A new model of third generation artificial turf degradation, maintenance interventions and benefits

Abstract

High performing and safe outdoor third generation (3G) artificial turf (AT) fields demand high quality initial design and construction coupled with a comprehensive maintenance aftercare regime. However, in many cases maintenance of AT fields suffers from either a low-cost inexpert approach, or a one-size-fits-all generic approach based on general guidance with little to no evidence of effectiveness. Little previous research has addressed fundamental questions regarding how 3G AT systems degrade or have provided evidence of the effectiveness of maintenance interventions. Maintenance techniques currently utilised can be grouped into four separate categories (grooming, cleaning, decompaction and infill top-ups). The maintenance tools and processes for each category have been developed empirically through experience, mainly in response to qualitative observations with little quantitative evidence. This paper reports on a unique body of quantitative evidence of specific effects of maintenance interventions, on third generation AT surfaces (3G), collected over the past several years in collaboration with a major UK sports surface maintenance contractor. In addition, the data contributes new and robust evidence of the rate at which 3G surfaces can ‘lose’ quantities of performance infill corroborated by the rate at which fields were topped up to maintain appropriate infill depths. A new quantified pitch degradation and maintenance benefits model is presented explaining 3G AT system degradation factors and mechanisms, their links to changes in system performance and the magnitudes of change effected by specific maintenance techniques. The new model is of direct benefit to both researchers and practitioners impacting on future best practice for assessing and maintaining the safety and performance of 3G AT.

Investigating the Challenges of Managing Natural Turfgrass and Synthetic Turf on Community Sports Fields

“…For synthetic turf fields, the initial investment can pose a significant challenge, especially for facilities with budget constraints. Although synthetic turf eliminates the need for inputs such as fertilizer and herbicides that are required for natural turfgrasses, which can lower labor and material costs (TURI 2016), artificial surfaces still require regular maintenance, which includes the use of specialized equipment and labor (Fleming et al 2020). During the long term, the cost of replacement would also be significant.…”

“…Frequent use of natural turfgrass can lead to degradation, decreased playability, and longer recovery times, thus impacting both scheduling and usability of the field (Alabi 2023). In contrast, synthetic turf fields can endure more frequent use, which can increase playing time (Fleming et al 2023;McLaren et al 2012).…”

“Nothing Beats Nature”: Park Visitor Preferences for Natural Turfgrass and Artificial Turf: A Case Study

“…Specifically, participants discussed the hardness of artificial turf. Artificial turf fields can increase in hardness over time without proper maintenance and lead to increased injury rates (Dickson et al 2021;Fleming et al 2020;McMurtry and Fiedler 2019). The thermal comfort of a surface is also a crucial element and was cited by participants often.…”

Exploring the Determinants of Repeated-Sprint Ability in Adult Women Soccer Players

“…As practical applications, the coadjutant training program-mainly based on these determinants (ABD and ADD isometric strength exercises and YYIR1)-may induce improvements in female soccer players' RSA and better outcomes during critical moments of matches. Although it was declared that straight sprinting is the most frequent action taken before goals, both for scoring and assisting players [51], the current trend highlights that sprints during soccer games are curvilinear [58][59][60]. As such, they may lead to different demands than straight sprints [57].…”