Impact of Brushing and Infill Maintenance on Field Safety of Third Generation Synthetic Turf

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of brushing and infill maintenance of third generation (3G) synthetic turf on field safety. A split-plot randomized complete block design was used with six different fiber pile heights, infill depths, and shock pad combinations subjected to 120 games in the summer of 2017 at the Center for Athletic Field Safety (CAFS) in Knoxville, TN, USA. Traffic was applied with a CAFS traffic simulator. Half of the plots received maintenance every 20 games with a rotating power broom and infill applied to those below manufacturer’s recommendations. All 3G synthetic turf systems required maintenance to the same degree, and maintenance was necessary to keep surface hardness of 3G synthetic turf systems consistent and acceptable. Overall, field safety and consistency increased in this study due to maintenance, thus suggesting brushing and infill maintenance plays a vital role in maintaining high performance on 3G synthetic fields.

Impact of third generation synthetic turf athletic field age on surface hardness and infill depth spatial variability

“…2 The loss or compaction of infill reduces the dampening capacity of the surface, and without the addition of a shockpad, surface energy mitigation is reduced. 19 The ASTM standard for the F355 D missile calls for the collection of three drops to be the average for each location, however, this study only included one drop per location, not three. 13 The deviation from the ASTM standard is due to the mechanical nature of the TMT, as it is incapable of collecting three measurements at a single location as it moves across a field.…”

“…The relationship between infill depth and surface hardness can be linked; the amount of infill affects impact attenuation of the surface, and thus, less infill leads to a harder surface. 18,19 The increase of impact attenuation was part of the rationale for the preceding generations of turf to have a greater infill depth compared to non-infilled first generation turf. 18 The increase of surface hardness found in this study could be partly attributed to infill compaction, infill depletion, or both, but this study only focused on collecting infill depth loss measurements.…”