mix. A 300-mm border surrounded each treatment plot. The
experimental design was a split block (blocks split by three levels of wear) with 12 treatments and three blocks. All of the treatments (with the exception
of Sportgrass) were weighed and mixed with the root zone mix using a frontend loader on an asphalt mixing pad. The sand was saturated with water
during mixing. Wooden frames, 3.05 m by 3.05 m by 150 mm high, were placed on each treatment plot and leveled using a transit. After filling the
frames with the mixed root zone treatments and allowing the mixture to drain, the surface was leveled by raking and hand tamping. The Netlon
treatments were filled to within 15 mm of the surface and 15 mm of the unarmended root zone mix was placed on the surface of the Netlon/root zone
mixture as per industry recommendations. For the Sportgrass treatment, frames were installed and filled with the root zone mix to within 25 mm of the
top. The Sportgrass was then cut to fit the frames. Next, small amounts of the root zone mix was applied over the surface and worked into the pile with
brooms. The plots were watered and allowed to dry, then more of the mix was broomed into the pile. This process was repeated until 3 mm of pile
protruded above the settled mix. After the borders were filled with root zone mix, the frames were removed and plots were seeded with SR 4200
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) at the rate of 200 kg ha-1. Nutrients and water were applied as needed to prevent nutritional deficiency and
drought stress. The plot area received five N applications equaling 50 kg N ha-1 during each growing season (AprilOctober). The turf was mowed twice
per week with a reel mower at a height of 38 mm and clippings were not collected in baskets. Wear level treatments were applied with a Brinkman
Traffic Simulator (Cockerham and Brinkman, 1989). The Brinkman Traffic Simulator weighs 410 kg and consists of a frame housing two 1.2-m-long
rollers. Each roller has steel dowels or spriggs (12.7-mm diam. by 12.7-mm length) welded to the outside of the rollers, at an average of 150 dowels m2
. These dowels are the approximate length and width of the cleats on the shoe of an American football lineman at the collegiate level. The Brinkman
Traffic Simulator produces wear, compaction, and turf/soil lateral shear. The drive thrust yielding lateral shear is produced by different sprocket sizes
turning the rollers at unequal speeds. The Brinkman Traffic Simulator was pulled with a model 420 tractor (Steiner Turf Equipment Inc., Dalton, OH)
equipped with a dual turf tire package. Blocks were split with three levels of wear. The wear levels were no-wear, medium-wear (three passes with the
Brinkman Traffic Simulator three times per week), and high-wear (five passes three times per week). According to Cockerham and Brinkman (1989),
two passes of the Brinkman Traffic Simulator produces the equivalent number of cleat dents created at the 40-yard line during one National Football
League game. Thus, 15 passes per week are equivalent to the cleat dents sustained from 7.5 games per week. In 1996, wear began on 1 June and
ended on 17 October. In 1997, wear began on 2 June and ended 17 October. Typically, wear was applied regardless of weather conditions or soil
water content. Numerous wear applications occurred when the soil water content was at or near saturation. Occasionally, due to heavy precipitation or
schedule conflicts, wear was not applied on the scheduled day. In these cases, wear was applied on the following day.
Data Collection
The criteria used for comparing treatments were surface hardness, soil bulk density, soil water content, and turfgrass density. Surface hardness was
measured using a Clegg Impact Tester (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN) equipped with a 2.25-kg missile and a drop height of 440 mm
(Rogers and Waddington, 1989). Impact attenuation, as measured by an accelerometer mounted on the missile, was used to indicate surface hardness
and is reported as Gmax, which is the ratio of maximum negative acceleration on impact in units of gravities to the acceleration due to gravity. The
average of six hardness measurements taken in different locations on each subplot was used to represent the hardness value of the subplot. Soil bulk
density data were derived from measurements of soil total density and volumetric water content taken with a Troxler 3400-B Series surface moisturedensity gauge (Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC). The Troxler Gauge uses neutron scattering simultaneously with ray
attenuation to measure the volumetric water content and total density of the soil (Gardner, 1986). A 150-mm deep guide hole was created in the soil
using a template and guide rod. A 137Cs source was then inserted into the hole to a depth of 150 mm. The amount of photons emitted from the source
and reaching the receiver on the surface is a measure of total soil density. Soil bulk density is derived by subtracting the density due to water from the
total soil density. Because some reinforcing materials could influence water content measurements, the Troxler Gauge was calibrated using a Tektronix
1502B time-domain reflectometry (TDR) unit (Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR). To calibrate the Troxler Gauge, water contents were determined from
each treatment plot, using both the TDR and the Troxler Gauge, on six different occasions to provide a range of soil water contents. Linear
relationships between the two methods for each reinforcement treatment were evident, with regression coefficients greater than 0.90). All water content
values reported in this experiment were collected using the Troxler gauge and then adjusted using the appropriate regression equation. The values
represent the water content in the surface 150 mm of root zone mix. The adjusted soil water contents were used to calculate the density due to water
which was subtracted from total density to provide soil bulk density. Turfgrass density was rated visually and served as an estimate of number of tillers
per unit area. Density was rated using a scale of 0 to 5 with half units. A plot with no turfgrass present is rated as 0, and 5 indicates maximum possible
tiller density. The turfgrass density ratings and the means of the three soil bulk densities, three soil water contents, and six surface hardness
measurements were analyzed using analysis of variance and Fisher's least significant difference test at the 0.05 level. A LSD was not calculated when
the F ratio was not significant at the 0.05 level.
Surface Hardness
Significant treatment differences for surface hardness were found on each rating date. Surface hardness of plots generally increased with increasing
wear levels in both years of the study. Although surface hardness for medium and high-wear treatments was significantly greater than for no-wear
treatments on all evaluation dates, actual Gmax values did not differ by >10 units on any date. Surface hardness also increased as each season
progressed for wear and no-wear treatments. When surface hardness data were averaged across all wear levels, differences were detected among
reinforcing materials. Generally, surface hardness differences among reinforcing material treatments were greater than differences among wear
treatments. The range of Gmax values for reinforcing material treatments exceeded 20 Gmax units on all rating dates. Sportgrass had higher surface
hardness values than all other treatments on four of six rating dates and ranged between 28 and 37% higher in surface hardness than the control on
each rating dates. Both rates of Turfgrids and Netlon produced higher surface hardness values than the control on all rating dates. When averaged
across all rating dates, the low rates of Netlon and Turfgrids increased surface hardness by 13 and 14%, respectively, when compared with the control,
while the high rates increased surface hardness by an average of 22 and 24%, respectively. DuPont Shredded Carpet and both Nike treatments usually
produced lower surface hardness values than Sportgrass, Netlon, and Turfgrids. Surface hardness generally decreased as rates of DuPont Shredded
page 43/48
Carpet increased from 5 to 30 g kg-1. When averaged across all rating dates, the 30 g kg-1 rates of DuPont Shredded Carpet and Nike Lights produced
surface hardness values that were 10.5 and 12.5% lower than the control, respectively. Reinforcing material treatment x wear interactions occurred on
18 Oct. 1996 and on all rating dates in 1997. The interactions indicate that the surface hardness values of some treatments were more strongly
influenced by wear than others. In the case of Sportgrass, surface hardness values for the high-wear level ranged between 16.5 and 25.4% higher than
the no-wear level on each rating date. Sportgrass consistently measured higher in surface hardness than all other treatments after wear was applied.
Whereas under no-wear, Sportgrass had surface hardness values similar to the 5 g kg-1 rates of Netlon and Turfgrids. DuPont Shredded Carpet 30 g
kg-1 and both Nike treatments responded differently to increasing wear than Sportgrass. For these treatments, the surface hardness values for the highwear level were only 5% higher than the no-wear level when averaged across all rating dates.
Soil Bulk Density

No significant wear x reinforcing material interactions were detected for bulk density on any of the rating dates in this study. Bulk density increased with
increasing wear levels in 1996 and 1997. Also, soil bulk density generally increased for all wear levels as each growing season progressed. Soil bulk
density values ranged from a low of 1.35 g cc-1 for the no-wear treatment on 11 June 1997 to 1.47 g cc-1 for the high-wear treatment on 15 Oct. 1997.
Increases in bulk density on no-wear plots were presumably due to routine maintenance and foot traffic during data collection. The drop in bulk
densities for all treatments between 18 Oct. 1996 to 11 June 1997 was likely due to freeze-thaw cycles during the winter months. Soil bulk density
values averaged across wear levels revealed differences among the reinforcing material treatments. The range of bulk density values among
reinforcing material treatments was similar to the range for wear treatments (1.34 g cc-1 for Nike Lights 30 g kg-1 on 11 June 1997 to 1.47 g cc-1 for
Netlon 5 g kg-1 on 18 Oct. 1996). The 5 g kg-1 Netlon treatment produced higher bulk density values than the control plots on five of six rating dates.
This treatment generally produced higher bulk density values than Sportgrass; the 10, 20, and 30 g kg-1 rates of DuPont Shredded Carpet; Nike Lights
and Heavies; and the 3 g kg-1 rate of Turfgrids. The 3 g kg-1 Netlon treatment and 3 g kg-1 Turfgrids treatment typically did not influence bulk density
relative to the control. The 10, 20, and 30 g kg-1 rates of DuPont Shredded Carpet lowered soil bulk density relative to the control on five of six rating
dates. The 5 g kg-1 rate of shredded carpet had no affect on soil bulk density on four of six rating dates. This treatment resulted in a soil bulk density
that was higher than the control on 23 Aug. 1996 and lower than the control on 15 Oct. 1997. As with surface hardness, bulk density generally
decreased with increasing rates of DuPont Shredded Carpet. Nike Lights and Nike Heavies treatments also lowered bulk densities relative to the control
on five of six rating dates.
Soil Water Content
No reinforcing material treatment x wear interactions occurred in this study with respect to soil water content. Differences in soil water content were
found among wear levels on four of six rating dates. When differences occurred, water contents were higher in no-wear and medium-wear treatments
than in high-wear treatments. However, the differences were slight, with an overall variation of only 0.05 m m-3 across the duration of the study. Soil
water contents differed among reinforcing material treatments during both years of the study. Nike Lights 30 g kg-1 and Sportgrass had lower soil water
contents than the control on five of six rating dates. No other reinforcing material treatment had a soil water content lower than the control on more than
two of the six rating dates. The only treatments which measured higher in soil water content than the control were Turfgrids 3 g kg-1 on three rating
dates and all four rates of DuPont Shredded Carpet on one or two rating dates. The range in water contents during both years of the study was <0.06 g
kg-1.
Turfgrass Density
Significant treatment differences for turfgrass density were found on each rating date. Means of turfgrass density ratings show that high-wear
treatments resulted in the lowest turfgrass density, no-wear treatments had the highest density, and medium-wear treatments produced density
intermediate between no-wear and high-wear treatments. The data also show that turfgrass density generally decreased as each season progressed
for medium- and high-wear treatments, but that no-wear treatment showed little change in turfgrass density during the seasons. Turf in medium- and
high-wear treatments showed nearly complete recovery with respect to density between the end of the 1996 season and the first rating date in 1997.
Turfgrass density ratings differed among reinforcing material treatments during both years of this study. Differences were slight on most rating dates
and never exceeded one whole unit on any date during the test. The Sportgrass treatment showed lower turfgrass density than the control on all three
rating dates in 1996, but did not differ from the control plots in 1997. Turfgrids 3 and 5 g kg-1 were the only other treatments that had turfgrass density
ratings lower than the control, and this occurred on two rating dates for each treatment. Nike Lights and Heavies provided higher turfgrass density than
the control on six and five rating dates, respectively. Most of the other treatments were not different or were slightly higher in density than controls on
one to three rating dates. Reinforcing material treatment x wear interactions were significant for turfgrass density on four rating dates. While these
interactions were statistically significant, the differences among treatments and wear levels with respect to turfgrass density were small and of little
practical significance.
Correlations
Correlation coefficients were significant (P = 0.01) between all variables examined in this study. The strongest correlations were between soil bulk
density and surface hardness (r = 0.63) and between soil bulk density and turfgrass density (r = -0.67). Another strong correlation was between soil
bulk density and soil water content (r = -0.60). Reinforcing materials used in this study had varying effects on surface hardness, bulk density, and water
content of a sand root zone. They also influenced turfgrass density, but to a minor degree. Effects were dependent on the type and rate of reinforcing
material, as well as the amount of wear imposed on the treatment. Reinforcing material treatments that lowered soil bulk density generally lowered
surface hardness and treatments that increased or did not affect bulk density generally resulted in increased surface hardness compared with
nonamended controls. As wear levels increased, the treatments that lowered soil bulk density usually showed smaller increases in surface hardness
than the other treatments. Surface hardness was affected to a much greater degree by bulk density than by water content. These findings agree with
those of Baker (1991), where soil water content had little effect on surface hardness of sand-dominated root zones. For mixes where soil was the
dominant mix component, soil water content was the major factor controlling surface hardness (Baker, 1991). The DuPont Shredded Carpet treatments
either lowered or had no effect on soil bulk density and surface hardness when compared with the control and some other reinforcing material
treatments. Increasing the rate of DuPont Shredded Carpet from 5 to 30 g kg-1 played a strong role in lowering bulk density and surface hardness of the
sand root zone. The highest rate (30 g kg-1) of this fibrous, low-density product presumably diluted the density of heavier soil particles, thereby
decreasing the overall bulk density of the soil/shredded carpet mix. Despite lowering the bulk density of the sand root zone, the 30 g kg-1 rate of DuPont
Shredded Carpet did not greatly reduce soil water content. The benefits of shredded carpet may be limited to sandy soils, since McNitt and Landschoot
(2001a) found that the 30 g kg-1 rate of DuPont Shredded Carpet had no pronounced effect on soil bulk density or surface hardness in a silt loam soil.
The Nike Lights (30 g kg-1) treatment consistently lowered surface hardness and bulk density compared with the control and some other reinforcing
material treatments. Nike Lights consist primarily of nylon, polyester, cotton, and polychloroprene remnants from the upper portions of athletic shoes.
The fibrous, low-density properties of this amendment apparently reduced the density of the sand root zone in a manner similar to the 30 g kg-1 rate of
DuPont Shredded Carpet. Nike Lights lowered soil water content relative to the control on more dates than the DuPont Shredded Carpet, but the actual
differences between treatments were of little practical significance. The Nike Heavies treatment decreased surface hardness and bulk density
compared with the control on some occasions, but it was not as consistent in these respects as Nike Lights. The varying effects on surface hardness
and bulk density between the two Nike products may be due to density differences between the products. The compressed densities of Nike Lights and
Nike Heavies were 0.107 g cc-1 and 0.244 g cc-1, respectively. The higher density of Nike Heavies was probably due to the predominance of
polyurethane and rubber constituents in the product. Both rates of Netlon and Turfgrids consistently increased surface hardness of the sand root zone
mix when compared with the unamended control and some other treatments. Surface hardness increased to a greater extent under high-wear
treatments with the Turfgrids and Netlon treatments compared with the control, DuPont Shredded Carpet treatments, and Nike Lights and Heavies
treatments. The results for the Netlon treatments agree with those of Canaway (1994), who reported increased surface hardness with mesh elements
after wear was applied. Other than the 5 g kg-1 rate of Netlon, the Netlon and Turfgrids treatments had little influence on soil bulk density and in most
cases, both rates of Netlon and Turfgrids had little effect on soil water content. The increase in surface hardness resulting from the 3 g kg-1 rate of
Netlon and both rates of Turfgrids does not appear to be related to an increase in soil bulk density. Instead, the surface hardness increase may be due
to an increase in soil strength caused by these reinforcement treatments. Waddington (1992) stated that soil strength reflects the soil's ability to resist or
endure an applied force and that low soil strength allows deformation, whereas high soil strength may be too hard and thus affect the safety of the
playing surface. Fibrous soil reinforcing materials have been shown to increase soil strength and reduce soil deformation under loads (Gray and
Ohashi, 1983; McGown et al., 1985). Mercer et al. (1984) reported increased soil strength without a corresponding increase in soil bulk density for a
mesh reinforcing material treatment very similar to Netlon.
page 44/48
The Sportgrass treatment produced the highest surface hardness of any treatment in this test. Surface hardness for this treatment increased
substantially as wear level increased and as each season progressed. Surface hardness did not appear to be related to soil bulk density, as there were
no differences in bulk density between the Sportgrass treatment and the control. The increased surface hardness of the Sportgrass treatment may have
been the result of an increase in soil strength near the root zone surface. Horizontally-oriented fabrics at or near the soil surface have dramatically
increased soil strength and load carrying capacity (Gray and Al-Refeai, 1986). Increased soil surface strength typically results in a higher surface
hardness (Waddington, 1992). The Sportgrass treatment showed a consistent reduction in soil water content compared with the control throughout the
study. Dryer soil conditions produced by Sportgrass may have resulted in slightly higher surface hardness. However, the moisture differences between
the Sportgrass treatment and the control were only 0.02 to 0.03 m m-3, and probably not enough to account for the large differences in surface
hardness.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the greatest impact of reinforcing materials subjected to different wear levels in a sand root zone was on surface hardness. This is potentially
significant because increased surface hardness of an athletic field results in a greater risk of athlete injury in the event of a fall (Baker and Canaway,
1993). Conclusions and recommendations based on surface hardness data from the present study are difficult to formulate because no recognized
standards currently exist for acceptable surface hardness values of athletic fields as measured by the Clegg Impact Tester. In an attempt to relate
surface hardness to athlete performance and safety, Canaway et al. (1990) correlated athletic field surface hardness measurements with athlete's
perceptions of surface hardness. On the basis of hardness values obtained with the Clegg Impact Tester and a 0.5-kg missle, Canaway et al. (1990)
suggested a preferred upper limit of 80 Gmax. A 2.25-kg missile was used in the present study and has been shown to produce lower Gmax values
compared with the 0.5-kg missile (Rogers and Waddington, 1990). Rogers and Waddington (1990) reported that the 0.5-kg missile will typically record
Gmax values that are 24 to 50 units higher than values produced by the 2.25-kg missile. Using this comparison, Sportgrass, Netlon 5 g kg-1, and
Turfgrids 5 g kg-1 reinforcing material treatments resulted in hardness values that were probably greater than the preferred upper limit suggested by
Canaway et al. (1990). Athletic field managers considering the use of soil reinforcing materials should be aware that if a field is exposed to high wear,
Netlon and Turfgrids at the 5 g kg-1 rate and Sportgrass have the potential to exceed the preferred upper surface hardness limit suggested by Canaway
et al. (1990). The high rates of DuPont Shredded Carpet and Nike Lights consistently resulted in surface hardness values lower than the control, even
under high wear, and may be less likely to result in athlete injury during player/surface impacts.
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 15.07. End Use Products. Standard test method for
saturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention, porosity, particle density, and bulk density of putting green and sports turf rootzone mixes.
F181597. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1998. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 15.07. End Use Products. Standard test method for
organic matter content of putting green and sports turf rootzone mixes. F164798. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1999. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 4.08. Soil and Rock. Test method for laboratory
compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort. D69891. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
Baker, S.W. 1991. Temporal variation of selected mechanical properties of natural turf football pitches. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 67:8392.
Baker, S.W. 1997. The reinforcement of turfgrass areas using plastic and other synthetic materials: A review. Int. Turf. Soc. Res. J. 8:313.
Baker, S.W., and P.M. Canaway. 1993. Concepts of playing quality: Criteria and measurement. Int. Turf. Soc. Res. J. 7:172181.
Baker, S.W., and C.W. Richards. 1995. The effect of fibre reinforcement on the quality of sand rootzones used for winter games pitches. J. Sports
Turf Res. Inst. 71:107117.
Beard, J.B., and S.I. Sifers. 1993. Stabilization and enhancement of sand-modified rootzones for high traffic sports turfs with mesh elements. A
randomly interlocking mesh inclusion system. Tech. Rep. B-1710. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., College Station, TX.
Canaway, P.M. 1994. A field trial on isotropic stabilisation of sand rootzones for football using Netlon mesh elements. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.
70:100109.
Canaway, P.M., M.J. Bell, G. Holmes, and S.W. Baker. 1990. Standards for the playing quality of natural turf for association football. p. 2947. In
R.C. Schmidt et al. (ed.) Natural and artificial playing fields: Characteristics and safety features. STP 1073. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Cockerham, S.T., and D.J. Brinkman. 1989. A simulator for cleated-shoe sports traffic on turfgrass research plots. Calif. Turfgrass Culture
39(3&4):910.
Gardner, W.H. 1986. Water content. p. 493544. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA,
Madision, WI.
Gray, D.H., and T. Al-Refeai. 1986. Behavior of fabric- versus fiber-reinforced sand. J. Geotec. Eng. 112:804820.
Gray, D.H., and H. Ohashi. 1983. Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in sand. J. Geotec. Eng. 109:335353.
Leflaive, E. 1982. The reinforcement of granular materials with continuous fibers. p. 721726. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Las Vegas,
NV. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Malloch, W. 1996. Reuse-A-Shoe material specifications. Internal res. rep. Nike, Beaverton, OR.
McGown, A., K.Z. Andrawes, N. Hytiris, and F.B. Mercer. 1985. Soil strengthening using randomly distributed mesh elements. p. 17351738. In
Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Foundation Eng., San Francisco, CA. August 1985. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
McNitt, A.S., and P.J. Landschoot. 2001a. The effects of soil reinforcing inclusions in an athletic field rootzone. Int. Turf. Soc. Res. J. 9:565572.
McNitt, A.S., and P.J. Landschoot. 2001b. The evaluation of a modular turfgrass system amended with shredded carpet. Int. Turf. Soc. Res. J.
9:559564.
Mercer, F.B., K.Z. Andrawes, and A. McGown. 1984. A new method of soil stabilisation. Paper 8:1. In Proc. Symp. Polymer Grid Reinforcement in
Civil Eng., London. March 1984. Thomas Telford Ltd., London.
Richards, C.W. 1994. Effect of mesh element inclusion on soil physical properties of turfgrass root-zones. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 70:110118.
Rogers, J.N., III, and D.V. Waddington. 1989. The effect of cutting height and verdure on impact absorption and traction characteristics in tall
fescue turf. J. Sports Turf Res. Inst. 65:8090.
Rogers, J.N., III, and D.V. Waddington. 1990. Effects of management practices on impact absorption and shear resistance in natural turf. p. 136
146. In R.C. Schmidt et al. (ed.) Natural and artificial playing fields: Characteristics and safety features. STP 1073. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Waddington, D.V. 1992. Soils, soil mixtures, and soil amendments. p. 331383. In D.V. Waddington et al. (ed.). Turfgrass. Agron. Monogr. 32.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
page 45/48
Detailed footballistic test results

Footballistic and technical tests have been made on European stadia pitches with natural grass used for
the UEFA championship matches during the seasons 2006 to 2008 as well as during the EURO08.
Sliding test at the Camp Nou, Barcelona
Until UEFA is publishing the results, no comments can be made.
page 46/48
TEST TEMPLATE FOR NATURAL GRASS PITCHES

Natural and reinforced grass can be tested and the test results may help Green keepers for a better
analysis of their pitches and eventually improve the footballistic qualities and, at the same time, reduce
the injury risk of the players.
Natural- and reinforced grass football pitch test template

City
Stadium
Club
Contact
Name, address,
phone, e-mail
Club
Greenkeeper
Name of the tester

Test date
Number of days since the last game
Pitch composition description

Soil heating
Water irrigation system (sprinkler)
Slope
Sub base
Top soil
100% natural or reinforced
Grass type
Date of the latest turf installation
Soil analysis
Sample of top soil to be extracted and analyzed: take 2 samples, dimensions 10x 10 x10cm
Sieve analysis of the agronomic type by sedimentometry according to NF X31-107 in 5 fractions
Sieve
Visual observations and under the
magnifier
Type and form of top soil additions
Organic or artificial fibres and other top soil
reinforcement. Note the presence of or any
other additions in the structure / top soil
Argyles 2m
Limon 20m
Limon 50 m
Sand 200 m
Sand 2 mm
Refuse 2 mm
Volcanic soil (puzzolane, etc..)
Others; description
Dry sieve analysis
according EN 933-1 in 12 fractions
page 47/48
Tests values
All test on according to the FIFA test manual;
except where otherwise specified below each test.
1
2
3
4
5
Test spots
mean
Vertical ball rebound

Ideal range: 75 - 95 cm
lowest
highest
Ball roll
Ideal range: 5 - 6 m
lowest
highest
Rotational resistance
Ideal range: 30 - 50 N
Max. 10N between lowest and highest measurement
lowest
highest
Vertical deformation
Studded foot, 1st impact only (not the mean of 2/3 impact)
Berlin
Athlete
Triple A
lowest
highest
lowest
highest
Shock absorption
Studded foot, 1st impact only (no mean measurements of 2/3 impact)
Berlin
Athlete
Triple A
lowest
highest
lowest
highest
Energy restitution
Test according to the CEN draft
Studded foot, 1st impact only (not the mean of 2/3 impact)
Berlin
Athlete
Triple A
lowest
highest
lowest
highest
Test conditions (as found)

Free grass fibres, mm
above the top-soil
Grass density
Specify: low / average /
high
Air temperature, C
Surface temperature, C
Grass surface humidity,
%
Specify: dry / moist / wet
Top soil humidity, %
measured within the soil,
5cm below the surface
page 48/48

Natural and Reinforced Grass, Experiences Learned and Shared, 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural and Reinforced Grass, Experiences Learned and Shared, 2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural and reinforced grass

Experiences learned and shared

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

STADIA GRASS PITCH QUALITIES

Natural grass types and qualities_________________________________________

Footballistic and technical qualities differences______________________________

Natural grass grown outside of a stadium

harvested in turf farms _____________________________________________ 10

grown in box systems______________________________________________ 13

Reinforced natural grass

reinforced with organic or artificial fibres within the grass roots_______________ 15

reinforced with implanted fibres_______________________________________ 17

reinforced with artificial fibres of a turf carpet____________________________ 19

Typical pitch constructions_______________________________________________ 24

ADDITIONAL PITCH INSTALLATIONS

Cost comparison between the three mayor turf systems________________________ 37

Detailed footballistic test results__________________________________________ 46

Publication from the industry, Football Associations and communities

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

STADIA PITCH QUALITIES

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Natural grass quality

Extremes overused pitches

and pitches covered with sicknesses

An average stadia grass density.

compared to an ideal grass density

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Perfect root density without too much thatch

Less playing resistance

Good playing resistance

Need more maintenance and fertilisation

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Maybe some stupid questions

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Artificial help to reinforce and grow the natural grass

Implanted artificial fibres and artificial lighting (London, Emirate Stadium)

Artificial aeration below and above the pitch

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Footballistic and technical quality differences

6 reinforced natural grass

Some test apparatus

Lenth of the ball roll in m compared to the grass height in mm

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

NATURAL GRASS GROWN OUTSIDE OF STADIA

Harvesting in rolls from 0.30m to 2.20m width and 15 to 35mm thickness

Installation during the EURO08 in Basel

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Installation for the European Champions final in Moscow (Luzhniki) 2008

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

After the EURO08, removal of the natural grass

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Natural grass grown in box systems

Preparation and filling the modules with sand

Levelling the height ready to plant the grass

The modules are ready for the installation in the stadium

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

The installation in the stadium

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

REINFORCED NATURAL GRASS

The majeure problems of all this type of pitches

Natural & reinforced grass qualities, 15.05.2011

Fibrelastic, a product of Fibresand UK