the smart guide to synthetic sport surfaces€¦ · the popularity of synthetic surfaces used by...

THE SMART GUIDE TO

SYNTHETIC SPORT SURFACES THIRD EDITION - 2014

The Smart Guide to Synthetic Sport Surfaces

© Smart Connection Consultancy Pty Ltd 2015 2

SPORT INSPIRES A NATION Synthetic Sports Surfaces Create The Opportunity For The Next Generation



Welcome and Purpose

The popularity of synthetic surfaces used by many sports

as an alternative to natural grass has grown significantly

over the past two decades.

Many sports now use synthetic surfaces as their primary

surface, such as athletics, hockey and tennis. Many other

sports utilise synthetic technology to cope with the demand

for sports fields and surfaces, including bowls, cricket and

football - soccer, rugby union, rugby league, gridiron,

Australian rules. This heightened interest in synthetic

surfaces is due to a number of factors:

Playability – to ensure a standard of play that is

consistent and safe.

Availability – to encourage more people to enjoy sport

or recreational activities and allow Local Government

Authorities to keep up with the growing demand.

Environmental – to counter the damage to natural turf

due to either prolonged drought or excessive rain.

Financial – to allow organisations to charge users an

affordable price for pitches/courts, while making a return

on their investment that covers the whole of life costs.

This Smart Guide to Synthetic Surfaces (3rd

Edition)

provides your organisation with information to understand

how synthetic surfaces technology can assist you achieve

your sport development and facilities objectives.

It provides all the information that your organisation needs

to consider when deciding, planning, selecting, installing,

maintaining, replacing and managing a synthetic sports

surface.

Enjoy the read

Martin Sheppard

Author



Acknowledgements

Smart Connection Consultancy is extremely grateful to the

sports peak bodies, various suppliers and manufacturers

who have provided information, photographs and case

studies for this guide, and who have allowed this book to

be circulated to Local Government in Australia free of

charge by sponsoring each section.

Without their support we would not be able to achieve our

goal of providing greater knowledge to the industry.

We would also like to thank the numerous colleagues,

clients and organisations that we have completed work for

in the sports industry. It is your appetite for change and

progression that makes our job so rewarding.

Copyright

Smart Connection Consultancy Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

No parts of the publication may be reproduced in any form

or by any means without the permission of Smart

Connection Consultancy.

1st Edition: (September 2010)

2nd

Edition (February 2012)

3rd

Edition (February 2014)

ISBN: 978-0-646-57181-2

Disclaimer

Smart Connection Consultancy does not accept any liability

for the accuracy of the information provided. All material

and information that is provided from the third parties is

done so in good faith and to assist organisations in

deciding whether synthetic surfaces are the right option for

their needs.

To ascertain greater relevance, all organisations should

engage an experienced and competent consultancy to

conduct a thorough feasibility study to ensure the correct

approach and discussion making process.

Smart Connection Consultancy Pty Ltd

AAMI Park, 60 Olympic Boulevard, Melbourne, 3001

PO Box 5247, South Melbourne,

Victoria, 3205, Australia

t: +61 3 9421 0133

e: [email protected]

w: www.smartconnection.net.au



Contents

Welcome and Purpose ........................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ............................................................... 4 Copyright ................................................................................ 4 Disclaimer ............................................................................... 4

1 Australian Sport – The Changing Environment

8 1.1 Australian Success .................................................... 8 1.2 Changing Trends ....................................................... 8 1.3 Implications on People, Programs and Places ...... 12 1.4 Local Government and Sports Planning

Considerations ......................................................... 13

2 Synthetic Turf Systems Evolution 17 2.1 History and Evolution .............................................. 17 2.2 Evolution in Australia .............................................. 18 2.3 Present Challenges .................................................. 19 2.4 Future Focused ........................................................ 19 2.5 Synthetic Surface Uses ........................................... 20 2.6 Using Synthetic Surfaces ........................................ 23

3 Synthetic Sports Turf Systems 26 3.1 Introduction .............................................................. 26 3.2 Synthetic Turf Yarn .................................................. 26 3.3 The Backing ............................................................. 28 3.4 Infill ........................................................................... 28 3.5 Shockpad.................................................................. 31 3.6 Pavement .................................................................. 32 3.7 Drainage ................................................................... 32

4 Standards for Synthetic Surfaces 35 4.1 Importance of Standards ......................................... 35 4.2 Developing Performance Standards ....................... 35 4.3 Laboratory and Field Standards ............................. 36 4.4 Licensee’s / Preferred Producers............................ 36 4.5 Sports Standards ..................................................... 36 4.6 The Importance of Testing ...................................... 37 4.7 Durability Considerations ........................................ 37

5 Environmental Considerations 40 5.1 Introduction .............................................................. 40 5.2 Climate Change / Weather Patterns ........................ 40 5.3 Water Management .................................................. 40 5.4 Carbon Footprint ...................................................... 41 5.5 Ecosystem Impacts.................................................. 41 5.6 Green Engineering ................................................... 43

6 Health, Safety and Risk Management 47 6.1 Introduction .............................................................. 47 6.2 Player Safety and Injuries ........................................ 47 6.3 Surface Playability ................................................... 49 6.4 Health Risk to Community ....................................... 50 6.5 Players Safety and Injuries ...................................... 51 6.6 Infection Risk ........................................................... 52 6.7 Heat Stress ............................................................... 53 6.8 Risk Management .................................................... 54

7 Sport by Sport 58 7.1 Sports Adoption of Synthetic Technology ............. 58 7.2 Australian Rules Football / Cricket ......................... 58

7.3 Baseball ....................................................................60 7.4 Bowls ........................................................................60 7.5 Football (soccer) ......................................................61 7.6 Gridiron / American Football ...................................63 7.7 Hockey ......................................................................63 7.8 Rugby League...........................................................65 7.9 Rugby Union .............................................................67 7.10 Tennis .......................................................................69 7.11 Multi-Sport Areas .....................................................71

8 Financial Strategy to Afford a Synthetic

Surface 74 8.1 Introduction ..............................................................74 8.2 The Whole of Life Expense Commitment ................74 8.3 Revenue Generation Strategy..................................76

9 Planning for Synthetic Fields 79 9.1 Introduction ..............................................................79 9.2 Why Produce a Synthetic Pitch/Field Strategy? .....79 9.3 The Smart Planning Framework ..............................79 9.4 Funding Strategy ......................................................80 9.5 Professional Support & Advice ...............................81 9.6 Useful Contacts and Reading ..................................82

10 Design Considerations 85 10.1 Introduction ..............................................................85 10.2 Statutory Planning Considerations .........................85 10.3 Site Selection ............................................................85 10.4 Park Master Planning ...............................................86 10.5 Pitch Design .............................................................86 10.6 Ancillary Design Options .........................................86

11 Sustainable Construction 90 11.1 Introduction ..............................................................90 11.2 Engineered Base Pavement .....................................90 11.3 Construction Considerations ..................................91

12 Maintenance 95 12.1 Maintenance in Perspective .....................................95 12.2 General Principles ....................................................95 12.3 Specialised Maintenance .........................................96 12.4 Maintenance Resources...........................................97

13 Programming and Management of Synthetic

Turf 100 13.1 Introduction ............................................................ 100 13.2 Usage and Capacity of the Surface ....................... 100 13.3 Programming of Use, Maintenance and Rest ....... 100 13.4 Pricing Points ......................................................... 101 13.5 Footwear for Users of Synthetic ............................ 101

14 Management of the Facility 105 14.1 Introduction ............................................................ 105 14.2 Vision Drives Management .................................... 105 14.3 Management Options ............................................. 105 14.4 Funding Arrangements .......................................... 106 14.5 Alternative Funding and Management Options .... 107

15 Procurement 110 15.1 Introduction ............................................................ 110 15.2 Planning .................................................................. 110 15.3 Procurement Strategy ............................................ 110



15.4 Evaluation Process ................................................ 112 15.5 Project Management .............................................. 112

Appendix 1: Key Contacts 114 1.1 Solution Providers and Advisors .......................... 114 1.2 Australian Sports Surface Suppliers and

Manufacturers ........................................................ 114 1.3 Supplier Details ...................................................... 115

Appendix 2: Water Harvesting Modelling – Reuse of

water collected from a synthetic pitch 124 1. Scenario’s ....................................................................... 124 2.Rainfall Considerations .................................................. 124 Turf watering Needs ........................................................... 124

Appendix 3: Literature Review of Safety Research for

Synthetic Surfaces 129

Appendix 4: Self-assessment Questionnaire 134

Smart Connection Company – Profile 138 Introduction and Overview ................................................ 138 Consultant Profile – Martin Sheppard – Managing Director138

Our Proven Track Record 139

What we can offer 140



SECTION 1:

AUSTRALIAN

SPORT – THE

CHANGING

ENVIRONMENT



1 Australian Sport – The Changing

Environment

1.1 Australian Success

For the last sixty years, Australia has “punched above its

weight” in world sport, when you consider its success in the

Olympics, rugby, tennis, netball and swimming, to name a

few. As the population continues to grow from under 10

million in the 1960’s to over 20 million now, the challenge

for Australia is how to keep performing at the highest level.

Photo 1: Leyton Hewitt - has continued to "Punch Above his Weight" especially in Davis Cup Tennis

With changing trends in society, sports participation is no

longer as high a priority as it used to be. The challenge for

sports teams and organisations is how to connect with the

local community to keep people active, recreating and

playing sport?

Indeed, in some cities, although the level of sedentary

lifestyles is growing in the community, the number of junior

participants of some sports continues to grow. However,

many of the children playing sport are showing overweight

tendencies, so they need to exercise more often and

reduce their food intake, which is a far bigger challenge

than just sports participation, but one that sport can be

incorporated.

The challenge for Local Governments is that many cities

and communities were designed for a smaller population,

meaning that the number of facilities is not relative to the

population growth. This simple ‘supply and demand’ model

is presenting challenges.

In addition, climatic changes over the past few decades are

no longer conducive with natural turf, which struggles to

recover and cope with the increased usage by many

traditional sports clubs. So imagine if another two percent

of the community played sport and children committed to

an extra night a week playing sport. The fields wouldn’t be

able to cope.

So planning for the future has become a challenge, not

only for the peak bodies of sport, local sports associations

and sports clubs, but also for the key owners of these

facilities, Local Government.

This first section explores the key trends of sport and

identifies the impact they are having on community facilities.

It also explains why many Local Governments are working

with sport to develop complimentary facilities and solutions

using synthetic surface technology to meet participation

needs.

1.2 Changing Trends

Recognising that Australians are becoming increasingly

time-poor and more cognoscente of their fiscal positions

post GFC, the Australian Sports Commission completed a

series of research projects to identify trends in participation

in sport.

The first three reports in 2012 and 2013 explored the

Mega-Trends of Sport1 together with specific participation

trends for adults (14 – 65 years) and children (5 – 13 years).

The Mega-Trends report explored the major shifts in

environmental, social and economic conditions that will

alter the way people live and perceive sport.

Mega-trends of participation 1.2.1

The six Mega-Trends have been defined by the report as:

1. A Perfect Fit

People are fitting sport into their increasingly busy and

time-fragmented lifestyles to achieve their own personal

health and wellbeing goals. This is reflected in the

participation rates of ‘casual activities’ such as aerobics,

jogging/walking, gym membership and casual kick-arounds

in the park with friends which have grown significantly over

the past decade. At the same time participation rates in

many traditional organised team sports have declined.

Australians are increasingly playing sport to get and stay fit,

rather than staying fit to play sport.

2. From Extreme to Mainstream

Capturing the rise of adventurous lifestyles and alternative

sports, that are popular with the thrill-seeking, younger

generations. Adventure sports such as BMX, skateboarding,

Parkour, rock climbing, and extreme running are growing in

popularity. Even the Olympics are embracing these sports

to stay relevant.

1 The Future of Australian Sport – CSIRO/Australian Sports Commission 2012



Photo 2: More than sport - it’s the social boundaries that it can bridge

3. More than Sport

A holistic view of sport, providing broader benefits is being

recognised by all levels of Government, as well as the

commercial and community sectors. The benefits of mental

and physical health gain, social inclusion and equality of

opportunity as well as crime prevention, is being seen as

reasons for the promotion, development and participation

of sport.

4. Everybody’s Game

Australia and many other OECD countries face the

challenge of an ageing population, affecting the type of

sports the population can play. Indications are that

Australians are embracing sport into their old age. To retain

strong participation rates, sports of the future will need to

cater for the change in cultural make-up of Australia,

recognising that a multicultural society brings multi-needs,

preferences and habits. The industry needs to capture the

interest and investment of these diverse cultures.

5. New Wealth, New Talent

Population growth and investment in developing countries,

especially Asia, will increase athletic prowess at major

competitions, such as the Olympics. It will also provide

emerging new business markets through media (social and

traditional), sports equipment, services and events.

6. Tracksuits to Business Suits

Market forces are likely to put greater pressure on sports to

be more professional in the future, with larger associations

expected to use paid staff as opposed to volunteers to

ensure ‘quality of experience’. Directly linked to this is the

level of recompense that participants receive and expect to

benefit from. The result may see some of the less

supported sports losing participants to the ‘richer sports’.

The participation drivers for adults and children will help the

clubs and service providers understand the market

segmentation better so that programs can be developed to

encourage them to play, recreate and participate in sport

more.

Market Segmentation of Adults for Sports 1.2.2

Participation

The Australian Sport Commission publication Market

Segmentation for Sports Participation (March 2013):

identifies that Australians (14 - 65 yrs) are becoming

increasingly time-poor and more fiscally aware of what they

can afford. Changing lifestyles, lack of time, reserve

money consequence and a change of priorities from sport

to recreation, as well as using sport as part of their fitness

campaign is making it difficult to understand the changing

attitudes and behaviors of the community in relation to

sport, or should we say ‘traditional sport’.

Recognising the changing community preferences, this

Market Segmentation Study identified the market into

groups of consumers, with similar needs, attitudes and

behaviors. The report identifies the consumer’s

perceptions and needs and then explores what sport can

do to capture that interest.

The strongest aspect, when combined with ‘The Future of

Australian Sport’ study, is that the change provides a clear

indication that more people are using sport as a means to

an end (e.g. for fitness, social interaction, health benefits

etc.). This provides an exciting opportunity for community

recreation facilities and programs and the way we think.

The Study divides the consumer into three categories:

i. Existing Sports Club Members

- Sports loyalists

- Socially engaged

- Sports driven

- Apathetic clubbers

ii. Non-sports club members with high potential for

acquisition

- Side line sportsters

- Club wary

- Ponderers

iii. Non-sports club makers with low potential for

acquisition

- Self focused

- Sports indifferent

- Sports atheists



The characteristics of the adult segmentation are:

Sports Loyalists

Who: Sport is their life, mainly male under 30 - high

proportion of teenagers. Less than 10 percent of

Australians are competitive and participate regularly.

Need: Imperative to be part of a club, with social networks

and peer recognition. They feel the need to engage and

also want to have the opportunity to change direction to

allow them to achieve their goals easily with no barriers.

They also need to consider how to transition from school to

club and also post 30+, keep their involvement in clubs and

sport.

Programs: They need to be offered club or program

memberships based on competitive and social

opportunities where they can also network with their peers.

Places: Club facilities and formal training bases.

Photo 3: Cricket team members are very loyal and traditional

Socially Engaged

Who: Less than 10 percent of Australians, predominantly

males with high incomes and white collar jobs who enjoy all

aspects of sport especially with a social aspect.

Need: Interest in playing sport with others, in teams and

challenging themselves whilst having fun. Highly engaged

in sport and active within clubs. The challenge is keeping

them and expanding their horizons so they continue to

have fun as their interest has a tendency to wane as they

reach 25 - 40 yrs.

Programs: Club based if they are socially orientated.

Recreation programs that are competitive and with teams

as well as shortened games to combine competition / social

aspects.

Places: Anywhere

Sports Driven

Who: High level of physical activity but social interaction

low as the sports participation is main driver. Normally

younger, wealthier urbanites, high proportion from CALD

backgrounds. They have personal drivers of self-

improvement.

Need: Normally have busy lives and try to balance sport,

family and work. If clubs don’t offer options they are more

than capable of ‘finding alternative options’ as their free

time decreases.

Programs: Fun-runs at lunch, pre/post work and

competitive sports programs. They use sport for fitness, not

about getting fit to play sport.

Places: Anywhere.

Apathetic Clubbers

Who: 20 percent of population, more likely to be male and

teenagers and less likely to be positive about sport.

Need: Need to feel less pressure to be ‘good at sport’ to

belong and have a certain ease of joining.

Programs: Recreational sports programs to keep interest

and non-membership based entry options. Make programs

easy to attend.

Places: Quality facilities.

Sideline Sportsters

Who: They value the opportunity for personal time,

participation and the friends it makes. They have stopped

‘playing’ maybe because of family or work and normally

can’t commit the time that ‘traditional club membership’

programs expect.

Need: Casual participation as many are older people (40+)

who have left sport but still keep fit. With the right option,

this is a prime group to get back into the clubs.

Programs: Recreational programs that ‘get them active

again’ which can be linked to clubs as a pathway to

reconnect. Clubs need to partner with recreation centers to

ensure pathways.

Places: Clubs and recreation centers.

Club Wary

Who: Enjoy sport but have reservations about clubs due to

previous experiences and see clubs as wanting significant

commitment which they don’t want to offer.

Need: Avoid over commitment and could be happy to be

recreation members as they actually want to get involved

but don’t know how or where to look.

Programs: Recreational programs to re-engage on

specific sports and would be available for the 45 minute

sports experience.

Places: Clubs and recreation centers.



Ponderers

Who: Often married with children at home, active to very

active people that take part in activities that are solo or fit

around other commitments.

Need: They understand the benefits of physical activity

and sport and derive strong personal satisfaction and

achievement from participation. They do show some

interest in joining clubs but only if they have flexibility and

options that don’t interfere with their other commitments.

Many use sport to keep fit.

Programs: Sport for fitness programs with flexible joining

options or group training which has self-completion.

Places: Clubs, recreation centres and parks etc.

Self-focused

Who: Typically female with personal drivers who are

turned off by the competitive nature of sport.

Need: Exercise alone, need balance from other

commitments they have and in essence want something

that focuses on their needs.

Programs: they enjoy sport but only use it as a mode to

keep their fitness, so the opportunity is based around

fitness/active programs and classes such as Tennis

Australia’s Cardio-Fitness. The programs need to be

measureable and show improvement.

Places: Recreation facilities.

Sport Indifferent

Who: Less engaged, indifferent to all types of sport.

Need: Hard to engage and may need to highlight other

benefits which may be more appealing such as Wii-fitness

or workplace health programs.

Programs: Corporate health programs and programs

linked with other interests such as Arts/Dance programs.

Places: Workplace and arts venues such as libraries.

Sports Atheists

Who: Totally disengaged in sport and sports clubs and

physical activity is low (less than once a week). Leads a

more sedentary lifestyle.

Need: Few products to engage these people in sports

clubs. May get them interested in administration, but not

participation.

Programs: Non-sports programs in the sports

environment (e.g. photography, arts etc.)

Places: Venues.

Market Segmentation of Children for Sports 1.2.3

Participation

The Australian Sports Commission publication (May 2013):

Market Segmentation for Sports Participation: Children,

identifies the trends, needs, motivations and barriers for

sports participation for the 5 - 13 year olds.

The study identifies six segmentation groups for this

population cohort and are classified as follows:

Social Loyalists ‘Sport clubs are the best! I love

to be able to play sports and with

friends.’

Sport Driven ‘Like being part of a club to play

sports but they sometimes want

to try other activities and that is

annoying.’

Apathetic Clubbers ‘I don’t mind playing sport with

my club but I am a bit over it.’

Thrifty

Enthusiasts

Pote

ntials

‘Sport is great and so are clubs –

I’d like to be part of a club again.’

Ponderers ‘I’d like to do more sport but I

don’t really know how.’

Sport Resistant

Non

Pote

ntials

‘I don’t really like sport, people

just want to win.’

The Study provides key summaries and insights of how the

sport and community recreation sectors can understand the

motivations and barriers and therefore have a greater

change of embracing this cohort and encouraging them to

be more physically active and play sport.

As an industry we can embrace these findings and the

study states:

“Australian children were generally more positive than

Australian adults in their views of physical activity and sport,

with adults ascribing fewer positive benefits to sport due to

a perceived association with competition. The vast majority

of children believed sport provides a multitude of benefits

that include physical benefits, mental benefits, social

benefits, and fun and enjoyment. To a lesser degree,

competitive success was important to children.”

To further help sport consider how it might deliver

opportunities for children, the ASC has also released a new

report from research it commissioned from Victoria

University, the ‘Validation of the Playing for Life (P4L)

Philosophy’. The P4L report provides a validated approach

that sports may be able to adopt to better target Australian



children whose primary motivation to participate in sport is

to have fun and play with friends. The P4L report can be

accessed at www.ausport.gov.au

When these trends are considered in relation to facility

planning, design and management the key issues to be

considered is that facilities need to reflect the needs of the

community. That means they need to be programmed

differently from the traditional sports club facilities if a larger

share of the community are to be activated.

Although the ‘traditional’ membership sports club is still

alive, a number of community clubs which have not evolved

to meet the new needs of the community, have

experienced a significant reduction in participation. These

include bowls, track and field athletics and tennis. The use

of synthetic technology for sports fields provides greater

flexibility for programming and are more likely to attract a

broader community cohort.

1.3 Implications on People, Programs and

Places

The key opportunities from the ASC three trend and market

segmentation publications clearly identify the target

audiences that should be targeted, and then the learning’s

from the drivers of these groups should be used to develop

programs and activities. Finally the issues of place should

be considered, and not just from a traditional perspective.

Impact of research on target audiences 1.3.1

The market segmentation reports show that not everyone

will embrace sport in the community, so the priorities

should be for an organisation to target audiences that can

be converted easily and with some encouragement.

1.3.1.1 Adult priority segmentation

Existing sports club members including sports loyalists,

socially engaged, sports driven and apathetic clubbers

have been identified as “low hanging fruit” if the offering

can be fine-tuned to encourage them back or to ensure you

keep them.

There is also great potential for clubs to change their

traditional sports membership package to encourage the

targeted audiences of; side-line sporters, club wary and the

ponders who can all be encouraged to take part in

programs and activities, as opposed to joining membership

of clubs.

1.3.1.2 Children priority segmentation

The three key groups for under 14 year olds are sports

loyalists, sports driven and apathetic clubbers, with the

potential groups being the thrifty enthusiasts and the

ponderers.

Across all children’s segments, the underlying motivation

for participating in sport is to have fun and socialise. This

is a key message to be emphasised in communications, in

addition to ensuring that clubs actively maintain this aspect

of participation across all age groups and grades.

Consideration should also be given to whether

modifications to existing or new product offerings would

retain current or attract new consumer segments for

children.

Programs and activities to meet future need 1.3.2

The reports identify that people are time poor and desire

greater participation for ‘casual activities’ and programs,

not traditional organised sports club membership.

“Australian’s are increasingly playing sport to get and stay

fit, rather than staying fit to play sport”.

The key learnings can be summarised as:

Providing sport delivery that focuses on fun and

enjoyment rather than competition.

Providing products and services that are inclusive;

promote equal treatment; and focus on fun and

participation regardless of skill level and ability.

Providing a variety of pricing packages and different

types of membership that allow for flexibility of

attendance and time commitment.

Identifying the potential for growth opportunities with

regards to sport club membership by understanding

the needs of different segments and the products they

may be attracted to.

Photo 4: Small sided games such as football can use the synthetic fields more intensely than natural grass

Government, the commercial and community sector

recognise that sport brings additional benefits around

mental and physical health, social inclusion as well as

crime prevention etc.

Participant’s expectations have grown and the quality of

experience needs to grow to meet those expectations. The

http://www.ausport.gov.au/



range of programs and activities need to include examples

such as:

Sport for Fun – socialisation of sport where

participants want the ability to socialise and increase

their friendships – they are not as keen for “closed

clubs” which are hard to get in and be accepted.

Casual and recreational competitions where new

people are being introduced is embraced. Fun runs as

opposed to Athletic Club track, field and road races are

more popular.

Sport for Fitness – using sport to keep fit, whether

that is a casual 5-a-side league competition once a

week or a fitness class around a specific sport such as

Tennis Australia’s Cardio Fitness.

Recreational Sport – many sports and leisure centres

are offering mid-week competitions and programs

where there is a form of casual completion for indoor

and outdoor sports where the participants do not need

to be part of a club. These programs are growing

considerably.

Sports Express – many people only have a short

period of time to exercise and participate – so if an

activity can be programmed into 45-60 minutes this will

encourage a greater number of the time poor people

who still want to ‘play’ but struggle to incorporate it with

the busy work or family commitments.

The Question of Place 1.3.3

The Question of Place is considered from a series of

perspectives including:-

Places to recreate – especially important for young

people to have a kick around and be able to play

‘street sport’ – which historically has been on street

corners, in parklands and back alleys. In Europe the

adoption of Multi-use Games Areas (MUGA) has seen

significant investment and designs for young people to

hang out and play safely. Many next to sports facilities,

in school grounds and next to Skate facilities.

Photo 5: Pop up Park Dandenong (VIC) source ABS Sports Fields)

Places to Play (sport) – With greater participation the

ability for synthetic technology to cope with greater

usage will allow for more people to play sport, more

often. The design needs to allow for the traditional

sport, such as Football and then use Futsal or 5-a-side

for the recreational and training needs as well as

juniors and seniors.

Flexibility of Place – combining multi-sport at a

competitive level allows for seasonal variations and

encourages greater utilisation of the facility.

Photo 6: Dimboola Memorial Secondary School (Source: TEAM Sports)

The facility needs to be able to provide traditional sports

team competition (e.g. full football, hockey or rugby fields)

as well as flexibility for small sided games, which can be

offered to the community for ‘casual competitions’.

People are prepared to pay more for quality services as

opposed to traditional volunteer programs.

The management of the facility needs to be able to balance

competitive sports development, training, program and

recreational promotion to maximise patronage.

1.4 Local Government and Sports Planning

Considerations

The Planning Cycle 1.4.1

Many Local Governments are finding the desire for

community sports clubs to have access to more “field-time”

a challenge. It is important in exploring and justifying the

need for a new facility, that appropriate research, forward



planning and community consultation are given to provide a

compelling rationale for need.

The key stages that should be explored will normally

include:

1. Identify Need or Demand

Demographic analysis - who are currently playing the

sports and if there are any participation projections and

what is the likelihood of participation increase.

It is important to see Exercise in Recreation and Sport

Survey (ERRAS) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

data and contextualise against the participant trends

discussed earlier to appreciate the likelihood of future

participation numbers and the programs needed.

2. Compare Against Supply

Explore current facilities and measure capacity with current

participation patterns.

Compare population changes for the future and align

against capacity of current facilities to identify the growth of

capacity (hours/fields) needed for each aspect of the game

such as competition, training and recreational use

(Futsal/5-a-side etc.).

Identify supply for both sports that complement each other

and seasonal specific sports in order to increase usage.

3. Strategic Alignment

Explore internally and externally the priorities and principals

for provision, programs and specific target audiences that

may influence the facility. This may include type, standard

and management of the facility, the funding or geographic

priority, or the partners who may be involved such as

governments, education or sport.

4. Scope of Facility

The draft scoping of the facility options could be

established here ready for the consultative phase. This will

allow the targeted or broad community consultation to have

a structured approach and not just a ‘wish list approach’.

The consultation will enhance and firm-up this scoping and

allow the facility to be developed more succinctly, whilst

being embraced by all stakeholders.

5. Financial Considerations

The financial strategy for the development and

management of the facility should consider each stage of

the whole of life costings of the capital investment,

maintenance and replacement costs. Also funding strategy

for each state will need to be explored.

6. Management Options

The management strategy needs to be linked to the

strategic alignment (how it will be used); the facility scope

(what is there to manage) and the target audience and

therefore how it will be programmed?

Depending on these considerations the management

options should be explored objectively.

Project Management 1.4.2

What are the logistical arrangements for its development in

terms of time, funding, management etc.?

Who do you need to collaborate with to ensure its success

from design to delivery?

All of this planning should combine both a recreation/sports

strategy together with a playing field strategy. A playing

field strategy (or Pitch Strategy) should be conducted

across the whole municipality and also consider the impact

on the neighbouring councils.

The best documents to consider using and guiding the

planning process can be downloaded from:

i) Playing Pitch Strategy Guidelines – An approach to

developing and delivering a playing pitch strategy (OCT

2013: Sport England; The FA; RFU; ECB; RFL and

England Hockey)

www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-

sport/

ii) Needs Assessment Guide – Sport and Recreation

Facilities (2007: WA Department of Sport and

Recreation)

www.dsr.wa.gov.au/needsassessmentguide

iii) Facility Planning Guide – Sport and Recreation

Facilities (2007: WA Department of Sport and

Recreation) www.dsr.wa.gov.au/facilityplanningguide

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/needsassessmentguide

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/facilityplanningguide



Case Study - TigerTurf



SECTION 2:

SYNTHETIC TURF

SYSTEMS

EVOLUTION



2 Synthetic Turf Systems Evolution

2.1 History and Evolution

The popularity of synthetic surface technology in sport has

been embraced by both community and elite levels over

the past five decades.

The technology has evolved significantly from the first

generation carpet that was developed by Monsanto for the

Ford Foundation at Moses Brown School, Providence,

Rhode Island in 1964. The first major commercial

mainstream surface was used in 1966 at the Houston

Astrodome in Texas. Key milestones over the past 50

years include:

1960’s

First Generation Turf (1964). A knitted nylon carpet with a

foam backing was used for indoor Gridiron, but lacked the

sophistication of the present systems.

In 1968 athletics installed its first synthetic athletics track

for the Mexico Olympics. The times and performances

were so impressive that the sport’s governing body has

never returned to natural surfaces, supporting the

technology in order to continue to improve performances.

Photo 7: 1968 Olympic Games Synthetic Track

1970’s

The use of the 1st generation nylon carpets continued in

American stadiums where light was too poor for natural

grass growth. Although the “turf look” was a positive use of

technology, it didn’t provide an accurate reflection of

natural playing surfaces. The coarseness of the nylon

resulted in inconsistent playing conditions and injuries

caused the majority of football and baseball surfaces to be

replaced with natural grass again.

One sport that did prosper with the use of synthetic turf

during this time was hockey. When the synthetic grass was

wet the ball played far faster and the game was far more

enjoyable. The sport embraced the technology and the first

international hockey game using artificial turf was played at

McGill University, Canada in 1975. The following year it

was show-cased at the Montreal Olympics, where it has

been used ever since.

At the turn of the decade there were two schools of thinking

around the use of synthetic technology:

i. Performance needs to mirror natural grass – with the

use of the 1st generation surfaces needing to perform

more closely to natural grass; and

ii. Performance enhanced surfaces – with IAAF

(athletics) choosing the rubber tracks and FIH (hockey)

choosing technology to improve the performance of

natural surfaces.

These opposing viewpoints can still be seen 40 years on

when we compare how sports have embraced the use of

technology.

1980’s

The 2nd

generation synthetic turf was developed to look and

feel like grass, with the soil replaced with sand and the

blades of grass replaced with 20-35mm tightly packed

polypropylene yarn. This was softer than the nylon on

players’ skin, but when combined with sand, created some

challenges:

- Playability – the sand infill and yarn combination didn’t

let the large ball used for football (soccer) have the

same playing characteristics as on natural turf. It

bounced unpredictably and the roll was far faster; and

- Safety – the friction on skin was significant and caused

‘skin burns’ which then developed into wounds if not

treated.

The durability for community football pitches (5-a-side

facilities) was excellent and allowed many more people to

play the game. As 5-a-side in the United Kingdom has

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=KssUo8-uWa6paM&tbnid=oiB2g5YhtRf2lM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://thechrismurrayreport.org/2008/05/20/the-1968-olympic-protest-40-years-later/&ei=pYP1Ut__DMeHkwW9lIDQCQ&bvm=bv.60983673,d.dGI&psig=AFQjCNF0JfgGc8ScO5Av6rNeNhDKw7zynA&ust=1391908080896008



larger participation rates than 11-a-side this was a positive

outcome.

Four United Kingdom professional football clubs invested in

synthetic turf in the 1980’s, including Queens Park Rangers

(Loftus Road), Luton Town (Kenilworth Road) and Oldham

Athletics (Bonding Park).

Hockey continued to embrace the technology with most

major competitions being played on synthetic watered turf.

Photo 8: 2nd Generation Synthetic Turf (source: Cranfield University www.cranfield.ac.uk)

At the end of the decade the European governing body for

soccer EUFA ruled that professional level games should

not be played on synthetic turf.

1990’s

The major manufacturers of synthetic turf understood the

benefits to community and elite sport that the technology

could offer, but could not convince the world sports’

governing bodies by themselves.

The peak body with the most interest in the 1990’s was

FIFA for football (soccer) and they made it clear that the

playability and performance needed to reflect the standards

of natural turf.

The 3rd

generation synthetic turf was born using a different

and more holistic approach in Europe and America. After

much research, the end of the 1990’s saw a new

generation turf, using a softer yarn, polyethylene, with

rubber granules and sand now used more as ballast rather

than the key component of the infill. This allowed the

surface to take a normal stud, which convinced the rugby

codes, AFL and cricket to try this 3rd

generation, joining

football and gridiron.

2000’s

This decade saw the defining period for the use and

adoption of synthetic technology, with many sports

embracing the benefits. Many of the sports peak bodies:

- Developed standards for elite and/or community pitch

performance, including football (FIFA), rugby union

(IRB), hockey (FIH), bowls (WB), athletics (IAAF),

Australian Rules football (AFL) and tennis (ITF).

- Introduced an accreditation scheme for suppliers

and/or products.

- Changed the rules of the game so that players could

compete on the surfaces (Football (FIFA), Rugby

Union (IRB), Bowls and AFL).

- Ensured that pitches were tested regularly to meet the

standards; and

- Promoted the use of the technology to grow

participation in the game.

2.2 Evolution in Australia

Australia has embraced turf technology just as the rest of

the world has and a quick insight into the evolution, sport

by sport is best seen in the Table 1 below.

Type Year State Comments

Cricket Wicket (outdoor)

1983

2010

NSW

NSW

Supergrass product installed

First integrated and tested AFL/CA wicket and outfield installed at Northbridge oval

Indoor Cricket 1970's WA Dennis Lillee wicket

Soccer (not certified)

1998

2007

ACT

Vic

Astroturf USA, 3rd generation (sand/rubber) at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS)

Harvest Home – Whittlesea City Council

AFL/Cricket 2010 Melbourne, Vic

TEAM Sports, round sand infill on shock pad, for Melbourne City Council at JJ Holland Park

Rugby 2000

2014

Gold Coast, QLD

Lane Cove Council

TEAM Sports, Runaway Bay Super Sports Centre, 3rd generation (sand/rubber) – not accredited

First IRB Regulation 22 Rugby Field

Hockey (water based)

1987

NSW

Supergrass, Homebush State Sports Centre using 15mm straight yarn.

Hockey (sand based)

1987 ACT Balsam Pacific, Lyneham Hockey Cnt, 34mm sand filled

Lawn bowls (not carpet)

1986/87 NSW Supergrass, City Bowls Club, Sydney, 25mm sand filled

Tennis (rebound type)

1982 NSW Multi-use netball etc.

Tennis (lawn type)

1978 NSW Ampol Petroleum Co, imported first 19mm synthetic grass court and installed at Ingleside, Sydney

Tennis (Clay type)

2001 Victoria Grass Manufacturers, first terra cotta coloured yarn with clay coloured sand.

Grid Iron 2011 Endeavour 5 sports, NSW

TEAM Sports, with permanent five yard markings and temporary blue paint sidelines and goal lines.

Table 1: Evolution of Synthetics in Australia



2.3 Present Challenges

Drivers and Benefits 2.3.1

The main reasons given for installing a synthetic surface for

sport and recreational use are:

Climatic: Under drought and water restrictions or

excessive rain conditions, it can be difficult to

maintain a safe and suitable natural grass surface.

Synthetic sports surfaces in general are not affected

by the reduced or increased rainfall;

Usage: There is a limit to the hours natural turf can be

used before there is a significant impact on surface

condition. A high quality natural turf surface may only

withstand use for up to 20 hours2 per week before it

starts to deteriorate. Synthetic surfaces can sustain

significantly higher use than natural grass with 60

hours3 plus per week as an acceptable expectation;

Maintenance: Maintaining a turf surface can be time

consuming, expensive and generally requires a

qualified person to do it. Synthetic surfaces require

lower ongoing maintenance than a natural turf

surface;

Consistency and quality of play: Synthetic surfaces

provide a consistent and safe surface all year round

for all sports to play on, improving the quality of

performance for each sport compared with natural

playing surfaces;

Health: By allowing play on the surface more often

and under safer conditions, it enhances physical

health of participants;

Mandated: some sports governing bodies insist that if

a particular level of game is played, it has to be on a

particular level of synthetic surface (e.g. International

Athletic Associations Federation with athletics,

Federation of International Hockey with hockey fields

etc.).

Negative Perceptions 2.3.2

There is a significant lack of understanding about the

technology, with some community concern around how the

technology is made, managed and/or how it integrates into

the local environment. The major concerns include:

Environmental integration – whether there is a

negative impact on the environment

Player comfort and safety – for injuries, overall safety

and impact between the surface and the player

2 As quoted by Sports Turf Institute in conference 2011 before deterioration of turf on

average in Australia 3 FIFA at NSSCE Conference in Sydney quoted 80 hours per week as their expectations

in Europe

Loss of open space – some Local Government

authorities (LGA’s) have found that some sections of

the community believe synthetic installations will

translate to loss of open space. This needs to be

considered in the design of the parkland

Financially Profitable – the initial cost (around $1m

per football pitch) is high but compared with the

number of participants and the cost per hour of use,

the synthetic surface could be as little as 25 percent

of the cost of an equivalent natural turf

2.4 Future Focused

The future use of synthetic turf will be based on the use

and functionality of the technology with key focuses on:

Multi-use - Usability for many sports. A one turf

standard has been developed by key sports allowing

Local Government - as a major investor in the

technology - to use a single field for many sports.

Safety - To address perceptions and challenges that

the technology faces, including the heat differential

with natural turf. The use of light coloured or

natural/organic infill’s, ‘coolant’ yarn technology and

water capillary technology to keep the surface

temperature lower will become more important

Greener - Green technology, using recycled

components and recyclable after its lifespan, will be

more important to decision makers.

Durability - With the increased patronage on the

surface, the synthetic turf systems will need to evolve

to meet the challenge of greater usage - in excess of

60 hours per week. The durability test for some sports

(e.g. FIFA 2 Star recommended pitch) is as low as

5,200 revolutions. The new standards are being

tested around 50,000 – 100,000. This may need to be

the norm in the future.

Some suppliers of 3rd

generation synthetic turf for large ball

sports such as football have spruiked that a 4th

generation

is here. This has been described as a surface that needs

no infill. It is unlikely this approach would be embraced by

the industry without significant testing at the highest level.

In hockey the world governing body (FIH) acknowledges

that there is a need to provide pitches that have the playing

characteristics of a ‘wet pitch’ but without the use of water.

This challenge has been worked through by the major

manufacturers and a number of sand-dressed and ‘dry’

fields have been installed and are being used.



In tennis the use of synthetic grass with red coloured sand

granules has been installed in several places across

Australia.

2.5 Synthetic Surface Uses

Types of Synthetic Surface 2.5.1

There are a number of synthetic surface types that can be

linked to specific uses (e.g. rubber – for athletic tracks;

water based carpet for Hockey etc.). As the surface can be

flexible to use both indoors and outdoors the following

types are normally used.

1. Synthetic turf

Long pile, sand and rubber filled turf (3G - third

generation)

Photo 9: Football (soccer) has been most pro-active with the introduction of synthetic football turf

Long pile turf has long blades of fibre similar to natural turf

playing surfaces. The long grass fibres (40mm – 70mm in

length) allow for a greater amount of infill to be integrated

into the pitch, adding to the shock absorbency and force

reduction characteristics of the ground. These fibres can be

monofilament (single fibre) or multi-ended filament yarns

(brush-like at the tip). The pitch infill normally comprises a

performance infill and shock absorbing and cushioning

surface emulating the performance characteristics we

come to expect from a natural turf pitch. Some sports such

as rugby also need to have a shock absorbing cushion

system under the ‘turf’, and this may be stipulated.

A synthetic turf pitch provides the player with a sure-footed

and consistent playing surface that is free from bumps,

hollows and imperfections whilst being unaffected by the

sun and rain. There is a standard of turf available for most

levels of sporting competitions, including:

- Australian Rules Football - AFL

- Football (soccer) – FIFA

- Cricket – Cricket Australia

- Rugby (union and league) – IRB & RFL

Short pile sand and rubber filled turf

All weather, multi-use short pile turf stands between 12mm

– 25mm high and is normally dressed with sand and/or

filled with rubber granules, leaving approximately 5mm –

8mm of the grass tips showing. The fibres used are

generally more dense and stable because of the use of

tufted filaments woven into a carpet-like template. It also

imitates the speed and playability of natural turf. This type

of surface is ideal for fast paced balls to ground contact

much like we see in sports like lawn bowls, tennis and

hockey.

Due to the multi-purpose nature of short pile sand and

rubber filled surfaces, there are a wide range of standards

and specifications depending on the sport and level of

competition being played on them. Lawn bowls for example,

follows the international guidelines for its artificial green

provision.

Water based turf

These all-weather water-based turf pitches are generally

described as a dense, medium height, non-directional

carpet pile with a height of approximately 12mm. Its fibres

allow across-the-ground passing and accuracy of the rolling

ball, ensuring regular control over the speed and bounce.

The Federation of International Hockey (FIH) has

developed special artificial pitch specifications for

international and national level hockey, known as either

‘global or national standard’, using a water-based or hybrid

carpet. In addition they also have a multi-sport standard for

community use.

Photo 10: Water based Hockey field South Australia Hockey Centre (Source: TEAM Sports)

Hybrid turf

A hybrid synthetic turf system is becoming more and more

popular as an alternative to water based turf pitches as

availability of water decreases. This surface can be played

wet or dry and accommodates most levels of playing



standards up to international games. The pitch is dressed

with a light layer of sand or none at all because the pitch

can be played either wet or dry depending on the level of

competition required for that specific match. It is ideal for

today’s climatic conditions.

Photo 11: Hockey ‘Hybrid Turf’ surface

2. Carpet

Turf carpet – Limited infill of sand or rubber

Short pile carpet is increasingly being used as a safer,

more attractive and visually stimulating alternative to

asphalt in many schools and community areas. It can be

laid in different colours, line markings and patterns and

suits the needs of multipurpose areas. The short pile turf

offers a safer and more aesthetically pleasing and cooler

option to asphalt, however it can be warmer in the sun than

natural grass turf. Carpet is usually a woven ‘carpet-like’

synthetic surface that may not require any or only a limited

infill, the pile height is always very short and the fibres are

quite coarse, “brush-like” and sturdy.

There is a range of carpet types including; monofilaments

(single blades) based on various yarn types, fibrillated

(grass with a lattice structure), and fine fibrillated (finer

perforations compared to general fibrillated turf). Non-

directional characteristics are introduced by texturised

(yarn passed through a heated texturiser that crimps the

yarn) or the knit de knit process.

Due to the multi-purpose nature of short pile carpets they

are generally only used at schools, playgrounds and for

other community level purposes and therefore the

standards may be limited as competitive sports are not

played on them.

Carpet

This type of playing surface is flexible in its use and

resembles a woven carpet that you can either roll out or

place over an existing hard surface in large rolls. Generally

this type of carpet is used for competitive and local use and

by many is regarded as the best surface for bowls.

Photo 12: Lawn Bowls have been using synthetic surfaces since the 1970’s

3. Rubberised/Rubber surfaces

Rubber

Rubberised surfaces like athletics tracks, are generally

made of all weather, multiple layers of polyurethane

embedded with rubber granules for optimal cushioning and

shock absorbency which adds to the force reduction of the

surface. Generally the materials used in athletics tracks are

designed to resist UV degradation and are non-hazardous,

with no heavy metals used in their ingredients.

The surfaces have a seamless finish, with the embedded

texture allowing the water to run through the track offering

all weather usage and the maximum UV protection aspects.

IAAF has developed certified systems for international,

national and local athletics competitions.

4. Artificial clay

Artificial clay

Artificial clay is a synthetic surface with the appearance

and performance of clay, which combines synthetic carpet

and specifically graded coloured sand and reduces the

need for constant watering. It is increasingly being used to

replace existing clay-based tennis courts. This is now the

preferred tennis surface because of its durability, playability

and the fact that there is no need for water on this surface

for it to play comparably to clay.

Photo 13: Artificial Clay Surface – Greensborough Vic (Source: TigerTurf)



Tennis is one of only a few sports that have an official

specification on the use of clay playing surfaces.

5. Acrylic varieties

Acrylic / non-cushioned hard court

Acrylic surface coated layer set onto rubber pad is used for

a variety of sports. Generally the surface will sit at 5mm –

15mm off of the base/ground and can vary from one 5mm

rubber pad all the way to many layers of shock absorbing

rubber layers below an acrylic surface. Acrylic surfaces

generally expel water quite quickly so there is no need to

dry or even cease play if the surface gets wet from rain.

The acrylic surface layer itself is very durable, all weather

and UV resistant, making it resistant to degradation. It can

range from the more economical hard court coating to the

high performance cushioned coating discussed above.

Players benefit from the quality traction and shock

absorbent nature of the playing surface. Ideal for clubs,

schools and community level use.

Due to the multi-purpose nature of acrylic surfaces they are

generally only used at schools, playgrounds and for other

community level purposes and therefore the standards may

differ depending on the specific purpose.

Cushioned hard court

Cushioned hard court is a specially constructed ‘cushioned

acrylic’ hard court surface designed to increase shock

absorption in the court itself and reduce players’ foot and

leg fatigue. Unlike other cushioning systems, it provides a

firm and uniform surface. This prevents the subtle fatigue

caused by playing on a soft, spongy surface. This type of

surface has been used at the Australian Open, the

Medibank International, the Adelaide International and the

Hopman Cup.

This type of surface is normally a series of flexible layers

installed in liquid form on site that contain rubber and

acrylic particles. The multiple cushion layers are installed

prior to the top surfacing system.

Ball bounce and speed are affected by this surface by the

function of the surface finish (e.g. aggregate selection and

density). Users can continue to gain all the benefits of this

surface with the added comfort of the elastic layers.

There are two standards of competition grade cushioned

hard court: ‘tournament’ specifications and ‘prestige’

specifications - the only difference being the under-base.

The prestige system has been chosen by Tennis Australia

as the playing surface for the Australian Open series. The

International Tennis Federation (ITF) pace rating

classification ensures that the court speed is within the

guidelines needed.

6. Stabilised turf

Many of the top stadiums around the world are now using

an integrated synthetic system with their natural grass,

including the MCG, Etihad in Melbourne, Dunedin and

Forsyth Barr Stadium in New Zealand, as well as nine

English football league club grounds.

Integrating natural turf with synthetic turf root system allows

for the natural grass to be reinforced below the ground to a

depth of 200mm. This has provided up to three times the

normal usage patterns according to the sales literature of

the Australian distributor. The combination of fibrillated

synthetic turf and natural turf allows the natural grass roots

to become entwined in the matrixes web of synthetic grass,

growing downwards through a plastic mesh and into the

foundation material, providing a stabilised solution for

stadiums. See Figure 1 for a local Australian example.

The predominantly sand filled layer provides an excellent

growing environment for the natural turf with the durability

of synthetic grass. As one supplier’s marketing material

states, “The plant’s roots, crowns, rhizomes and stolons

that grow within the stabilised zone are shielded from wear

damage, extending the field’s playability and accelerating

turf recuperation following regional use.

Figure 1: Cross Section of Desso Grassmaster Reinforced natural grass (source www.hgturf.com.au)

Shear damage and compression displacement become a

thing of the past. As with traditional natural turf grass fields,

groundsmen managing this (product) are encouraged to

practice the essential turf maintenance strategies of

aeration, topdressing and scarifying.

Key aspects of this stabilised system include:-

1. The natural turf grass blades reside above the tops of the

synthetic tufts creating a fully natural grass surface. If

the turf canopy is worn away, the sand-filled synthetic

http://www.hgturf.com.au/



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 the site’s foundation material, minimising

the potential for layering and assuring high water

infiltration rates through the turf; and

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.

2.6 Using Synthetic Surfaces

The most important aspect when considering what type of

synthetic surface to use, is what purpose the surface will be

used for. This ‘fit for purpose’ approach is critical to ensure

that the correct standard and type of surface is selected.

The Smart Sports Surface Continuum (Figure 2) identifies

the level and type of use with a corresponding synthetic

surface type.

1. Active

Lifestyle

2.

Physical

Activity

3. Play 4. Recreation 5. Training

and

Competition

6. Elite or

Professional

Sport

Passive

needs

Active

walking

and

jogging

Play

grounds

and areas

for

children

Social non-

competitive

sport at

local level

Training

and

competition

on facilities

that need

set

standards

Performance

standards

need to be

demonstrate

d

Landscap

e grass

Hard

surface

for

durabilit

y on

rubber

jogging

Soft play

areas

around

equipmen

t colourful

play

Larger

areas for

adults,

multi-sport

zones that

do not have

performanc

e standards,

good for

casual

recreation.

Surface

recreation

sports

specified

standards

that aim at

ensuring

player

safety and

surface

performanc

e

The top

range of

surface

standards for

key sports for

either

community

level,

professional

or stadium

needs

Figure 2: Smart Sports Surface Continuum



Section 2 Case Study – HG Sports Turf – Synthetic Turf Systems Evolution



SECTION 3:

SYNTHETIC

SPORTS TURF

SYSTEMS



3 Synthetic Sports Turf Systems

3.1 Introduction

The perception that synthetic turf is the most important

aspect of the system needs to be broadened. Although the

synthetic turf is important, the whole system is complex and

integrated with no single part being more important than

the other. It is a system of components that are

interdependent upon each other. The system normally

comprises of:

- Synthetic turf yarn (3.2)

- The backing (3.3)

- Infill (3.4)

- Shockpad (3.5)

- Pavement (3.6)

- Drainage (3.7)

This section explores each of these six components and

provides a detailed understanding of how each is ‘made’

and why they are important for the success of the synthetic

turf system.

3.2 Synthetic Turf Yarn

The synthetic turf aspect of the system has yarn that is

developed through an extrusion process from a

combination of polymers to provide either a softer

polyethylene based fibre or a slightly harder polypropylene

fibre. The first generation was made from nylon

(polyamide) yarn, which was prone to friction burns due to

its coarse nature.

The current manufacturing process produces one of two

forms of yarn, a monofilament single thread of yarn or a

slit-film tape, commonly known as fibrillated yarn. The

process for both types of yarn includes taking the raw

materials, namely the polyethylene polymer (which is

almost exclusively used for long grass fields) and the

colour and melting them in an extruder.

Photo 14: Example of Mono-filament and Fibrillated Tape (Source: FieldTurf)

The melted and coloured material is then either pushed

through a spinneret (similar to a thick spaghetti maker) to

the shape of the monofilament and then cooled, or formed

into a film, cooled and then perforated in a fibrillated tape.

Photo 15: Extrusion Process producing mono-filament yarn

The mix of polymers follows the above process. The

formulas of the polymers are a proprietary intellectual

property of the yarn manufactures as they strive for the

right balance between fibre rigidity (to keep the fibre

upright) and softness, for feel and skin/player interaction.

The key variables that need to be considered with the yarn

include:

UV Resistance 3.2.1

As Australia has one of the most aggressive climates with

one of the highest UV levels in the world, it has a direct

impact on the longevity of the synthetic turf system. The

yarn should be provided with a warrantee against UV.

Some cheaper yarns that are being imported into Australia

may not have been tested to the appropriate levels needed,

and this should be considered. The UV stabilisation is a big

part of the yarn cost and is tested using a QUV machine

that exposes the yarn to high levels of artificial UV light and

combined with artificial weathering (heat, light, rain etc.)

simulates eight years of exposure. This normally involves

3,000 hours of testing.

The Australian standard that the surface needs to adhere

to is AS2001-4: B02-2001, for minimal UV degradation.

Colour Fastness 3.2.2

Extensive weathering such as heat, rain and wind can

impact on the colour fastness of the pigments in the yarn.

When combined with intensive play, the pigments, if not

stabilised with the yarns’ polymers, can cause accelerated

breakdown. In some earlier yarns (pre 2002) the use of

heavy lead pigments (e.g. lead chromate) were used. The

key manufacturers in the late 1990’s embraced the EU

Packaging Directive removing heavy metals from recycled

plastic packaging products (1994). Some cheaper imported



products may not have embraced these standards. It is

important that any purchaser of synthetic surfaces ensures

that this is adhered to by the supplier.

The Australian standard for colour fastness in artificial light,

which can be used to test the colour fastness, is AS2001-4

BO2-2001 which also addresses the minimum UV

degradation.

The safety of the colour pigment is not addressed by any

Australian standard and the European DIN standard 18035

states that the levels should be:

Heavy Metal Acceptable Level Units

Lead <0.04 mg/L

Cadmium <0.0005 mg/L

Chrome Total <0.05 mg/L

Mercury <0.001 mg/L

Zinc <3.0 mg/L

Table 2: Acceptable heavy metal levels (source: DIN 18035)

Length of Yarn 3.2.3

The length of the yarn is determined by the purpose of use,

whether that is 11mm for hockey, 60mm for rugby union or

220mm for synthetic horse racing tracks. Some sports

determine the length of the yarn (e.g. rugby union at 60mm

minimum) while others focus on the performance outcomes

only.

Sport Normal Range

Bowls 10mm - 15mm

Football (11-a-side) 40mm - 65mm

Football (5-a-side) 20mm - 65mm

Rugby League 40mm - 65mm

Rugby Union 60mm minimum

Tennis 10mm - 25mm

Australian Rules 40mm - 65mm

Hockey 12mm - 65mm

Cricket Wicket 9mm - 10mm

Table 3: Example of yarn height ranges for each sport

Thickness of Yarn 3.2.4

There is balance between the thickness of the yarn, which

may assist with its ability to remain standing and the

softeners of a slightly thinner yarn. Over the years,

manufacturers have tried many sorts of yarn types to

optimise the balance of thickness and softness to polymers.

Photo 16: Examples of different structures of yarn (Source: TigerTurf)

At the recent FSB synthetic surface expo the trend was for

a mono-filament yarn that was between 300 microns & 430

microns thick.

Mono-filament VS Fibrillated 3.2.5

When the yarn is extruded, there are normally five (5)

broad options:

Monofilament fibre – a single length or blade which

tries to replicate that of a single blade of natural grass.

A grass with this yarn would normally have a greater

amount per square metre. It is also renowned for

staying upright longer and being more durable.

Fibrillated Yarn – The yarn is produced in a sheet (slit-

film sheet) then cut to the width desired, so the texture

has more uniformity than the single blade of the mono-

filament yarn with the superior turf bind and economies

of a fibrillated yarn.

Hybrid system – Some manufacturers are offering a

combined yarn system that offers the aesthetics and

durability of a monofilament yarn with the superior tuft

bind and economies of a fibrillated yarn.

Knit-de-knit – straight yarn that is given the tight curly

appearance for hockey pitches, producing a non-

directional surface.

Texturised - Straight yarn that is heat-set to produce a

tight curly appearance which is non-directional to meet

the needs of hockey. This approach is also used for

the “thatch” part of the ‘grass-system’ mainly for

landscape grass, reducing the need for infill.

Cooler Grass Technology 3.2.6

Most of the manufacturers have a proprietary approach to

the reduction the heat retention in the yarn, some claim by

20-30%. This is worth considering when purchasing. It is

always worth considering the question 20-30 percent of

what? This reduction normally occurs because the

polymers in the yarn are able to reflect infrared and

dissipate heat into the atmosphere, as opposed to

absorbing them into the yarn.

Pile Weight/ Density 3.2.7

Identifying the quality of yarn within a square meter, using

the number of stitches and the gauge manufacture. As a



rule, the tighter the pile, the higher the price. The linear

density is a measure of the weight of the yarn, and is

referred to as the ‘Denier’.

3.3 The Backing

The backing material is critical as it holds the tufted yarn in

place but also needs to be durable enough to hold the field

in place, so there is no shrinkage or expansion. It is also

critical for connecting each roll of grass on the field,

allowing water to pass through the surface.

The yarn is predominantly tufted through the backing and

the yarn needs to have a coating or glue type bonding

agent so that the tufts cannot be easily moved or pulled out.

The most commonly used coating is a polyurethane

bonding agent, due to its superior water resistance. Latex,

thermo-plastic coatings, natural rubber and other bonding

agents can also be used. The porosity of the backing is

normally achieved in one of two ways; either using a heat

soldering hole and puncturing across the roll of grass, or

having the polyurethane backing only attributed to the yarn

tufted areas and the space in between the tufts is therefore

more porous..

The majority of carpet backing is double backed with the

‘second backing’ sprayed on to seal the carpet tufts. Some

manufacturers only ‘seal’ the turf and gauge, leaving the

space between not double sealed, allowing for greater

water porosity. These pictures below provide an

understanding of the two key options.

The water porosity through the carpet backing must be

achieved for the key sports. For instance in football

(soccer) the FIFA guidelines are 180ml per hour. In rugby

union the IRB guideline is 500ml per hour, whilst Australian

Rules (AFL) is 200ml. Smart Connection Company

recommends all pitches should have a porosity rate of

500ml per hour. It’s important to design drainage rates to

cope with this.

Photo 17: Examples of Backing Surfaces

Carpet Seams and Joining 3.3.1

The carpet is normally created on rolls of 3.5m – 4.5m in

width and these are laid width wise across the field. The

‘straight lines’ are normally integrated when woven and the

circular lines laid at installation.

Any other straight seams are usually secured by sewing or

using an adhesive, depending upon the manufacturer’s

system. The important point is that the carpet should be

seamless and have a maximum possible joint strength.

The adhesives used should be proven in Australia and are

not considered volatile in adverse weather conditions (e.g.

heat, rain, wind, humidity etc.).

Photo 18: Example of seam failure

3.4 Infill

The infill within the 3G long grass synthetic turf aims to

provide a consistency between the ball, player and surface

interaction that allows the synthetic system to perform to

the required standards.

There are a number of aspects that need to be considered

when choosing the most appropriate infill for a sports field

including:

The type of infill for the surface;

The depth and height of the infill compared to the

yarn, and

The amount of infill.

Purpose of Infill 3.4.1

The infill, or lack of it, is needed to assist the performance

of the whole grass system, which ensures that the yarn

plays a similar role as the soil in natural grass fields. The

different types of grass surfaces that are commonly

categorised are as follows:

1) Unfilled

Although the first nylon pitches in the 1960’s were unfilled,

the pitch systems are far more sophisticated now-a-days.

Water is used; predominantly for hockey’s premium

standard - global .Water is applied through an irrigation

system immediately prior to play, increasing the speed of

the ball interaction with the surface. Technology is now

looking for unfilled fields that have similar playing



conditions as traditional water based pitches. Many are

sand dressed instead.

2) Sand-Dressed

Dressed synthetics surfaces aim to add weight to the

carpet to keep the denier pile upright while also maintaining

the playing standards for hockey. Some football (soccer) 5-

a-side/futsal courts use this type of system as it seems to

provide a more durable solution to people using flat training

shoes.

Photo 19: Example of a mixed profile of sand and rubber infill

3) Filled Fields

The aim of the filling is to replicate soil in a natural pitch

where the grass/synthetic yarn is held upright. The filling

can be compiled from rubber, sand or organic infill’s. The

amount of fill is normally determined by the manufacturer,

when they consider the length of grass yarn, the

performance outcomes, the shock pad & purpose of the

field. For instance rugby union has to be at least 60mm,

whilst hockey can be around 11mm.

Type of Infill 3.4.2

Depending on the manufacturers systems, there will always

be a choice for the purchaser depending upon the

affordability and philosophical standing. Some Local

Governments do not like the idea of using recycled types

(SBR) due to community perceptions, although these

perceptions have been proved unfounded. In essence

there are five types of infill, all offering slightly different

options, but with the same outcome, namely the

performance standards stipulated by the sport(s). The key

options are:

1) Crumbed Rubber (SBR)

The most popular infill in the Asia Pacific region, probably

due to the cost effective price point. Derived from recycled

truck tyres that are ground up and recycled. Two types of

crumbled rubber are used – ambient and organic. They are

both predominantly metal free, and according to the United

States, Synthetic Turf Council’s (STC) Guidelines for crumb

rubber infill should not contain liberated fibre in the amount

that exceeds 0.01 percent of total weight of crumbed

rubber.

Photo 20: Crumbed Rubber (Source: TigerTurf)

Recycled and shredded rubber is normally 0.5 - 2mm in

size, is the least expensive and still provides the necessary

sliding and shock absorbing qualities. The shredding of the

rubber is normally completed mechanically. Sifting

technology is used to ensure that the dimensions are

correct. The benefits are that it is recycled, economical, UV

stable and has a long life span. The black rubber has,

according to the UK’s Sport and Play Construction

Association’s (SAPCA) independent Consultant polymer

chemist, Dr Bryon Willoughby, “selected to offer optimum

performance in a demanding application which requires

strength, fatigue and abrasion resistance”. SBR is a

general purpose rubber.

Both the ambient and cryogenically shredded rubber can

be coated with obscurants, sealers or anti-microbial

substance if required. This approach provides a great

aesthetic appeal but the additional cost may not justify it for

may LGA’s.

2) Sands

Silica sand is the preference for sports fields due to the

rounding of each particle, as opposed to the sharpness of

natural sand, as you would find on the beach. This sand is

chemically stable, fracture resistant, non-toxic and is

rounded.

Photo 21: Silica Sand (Source: www.flexsand.com)

http://www.flexsand.com/



It can be used by itself, as seen in some sites in Victoria

and ACT or in combination with rubber or organic infills. It

is important that the Silica sand has a high purity of grains

of more than 90 percent as recommended by the STC. This

sand can also be coated with either a firm or flexible

coating which is normally elastomeric or acrylic, forming a

coating that allows for different sizes depending on the

system’s needs.

3) TPE (Thermo Plastic Elastomer)

This is a new material, which is heated and compressed

into grains or various shapes for performance. Once cooled,

it retains its new shape, is elastic in nature and can also be

recycled. It has a long life and shows durability according to

various manufacturers.

Photo 22: TPV Granules provide a greater colour range and less UV degradation (Source: Surface Designs)

This ‘virgin plastic’ infill is non-toxic, chemically stable,

resits fading and is long lasting. It can also provide the

benefit of being recycled at the end of the “grasses life”.

Providing a wide range of colours, TPE is often used in

playgrounds, athletic tracks as well as for field infills. It has

elastic properties, uniform shape and its virgin rubber and

filling provide a high performance infill option.

4) EPDM Infill (Ethylene Propylene Terpolymer)

This type of infill is produced from a polymer recovered

from three monomers: ethylene, propylene and diene. It is

manufactured new with options for various colours made to

order. It is odourless and offers consistent quality. It is often

used beside playgrounds and on tracks as well as for

performance infill. It is commonly coloured in light colours

and provides a significant contrast from the traditional black

SBR.

Photo 23: EPDM 'Bionic' infill (Source MILOS)

5) Organic Infill

There seems to be some experimentation using organic or

natural infill’s by a small number of companies. The mix of

the organic infill may have a bearing on other

considerations. The basic approaches seem to be:

i. Cork infill – allowing cork to be stripped from trees

(every nine years) then used as a top TPE type infill

with similar rebound qualities. As it does not take water

it will not break down like other organic infills. It is

cooler than rubber, stable and retains its shape. The

marketing rational from a key supplier states that it has

12 million air cells per cubic cm. It is the most costly

but an excellent solution.

ii. Cork/organic infill – allowing less cork with other

plant/organic compounds such as coconut husk etc.

There seems to be more concerns about this

combination due to:

- The plant/organic compound breaking down quickly

with the typical level of use that Australian LGA’s

programme their pitches (e.g. 40-60 hours).

- Additional cost of maintenance due to compaction

and possible organic growth with plant substance.

- Additional cost of continual replacement and top-up.

- This option, in Australia’s climate also needs to be

watered regularly as it will turn to dust with the

breakdown of the natural fibres.

Some would say this negates the benefits of synthetic turf

and a hybrid stabilised turf/grass solution should be

considered.



Photo 24: Organic Infill (Source: Limonta)

Future Directions 3.4.3

The European suppliers are promoting a light coloured

EPDM which offers strong shock absorption whilst also

ensuring that some of the heat issue is realised. This is yet

to be tested in Australia in significant amounts.

At the National Synthetic Surfaces Conference and Expo

(2013) a yarn manufacturer launched a recycled polymer

infill which had been tested and showed characteristics that

indicated that their product would reduce heat by more than

10 percent.

Rubber Infill Migration 3.4.4

Rubber infill is lighter than water and also has a tendency

to migrate across areas of a field. FIFA raised this as a

concern at a recent Australian conference4 and indicated

that they are exploring the options of how this could be

stabilised.

Amount of Infill 3.4.5

The amount of infill used in a field will depend on how the

manufacturers systems work and against what sports

performance standards are chosen. If a shock pad is used,

then for the same football codes the yarn length may be as

little as 43mm. In Europe the mix of silica sand and EPDM

is being used with a yarn of 43 mm allowing 21mm for the

fibre to be left above the infill with an infill level of around

22mm.

The import aspects to consider are the structure of infill or

square meter and the thickness of the yarn fibres to allow

the yarn to stay upright.

Photo 25: EPDM (Virgin Rubber) Infill allowing around 20mm of grass above the infill

4 National Synthetic Surfaces Conference and Expo June 2013 (NSSCE)

3.5 Shockpad

Shockpad Considerations 3.5.1

The shockpad is an elasticated layer (E-layer) between the

base and the synthetic grass carpet. It is used by many

suppliers to provide a degree of comfort, meet the sports’

requirements for critical fall height and extend the life of the

pitch.

The types and thickness of shockpads need to be

considered as part of the overall synthetic surface system

to ensure that the important requirements of international

sports standards, regarding shock absorption, energy

restitution and vertical deformation are met. These

requirements may not be met with the compaction of

rubber infill.

There has been much consideration, opinions and sales

propositions put forward as to whether a shockpad for a

synthetic grass field for football (soccer, rugby and AFL) is

needed. Many experts believe that if the pitch is played on

intensively it is unlikely the playing characteristics will meet

the sports performance standards over time if there is not a

shockpad in place. Due to the youthfulness of the FIFA

Quality Concept and the level of retesting that has been

completed on pitches, it is hard to ascertain with much

certainty the impact of not having a shockpad.

The belief of the majority of Australian suppliers is that a

shockpad is critical in the long-term to achieve performance

standards. Over the next couple of years it will be

interesting to explore how many FIFA 1 Star pitches have a

shock pad that are re-tested and achieve the performance

criteria, after four and eight years.

The question therefore, is what needs to be considered

when deciding on the type of shock pad, especially if the

client feels less confident that they will be able to meet the

exact routine maintenance obligations?

Types of Shockpad 3.5.2

The types and thickness of shock pads needs to be

considered as part of the overall synthetic surface system.

This is to ensure that the important requirements of

international sports standards regarding shock absorption,

energy restitution and vertical deformation are met. There

are two kinds of shock pads:

i. Pre-fabricated construction

There are a number of systems on the market, including

roll-out pads, normally up to 5m in width, prefabricated

sheets which once laid out can reduce the time of

installation. The latest approach to the preformed shock



pads is to allow for breathing in the pad for when they

expand and contract.

Photo 26: Prefabricated Shockpad being laid (Source: TEAM Sports)

Some shockpads are currently being developed with

breathable channels which allow water through easier and

also trap air, making them cooler (according to the

marketing literature). Tests are being held to ascertain the

reality of this process.

ii. In-situ construction

This surface infill mix comes in a variation of thickness

between 35mm and 10mm and consists of a polyurethane

binder mixer combined with rubber crumb (SBR) or

shredded rubber (e.g. soles of training shoes). The mix

needs to be perfected with the infill for the system to be

optimised.

The IRB have stated in their performance standards that

“shockpads are preferred’’ and at a conference in New

Zealand5 said they would recommend a shockpad is used

for their fields every time.

Photo 27: Insitu Shockpad being laid (Source: STI)

5 NZRA Turf Conference (June 2013)

Loughborough University (http://sportsurf.lboro.ac.uk)

identified that the binder (glue) percentage strength should

ideally be between 12 percent and 16 percent when laying

shockpads.

In 2014, FIFA is expected to release the results from their

research on the benefits of shockpads compared with the

ability to achieve performance targets over time. The

report is likely to conclude what industry experts have been

saying for some time; that if a synthetic system does not

have a shockpad, the level of maintenance needs to be

higher and more consistent. The shockpad is seen as

providing a greater degree of certainty of achieving the

performance targets over time, particularly with the higher

level of use.

3.6 Pavement

It is critical to ensure that the sub-base and pavement is

designed by a civil engineering specialist so that it can

support the synthetic surface system. The design should

be based against data from the locations/field inspections

including topographical survey, geotechnical report,

drainage study etc.

The focus of the sub-base and pavement base design must

be able to achieve the following:

Support the vehicle load during the construction,

maintenance and replacement phases,

Integrate with the synthetic surface to ensure that the

sports’ performance criteria is achieved,

Support the load on the pitch once in use, including

players and maintenance machinery to ensure no

negative deformation of the surface,

Protect the surface from other sub-grade movement

or water.

3.7 Drainage

Drainage is critical to the success of a synthetic sports field

and a number of key aspects need to be considered before

deciding which approach to take, namely a vertical or

horizontal solution. The following conditions need to be

explored prior to purchase as they could make a significant

impact on the design and therefore the cost and success of

the system as a whole.

Sports Guidance 3.7.1

All key grass sports stipulate that water must drain through

the surface initially. This means that the waste cannot drain

horizontally ‘on top’ of the field, to avoid the pooling of

water. Each sport has different performance standards,

http://sportsurf.lboro.ac.uk/



with regards to the permeability of the system that the turf

needs to be able to demonstrate.

Site Conditions 3.7.2

The site may influence the type of drainage used. If it’s

being laid on a concrete base, vertical drainage may not be

an option, indeed if the soil base is contaminated, it could

be better to use a horizontal drainage solution.

A ‘storm rate’ needs to be calculated, using the statistics for

a 5 - 10 year rain period from the weather bureau in each

state/territory in order to identify a projected hourly rain-fall.

The drainage needs to be able to cope with at least this

level of rain, particularly if it is higher than the standard for

that sport.

Flow Conditions 3.7.3

The flow through the base material or drainage cell and the

associated pipe work needs to be able to meet the

permeability requirements of either the sports standards

and/or the site conditions.

Careful evaluation is needed of the drainage approach,

normally by a consultant engineer.

Vertical Drainage Option 3.7.4

The traditional natural-turf drainage system is commonly

used for the synthetic surface by using design

combinations with ‘AG-drains’ positioned under the

pavement with a permeable base allowing the water under

gravity is permeate the ground until it meets the drains.

The pipe work then feed to collector drains and finally to a

larger ‘storm-water’ drain and connect to either a water-

harvesting system or the local drainage.

The concern with this type of system is that in laying the

AG-drains, there could be significant movement in the base

and the compaction post-laying of the drains accuracy is

not always successful without some damage.

Horizontal Drainage Option 3.7.5

A horizontal drainage option is becoming more popular for

synthetic sports turf where the pavement as some believe

that the use of AG Drains can present problems longer

term with movement and cracks.

Photo 28: Example of horizontal drainage cell under shockpad (Source: Wayne Stuart - City of Swan, WA)

The water permeates through the turf/shockpad system

either through a drainage cell or by using the drainage

channels in a shockpad. Alternatively the road base can be

designed on an angle so the water can dissipate to

drainage around the outside of the field before being taken

away.



SECTION 4:

STANDARDS FOR

SYNTHETIC

SURFACES



4 Standards for Synthetic Surfaces

4.1 Importance of Standards

The development of standards for synthetic surfaces by the

peak bodies of sport has been one of the reasons for the

rapid acceptance of surfaces by the community. It provides

confidence that there will be interaction between the

surface, player and the ball and reflects the playing

characteristics essential for each sport.

The majority of sports (with the exception of hockey,

athletics and tennis) want the synthetic playing surface to

replicate the playing qualities and performance

characteristics of good quality natural grass.

This backing by the sports bodies has resulted in quality

standards and processes being developed for the majority

of the key sports that have embraced synthetic technology.

The standards now include:

Standards for the surface performance (e.g. FIFA

Quality Programme for football turf Handbook of

requirements);

Standards for key components of the synthetic system

(e.g. EN 15330.1 Surfaces for Sports areas –

Synthetic turf and needle – punched surfaces primarily

designed for outdoor use);

Standards for the testing laboratory by each sport;

Rules of the game relative to the use of Synthetic

Sports Turf.

In addition the sport may have regional or local ‘overlays’

for the size of the playing area for specific levels of the

game (e.g. Hockey NSW Association Facilities

Sustainability Guidelines).

It is critical for the players, sport and the purchaser (e.g.

Local Government) to ensure that the pitch is installed as

requested and the performance is compliant, in order to

reduce risk.

4.2 Developing Performance Standards

Almost all governing sporting bodies that have published

performance specifications or standards for artificial playing

surfaces, started their evaluation with a survey of natural

grass pitches. FIFA evaluated natural grass surfaces in

major stadiums in Europe, the AFL/CA analysed the

behaviour of stadium and community grounds in Australia

and the English RFL reviewed natural grass stadium

pitches and community grounds in England through a

summer and winter period.

Typically, a natural grass-synthetic turf hybrid can be found

in major stadium installations around the world, which uses

root-stabilized fibre-sand or fibre-elastic natural grass

systems. Typical community grounds are soil-based

natural grass surfaces which were surveyed during winter

and summer (see Table 4). In summary both, the ProPitch

study in England conducted as part of the English RFL

performance system as well as the AFL/CA study

conducted by the University of Ballarat6 concluded that

typical community grounds are harder and firmer than well-

maintained stadium grounds. As a result, most existing

performance standards distinguish between stadium and

community use when applying synthetic surfacing solutions.

Pro

pert

y

Dess

o

Gra

ssm

as

ter

Fib

res

an

d

Fib

reela

sti

c

So

il-b

ase

d

(win

ter)

So

il-b

ase

d

(su

mm

er)

Ball

Rebound

0.80 –

1.00m

0.75 –

0.90m

0.65 –

0.95m

0.60 –

0.80m

0.80 –

1.0m

Ball Roll 5.0 – 6.5 m 5.5 – 7.0

m

4.5 – 7.5 m 4.0 – 5.0

m

4.75 –

5.75 m

Underfoot

friction

40 – 50 Nm

*

30 – 40

Nm

30 – 50

Nm

25 – 35

Nm

40 – 55

Nm

Impact

Response

45 – 55 %

**

2 – 4 mm

***

45 – 55 %

3 – 5 mm

50 – 57 %

4 – 6 mm

62 –68 %

7 – 8 mm

53 – 65 %

4 – 8 mm

HIC/Critical

Fall Height

1.5 m 1.7 m 2.5 – 3.5 m n/a n/a

Table 4: Natural Grass Performance (ProPitchSystem study, England) Note:

* Rotational Resistance studded sole

** Shock absorption

*** Vertical deformation

In all sports, the data received was then used to model

performance criteria for the use of synthetic surfaces.

Common to all standards, is the fact the specifications can

be divided into three areas:

1. Product identification and durability,

2. Ball-surface interaction,

3. Player-surface interaction.

Depending on the specific playing characteristics of each

sport and the level the sport is being played at,

performance standards have been developed against the

three areas above. These performance standards are

measured by specific test equipment both in the laboratory

and on the field. It’s the field that receives the certification

– NOT the product.

6 Twomey, D., Otago, L., Saunders, N.; Development of Standards for the Use of Artificial

Turf for Australian Football and Cricket; University of Ballarat; 2007



4.3 Laboratory and Field Standards

The majority of sports have a process that needs to be

followed before a particular field is certified or accredited

against the sports performance standards. This process,

which varies with each sport, generally has the following

five stages:

Step 1: Manufacturer Agreement

The manufacturer needs to demonstrate to the world

governing body of the sport that they have the credentials

to produce a field to the correct standards and can provide

quality assurance - either under a license (entry level) or

preferred provider/producer status (higher levels of quality

assurance needed).

Step 2: Laboratory Test

An accredited laboratory identified by the sport’s governing

body tests a sample product to ensure it performs

according to their ‘Testing Handbook/Guide’. If the product

passes the laboratory tests it can then be used for

installation.

Step 3: Pitch/Field Installation

The manufacturer, or one of their licensees will install the

product which has been laboratory tested into the field.

Once installed and settled (normally around 40 hours/ up to

1 week) it can be tested.

Step 4: Insitu-Field Test

The independent and accredited laboratory on behalf of the

sports peak body (e.g. AFL; FIFA; IRB; FIH etc.) will test

the field against each performance criteria and ensure that

the field installed, matches the system characteristics that

the laboratory test ‘passed previously’.

Step 5: Certification

The world governing body of the sport will issue a

certificate for the playing field/court and this will be relevant

for the duration of that certificate, which can vary from: one

year (FIFA 2 star); two years (IRB, AFL); four years (FIFA 1

star) ; and up to 10 years (Tennis Court Recognition

Program).

4.4 Licensee’s / Preferred Producers

Each sport has its own approach for recognising

manufacturers (not to be confused with suppliers of the

synthetic turf) in a manner that works for them. Some have

two tier systems, others a single system as shown in Table

5 following.

Sports

Body Licensee

Preferred

Producer Commentary

AFL/Cricket

Australia -

New system standard

January 2014

FIFA New standard

expected late 2014 /

early 2015

IRB Only 1 level

FIH - Product focused

RFL - NRL (Australia)

considering options

ITF - - Product focused

Table 5: Sports Licensee/Preferred Producer Synopsis

4.5 Sports Standards

Each of the key sports has their own standards, with many

built on the FIFA Quality Concept Standards. Section 7

explores each in depth, Table 6 provides a summation:

Sp

ort

Go

vern

ing

Bo

dy

Res

po

ns

ible

for

Sy

nth

eti

cs

Sta

nd

ard

Nam

e

Sta

nd

ard

of

Pla

y/U

se

1. Football (Soccer)

FIFA FIFA Quality Program for Football Turf – community and stadium / professional levels

Community Use FIFA 1 star

Professional & Stadium Use FIFA 2 star

2. Rugby Union IRB Regulation 22

3. Rugby League RFL (UK) & NRL (Australia)

Guide to synthetic turf pitches for Rugby League

Community

Stadium

4. Australian Rules Football

AFL AFL/Cricket Australia Synthetic Turf Program

Community Use

5. Hockey FIH Global

National

Multi-sport

6. Tennis ITF Court Pace classification Program

ITF Recognition Program

ITF Recognised Supplier

7. Cricket Cricket Australia/AFL

Community

8. Multi-sport ‘One Turf Standard’

One Turf Standard IRB with FIFA; FIH; AFL; GAA; NRL

Community

Table 6: Standards of Sport

The major sports of football (FIFA); rugby union (IRB);

rugby league (RFL); hockey (FIH); Gaelic football (GAA)

and AFL/Cricket Australia have combined resources to

offer Local Government, education and sports sections a

multi-sport surface, also known as One Turf Standard. The

key performance standard components will be similar to

those shown in Table 7:



Characteristics Common Range

AFL/CA Community

Level Standard

FIFA 1 Star

IRB Regulatio

n 22

FIFA 2 Star

Critical Fall Height (m)

1.3 1.3 depending on headform

- 1.3 -

Hardness (g) 60-120 ≤ 120g - - -

Vertical deformation (mm)

4-8 4-11 4-9 5.5-11 4-8

Shock Absorption (%)

40-70 50-70 55-70 55-70 60-70

Energy restitution (%)

20-50 20-50 - 20-50

Abrasion (%) ± 30% ± 30% ± 30% ± 30% ± 30%

Friction 0.35-0.75 0.35-0.75 0.35-0.75 0.35-0.75 0.35-0.75

Traction – football studs (Nm)

30-45 25-50 25-50 35-45 30-45

Traction – cricket spikes (Nm)

15-25 15-25 - - -

Traction – cricket studs (Nm)

7-15 - - -

Ball roll – calibrated ball (m)

4-8m 4-12m 4-10m - 4-8m

Ball roll – cricket (m)

4-8m 4-15m - - -

Vertical ball rebound (m)

0.6-0.85m 0.6-1.0m 0.6-1.0m 0.6-1.0m 0.6-0.85m

- Cricket ball 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4

Angled ball rebound (%)

- Calibrated ball 50-60 45-70 45-70 50-70 45-60

- Cricket ball 35-60 35-60

Durability test 20,500 20,000 20,500 - 5,200

Infill Splash ≤ Category 3

Surface regularity

3m 10mm 3m 10mm 3m 10mm 3m 10mm 3m 10mm

Table 7: Exploring common playing performance criterion between sports

4.6 The Importance of Testing

The importance of having the field tested is linked to

‘Achieving Performance’ and ‘Risk Mitigation’. The key

sports have considered both issues. The AFL and Cricket

Australia have partnered with JLT Insurance to ensure that

only fields that are tested can be used for competition

games. In rugby union, Regulation 22 states that the field

should be re-tested every two years and the local union

should ensure that the member unions and the IRB are

insured against claims.

The benefits of testing:

Peace of mind that it meets the required

standards,

The durability of the product should last the

planned life expectancy,

There will be reduced risks associated with the

system,

The maintenance is being carried out adequately,

The ongoing performance characteristics are

being achieved.

4.7 Durability Considerations

Photo 30: Lisport Test in Laboratory

If the field is to be used intensely (in excess of 50 hours per

week), such as for junior coaching, it is worth requesting a

higher durability cycle. This is measured with the Lisport

Test as shown above, where the machine replicates the

impact of studded boots on the turf.

To ensure the durability of the Lisport Test meets the

needs of intensive use, (in excess of the 20,200 requested

for the FIFA 1 Star Recommended Pitches), we

recommend at least 50,200 cycles per field.

Depending on the grass type, some can last longer than

others. The three photos below show the results of the

Lisport Test being used for 50,000, 70,000 and 150,000

cycles. Each test comes with a laboratory report and this

should be sought at the procurement stage.

Photo 29: Three grasses showing the effects of the Lisport test (50,000; 70,000 and 150,000 cycles)



Section 4 Acousto-Scan Sport Surface Industry. Case

Study



SECTION 5:

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSIDERATIONS



5 Environmental Considerations

5.1 Introduction

Local Government and sport has shown true leadership by

being more environmentally conscious when making

investment decisions around major projects such as the

installation of synthetic fields.

This section explores some of the key considerations the

industry is considering in consultation with local

communities.

5.2 Climate Change / Weather Patterns

Climate change has resulted in more extreme weather

patterns over the last few decades. Indeed since the

1950’s most of eastern and western Australia has seen

significant rainfall reductions while the north west of

Australia has become wetter during the same period.7

On a global front the mean global temperature has

increased 0.76m°C since 1850. Australian Governments

have already had to take drastic action and issue water

bans for sports fields as part of drought interventions in

Victoria and Western Australia over the past decade.

Facilities need to consider the consequences of reduced

water availability on natural turf. With reduced rainfall and

dwindling water resources in key parts of Australia,

synthetic turf technology is being considered as the

solution, by many organisations such as LGA’s and Sports

Bodies.

The time of day that pitch use is scheduled also needs to

be taken into consideration, when determining what

competitions, school use and training can take place. The

facilities needed for spectators also needs to be factored in.

In regards to climate issues and increased temperatures,

there are impacts that need to be managed with synthetic

surfaces:

Direct impacts to sports

Limitations on school-based daytime physical education

programs, especially during summer, and

More frequent heat stress-related health events.

Indirect impacts to sports

Increased demand for water-based recreational pursuits,

Increased exposure to UV radiation,

Reduced participation in outdoor fitness-related health

initiatives,

Summer daytime events rescheduled to evening fixtures,

7 www.climatechangeinaustralia.com.au/pastchange.php

Funding demands for sports field lighting and air

conditioned indoor facilities,

Financial stress on poorer clubs due to the cost of night

events,

Increased respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and

Increased risk of bushfires in natural recreation areas

(parks and bushland).

Suppliers of sports facilities and organisations need to

consider the heat implications, use of heat mitigation

technology and ensure that the procurement process for

synthetic turf addresses these issues. A heat policy would

assist in the management of these implications.

Photo 31: Effect of drought on natural turf

In summary the synthetic surface needs to consider:

Using heat reduction technology to reduce the ambient

temperature of the surface and up to one metre above

the ground,

The management of playing on the surface, and

The use of water to keep the turf cool.

5.3 Water Management

Water management for sports fields is critical in both

assisting the growth of natural grass and the restoration of

fields after ‘a hard days usage’. If adequate water is not

available, fields soon disintegrate, become hard and lose

the thatch of grass on top that assists with ball and player

interaction.

In addition, the risk of safety concerns increases and player

comfort decreases. If synthetic sports turf is used, a water

harvesting strategy can be adopted, collecting the water

from the synthetic field and using it for the natural turf

pitches nearby.

Water harvesting is the capture and recycle of rain through

field irrigation and drainage. Many Local Governments are

opting to implement water harvesting and contemporary

irrigation methods to maintain the ground when faced with

climatic conditions and high demand overuse issues.



Photo 32: Water harvesting from a tennis court into nearby tanks (Source: Grassports)

There are significant advantages in grouping synthetic

fields (1-2 fields) and possibly even having them co-located

with natural turf so that the synthetic fields can be used to

water harvest irrigation supplies for the ongoing

maintenance of natural turf surfaces. Recent case studies

in Melbourne (see Appendix 2) show that water harvesting

can collect enough rain water to water one cool grass and

two warm grass natural turf fields, simply by building

adequate size holding tanks.

5.4 Carbon Footprint

It is thought that the carbon footprint for natural grass is

lower than that of an artificial surface. This is when you

compare the installation and maintenance of grass (e.g.

fertiliser production, mowing and maintenance) with the

synthetic surface option and what’s involved in its

production, transportation and disposal of materials.

Carbon Offset 5.4.1

Significant research has been completed about the

comparisons, for example:

A Canadian Study8 found that a 9,000m

2 synthetic

facility over 10 years, recorded a total CO2 emission of

55.6 tonne and the tree planting offset requirements

was 1,861 trees.

Natural grass helps remove carbon dioxide (carbon

sequestrian) from the atmosphere via photosynthesis

and stores it as organic carbon in soil, depending on

factors such as land practices and climatic conditions.

Therefore grass contributes to soil organic matter,

mainly through its root system, which makes it an

important carbon sink. A carbon sink is something that

can store some carbon-containing compound for a

8 Meil, J and Bushi L, 2007. ‘Estimating the Required Global Warming Offsets to Achieve

a Carbon Neutral Synthetic Field Turf System Installation’. Athena Institute, Merrickville, Ontario, Canada.

period of time. A typical lawn of 232m2, converts

enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to provide

adequate oxygen for a family of four9.

According to the University of Ballarat study, only

growing forests produce a net gain of oxygen because

they store carbon in wood in the trees themselves,

whereas grass stores carbon in the form of sugars,

starches and cellulose. However the important point is

that natural grass is often cut - particularly on a playing

field - which releases the carbon as it breaks down and

rots, plus the reduction in blade length reduces the

amount of absorption. This is compared with trees,

which drop leaves while the wood components are

more likely to stay intact. It should be noted that plants

continue to release carbon dioxide and water into the

atmosphere through the process of cellular respiration.

Therefore, the net production oxygen in grass is very

small in comparison to trees and bushes.

Research10

from the United States suggests

greenhouse gas emissions from natural turf production

and maintenance is greater than the amount of carbon

that can be stored in them. This study also found that

athletic sports fields do not store as much carbon as

ornamental grass due to soil disruption by tilling and

resodding. However, this methodology of research has

since been reviewed and modified to suggest that it is

a net sequester or carbon dioxide. Essentially, the

difference is to do with the ability to counter balance

emissions through the carbon sink.

In 2010, the BASF Corporation Eco-Efficiency Analysis11

compared synthetic fields with professionally installed and

maintained grass fields. It concluded that the use of

synthetics can lower consumption of energy and raw

materials and the generation of solid waste depending on

field usage. BASF also found that the average life cycle

over 20 years of natural grass fields are 15 per cent higher

than the synthetic alternatives.

5.5 Ecosystem Impacts

To support the idea that ground rubber materials are

unhealthy, questions have been raised as to whether the

materials in artificial turf surfaces mix with water run-off and

put contaminants into ground water, adversely affecting the

9 TurfGrass Producers International, 2010. “Natural Grass and Artificial Turf: Separating

Myths and Facts’ published by Turf Grass Resource Centre, www.TurfResourceCentre.org viewed August 2011. 10

Townsend-Small, A Czimczik, C.I, 2010. ‘Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas emissions in Urban Turf’ University of California (Irvine). Published in : Geophysical Research Letters (USA) Vol 37, 22 January 2010) 11

Submission for Verification of Eco-efficiency Analysis Under NSF Protocol P352, Part B Synthetic Turf, Eco-Efficiency Analysis Final Report – August 2010. BASF Corporation, NJ.



air quality and eco-system. Thee NYS DOH12

factsheet

show that the water run-off has no effect on toxicity when

compared with the key test criteria or other environmental

impacts to organisms and meets all the state and federal

water quality standards. Reports also reinforce that runoffs

from fields into rivers, lakes, creeks, ponds, etc. contain

chemical fertilisers and pesticides that are used on grass

fields, as opposed to synthetic turf fields, where the runoff

will be mostly pure water, drained through percolation rock

and collected in catches under the field.

There have been a number of studies on the impact of

synthetics on the local ecosystem including ones from the

California Environmental Protection Agency, the Norwegian

Institute of Public Health, the French National Institute of

Environment and Risk and probably the most

comprehensive study, the Swiss Ministry of Environment,

Traffic, Energy and Communications (2005-2007).

Photo 33: Swiss Study collecting rain water through various synthetic sports surface systems

The Swiss Study13

Ministry of Environment, Traffic, Energy

and Communications reported results of a field study on

the Environmental Compatibility of Synthetic Sports

Surfaces. The study explored the secretion of synthetic

surfaces from three sources:

i. Disintegration by UV radiation,

ii. Mechanical destruction by abrasion, and

iii. Diffusion of ingredients and washing off by rain

water.

The secreted substances included:

Rubber chemicals: aromatic amines, benzothiazoles,

anilin, cyclohexylamin,

PAH’s: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (16),

Total organic nitrogen compounds,

DOC, and

Zinc.

12

New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment (2008). Fact Sheet: Crumb rubber infilled synthetic turf athletic fields. New York 13

Results of a Field Study on Environmental Compatibility of Synthetic Sports Surfaces by Edwin Müller, dipl.Chem

The testing was in a controlled environment with rain

washing through the synthetic and natural turf systems

over a two-year period then collected and measured for the

secreted substances. The results are summarised as

follows:

PAH’s – PAH’s are ubiquitous substances and are present

in sewage water in similar concentrations as in water

draining from sports surfaces. The report summarises that

there is no risk for the environment.

Zinc – The zinc is mainly absorbed by the mineral base

layer with the concentration of zinc in rainwater actually

higher than the seeping water collected underneath the

sports surface. The general result of the research was that

there is no risk to the environment if production of synthetic

sport surfaces and their installation follows recognised

rules of technology.

The rules of technology include the Swiss and German

Regulation DIN 18035 parts 6 and 7 and ESM105. These

state that the requirements of metals needs to be less than:

Mercury ≤ 0.01 mg/l,

Lead ≤ 0.04 mg/l,

Cadmium ≤ 0.005 mg/l,

Chromium ≤ 0.008 mg/l,

Zinc ≤ 3.0 mg/l, and

Tin ≤ 0.05 mg/l.

The New York State Department of Health14

recognised

these requirements and a paragraph in its ‘chemical

exposure’ section states:

“Exposure to a chemical requires contact with it. Contact

with a chemical occurs in these ways: swallowing it

(ingestion exposure), breathing it (inhalation exposure),

and having it come in contact with the skin (dermal

exposure) or eyes (ocular exposure). The potential for

harmful effects from exposure to a chemical depends on

the amount of the chemical a person contacts, how the

chemical enters the body (ingestion, inhalation, dermal, or

ocular), how often contact occurs, and the toxic properties

of the chemical. The ability of a chemical to be released

from a substance (e.g. crumb rubber) is an important factor

in determining how much exposure actually occurs. Other

factors that can influence a person's risk for adverse health

effects from environmental chemicals include age, gender,

general health, genetic differences, exposure to other

chemicals and lifestyle choices.”

14

New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment (2008). Fact Sheet: Crumb rubber infilled synthetic turf athletic fields. New York.



Car tyres are manufactured from natural and synthetic

rubbers and contain numerous chemical additives,

including zinc, sulphur, carbon black, and oils that contain

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic

chemicals. Crumb rubber is manufactured from used tyres,

so it is safe to say that although there are chemical

additives in crumb rubber, they are no more toxic than a

car tyre.

A French study15

measured the concentration of organic

chemicals emitted as gases (known as volatile organic

compounds or VOCs) from crumb rubber under laboratory

conditions. The data was used by the French National

Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks to evaluate

possible health effects from inhaling VOCs released from

synthetic turf. The researchers concluded that the

concentration of organic compounds emitted did not pose a

health concern for athletes, officials or spectators.

Some types of synthetic turf fibres contain elevated levels

of lead (e.g. in the range of about 2,000 to 9,000 parts per

million). Degradation of these fibres can form a dust that

presents a potential source of lead exposure to users of the

fields. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(USA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (France) addressed the potential for lead

exposures from synthetic turf fibres in a June 2008 Health

Advisory.16

The tests identified that older fields that were made of

nylon fibres or a nylon/polyethylene blend contained levels

of lead that pose a possible public health concern. Tests of

only polyethylene fibres showed that these fields contained

very low levels of lead.

The report continues, “The risk of harmful lead exposure is

low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf

fibres because the turf fibres are still intact and the lead is

unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur.”

5.6 Green Engineering

Green Engineering is the process of designing or operating

systems in a manner that uses energy and sustainable

resources (e.g. at a rate that doesn’t compromise the

natural environment) or the ability for future generations to

meet their own needs. It explores how products are

manufactured, the materials used and the disposal of them,

in a feasible, economical and therefore sustainable manner,

which results in minimising the pollution impact for

generations to come. The basic concept of green

15

French National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks 2010 16

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/artificialturf.htm

engineering is based around the ability to offset or reduce

the carbon footprint by choosing a specific product that

may have a less harmful impact because it’s recycled,

recyclable or even renewable/reusable. By exploring these

three concepts, purchasers can consider the impacts on

their synthetic surface strategy.

Photo 34: 27,000 tyres are saved from landfill by using them in a typical sized football field

Recycled – means that the synthetic surfaces are made

out of (at least 25 percent) recycled content. The benefit of

this is that they are not drawing on ‘virgin or prime’

resources, which may be limited or by creating them would

have a significant impact on the carbon footprint. Within

most synthetic surface systems (e.g. a single

football/soccer field – 8,000m2):

The recycled infill material is made from an estimated

27,000 tyres,

The shock pad can be made out of recycled running

shoes,

The ’grass’ can be made from recycled plastic drink

bottles – saving 240,000 bottles from the tip.

Recyclable – means that the synthetic surface system

where possible can be used again, and may mean:

Re-using the compartments of the system – as

recently shown in the 2013 London Olympics Games

hockey field (STI),

Recycling the concrete base for other building

products and needs,

Recycling some grasses (presently only in

USA/Europe) into plastic pellets which can then be

used for plastic recycled bins, plastic park furniture etc.

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/artificialturf.htm



Photo 35: London Olympic Games reused their fields as part of their legacy program in facilities outside the Olympic Park

Reusable – means that the components can be changed

and reused.

The infill, and in some circumstances the shockpad,

are examples of reusable components of synthetic

sports turf systems.



Section 5 case study – STI – Environmental Considerations



SECTION 6:

HEALTH, SAFETY

AND RISK

MANAGEMENT



6 Health, Safety and Risk

Management

6.1 Introduction

The health and safety of all sports facilities is a concern to

the asset owner and the sports program providers. As a

result there tends to be a sophisticated decision making

process to minimise the potential risk to players, etc.

At times there is a perception that if the surface is not

natural grass, it is not safe. In Australia, local community

groups have expressed concern at the prospect of the

natural grass being replaced by synthetic surfaces.

What is not understood by these community groups, is that

if many community level natural grass surfaces were tested

to the same rigour as synthetic sports surfaces, they would

not pass the performance criteria that synthetic turf would.

Therefore, the synthetic sports turf is safer than most

badly-worn community playing fields.

The key concerns for health and safety are predominantly:

Player safety and injuries,

Surface playability,

Health risks to community,

Heat management.

This section explores each of these concerns.

6.2 Player Safety and Injuries

There is a perception that there are more sports injuries on

synthetic grass surfaces than on natural turf. A number of

studies show that this is not the case. For example the

New York State Department of Health17

provides specific

guidance from its research:

“There is a common perception that there are more sports

injuries on synthetic than on natural turf athletic fields.

Many factors influence the rate of sports injuries, including

the type of playing surface. The many kinds of synthetic turf

surfaces and changes in the turf products over the years

complicate the assessment of how the playing surface

affects injury rates.”

17

Fact Sheet: Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields (2008) (NYS DOH Factsheet)

Photo 36; Field with markings for several sports (Source: TigerTurf)

Injury Studies conducted by FIFA and UEFA 6.2.1

The world governing body of football FIFA and the Union of

European Football Associations (UEFA) conducted one of

the early studies on injuries comparing artificial turf and

natural grass. The three year study covered 18

professional teams with a total exposure of 160,000 hours18

.

The study yielded a slightly lower risk of muscle injuries but

showed slightly higher risk on ligament injuries with rate of

knee injuries being the same between both surface types

(see Table 8: Number of Injuries per 1,000 hours exposure).

However, the study did not analyse the influence of

footwear when playing on both surfaces.

Artificial Turf Natural Grass

Muscle Injury

Strain 4 7

Hamstring 2 3.5

Ligament

Sprain 7 5

Ankle 4 2.5

Knee 2 2

Table 8: Number of Injuries per 1,000 hours exposure

Following the initial study, FIFA conducted a two month

study with thirty semi-professional players on three artificial

turf and six natural grass fields located across Spain, the

Netherlands and Norway.19

For purposes of consistency,

all players used the same boots with rounded studs

(Adidas Copa Mondial). The study focused on player-

surface interaction and player-kicking dynamics using

500Hz high-speed video analysis. During the player-

surface interaction a ‘single-cut’ move (see photos 36 and

37) was analysed in terms of turning time, exit speed and

slip pattern. With regards to player-kicking dynamics the

18

Ekstrand, J., Timpka, T., Haegelund, M.; British Journal of Sports Medicine; 40; 975-980; 2006 19

Nokes, L.; FIFA Study into Player-Surface Interaction on Natural Turf and Football Turf; 2010



backward inclination of the leg (see photo 37), (#1) the

kicking foot angle (#2), the knee position (#3), the pronation

of the standing foot (#4) as well as the upper body

positioning (#5) were analyzed. As performance measures,

heart rate, blood lactate levels and movement analysis of

the players were used. The results showed no statistical

differences in kicking dynamics, no evidence of increased

physiological stress or difference in velocity when

performing on artificial turf and natural grass. In fact the

climatic differences between the various locations had a

bigger influence than the difference between the two

surface types.

Photo 37: Single Cut Move

Photo 38: Kicking Dynamics

Injury Studies conducted on behalf of Rugby 6.2.2

Union

The risk of injury associated with play of rugby union on

artificial turf was the subject of a medical study in 201020

.

In particular the study looked at lower limb and joint-

ligament injuries. The results when comparing artificial

versus natural surfaces showed no significant statistical

differences in the rate of injuries when comparing the two

surface types. In addition, the study yielded no significant

difference in the severity of injury sustained. Overall the

study concluded that the risk of injury was not different

when comparing playing activity on artificial turf with natural

grass surfaces.

20

Fuller, C., Clarke, L., Molloy, M.; Journal of Sports Sciences; Vol 28; Issue 5; 2010

NCAA Injury Surveillance Program 6.2.3

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the

United States maintains a comprehensive injury

surveillance program which regularly summarises the

injuries sustained in various sports. According to the

surveillance data collected between the seasons 2004/05

to 2008/09 the majority (more than half) of injuries occur in

the lower limb area (see Table 9: American Football

Injuries (Surveillance Program 2004-2009). However, the

study did not distinguish between playing surfaces.

Injury Percentage (in %)

Concussion 7.4

Head, face, neck 4.3

Upper limb 16.9

Torso, pelvis 11.9

Lower limb 50.4

Other 9.1

Table 9: American Football Injuries (Surveillance Program 2004-2009)

A five year study of American high schools

21 also

concluded that more than half of the injuries sustained in

American football at a high-school level are recorded in the

lower extremity area. This study differentiated between

playing activity on artificial turf and natural grass and

showed slightly higher rates of injury on artificial grass

compared to natural grass (see Table 10). Similar findings

were concluded by Hershman et al22

when looking at

specific lower extremity injury rates on grass and artificial

turf playing surfaces in National Football League (NFL)

games.

Body Area Artificial Turf Natural Grass

Cranial/cervical 10.1 % 19.2 %

Upper extremity 28.1 % 23.2 %

Thoracic 7.9 % 6.4 %

Lower extremity 53.9 % 51.2 %

Table 10: American High-School Football Injuries

Summary 6.2.4

Of the various independent studies2324 2526

reviewed from

2006 to 2011, the common finding is that there is not an

increase in the number of injuries associated with synthetic

turf when compared to natural turf. Seemingly the only

negative consideration is where sports people alternate

21

Meyer, M., Barnhill, B.; The American Journal of Sports Medicine; Vol 32; No. 7 22

Hershman, E., Anderson, R., Berfeld, J., Bradley, J., Coughlin, M.,Johnson, R., Spindler, K., Wojtys, E., Powell, J.; American Journal of Sports Medicine, Online Sep 2012 23

Ekstrand J, Nigg B. Surface-related injuries in soccer. Sports Medicine 1989;8:56-62. 24

Arnason A, Gudmundsson A, Dahl H. Soccer injuries in Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sport 1996; 6:40-45. 25

Stanitski CL, McMaster JH, Ferguson RJ. Synthetic turf and grass: A comparative study. Am J Sports Med 1974;2(1):22-26. 26

Engebretsen L. Fotballskader og kunstgress. Tidsskrift for den Norske lægeforening 1987;107(26):2215



between surface types which may result in varied and

increased injuries. This may be similar to long distance

runners who run on synthetic tracks then on asphalt, which

are more susceptible to shin soreness.

Although the ability of the studies to detect differences in

the injury rates was limited by the small number of injuries

reported, the studies concluded that there were no major

differences in overall injury rates between natural and

infilled synthetic turf. Although each study found some

differences in specific injury types, there was no consistent

pattern across the studies.

One of the key safety concerns that have been expressed

by sport organisations is the potential for head injuries from

contact with a synthetic surface. This concern is assessed

by determining the ability of the surfaces to absorb impact

using one of two test methods and provides the acceptable

level of playing surface for specific sports. By comparison,

a recent study of community and stadium natural surface

fields in Sydney27

were typically below the corresponding

expected synthetic level. Many natural turf fields are not

tested against a standard. (If they were, many fields would

fail the standards set for synthetic surfaces). Rugby union

has begun to test natural turf surfaces in some States of

Australia to protect their players. The abrasiveness of

synthetic turf fibres may contribute to the injury risk among

athletes, particularly for abrasions or ‘turf burns.’ The

degree of abrasiveness appears to be dependent on the

composition and shape of the turf fibres. A study conducted

at Penn State University suggests that synthetic turf with

nylon fibres is more abrasive than synthetic turf with other

fibre types.

Regarding injury a study conducted by FIFA’s Medical

Assessment and Research Centre (F-MARC)28

compared

the injuries sustained at the FIFA U-17 tournament in Peru

in 2005 which was played entirely on artificial turf, with the

injuries sustained at previous FIFA U-17 tournaments

which were mostly played on natural turf. The research

showed that there was very little difference in the incidence,

nature and cause of injuries observed during games played

on artificial turf compared with those on grass.

In another study reported in the British Journal of Sports

Medicine, Reference results showed there was no

evidence of greater injury risk when playing soccer on

artificial turf when compared with natural turf in the

Swedish Premier League. The researchers did report an

27

UST study of NSW community natural grass standards (2011) by Acousto Scan 28

FIFA Medal Assessment and Research Centre (2006)

increased incidence in ankle injuries on artificial turf;

however the study was limited due to its small sample size.

The limited results collated by FIFA suggest that the rate

of injury on third generation synthetic turf is similar to that

of natural turf, but the type of injury may differ.

The Synthetic Turf Council has provided independent

research papers for confirmation of injury occurrence when

natural grass and synthetic grass is compared (see

Appendix 3).

6.3 Surface Playability

Playability studies commissioned by FIFA 6.3.1

Probably the most comprehensive studies on playability of

any sport comparing artificial surfaces versus natural grass

have been commissioned by FIFA. In 2006, FIFA

commissioned UK-based Prozone to analyse data from

UEFA Cup matches played on both surfaces using a video-

based performance analysis system29

. The aim of the

study was to analyse the potential impact that artificial turf

may have on the pattern of a game and therefore

performance and playability30

. UEFA cup matches between

Red Bull Salzburg and Blackburn Rovers were analysed

using the Prozone Match Viewer system.

The analysis yielded that games played on the artificial

surface at Red Bull Salzburg and the natural grass surface

at Blackburn Rovers showed no significant differences in

terms of performance and playability. The number of total

passes played was very similar (703 on artificial turf versus

720 on natural grass) with a success rate of more than 80

percent passes completed on both surfaces. In addition,

the number of tackles, interceptions, clearances, and the

shooting accuracy were similar on both surfaces (see Table

11).

Artificial Turf Natural Turf

Event Red

Bull

Rovers Total Total Rovers Red

Bull

Total Passes 336 367 703 720 405 315

Completion 78 % 81 % 80 % 83 % 85 % 81 %

Tackles 21 23 44 43 17 26

Interceptions 127 113 240 233 126 107

Clearances 16 33 49 44 19 25

Shooting

Accuracy

39 % 50 % 43 % 43 % 43 % 44 %

Table 11: Tactical Events Red Bull Salzburg vs. Blackburn Rovers

29

Di Salvo, V., Collins, A., McNeil, B., Cardinale, M.; International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport; 6; 108-119, 2006 30

FIFA Technical Study with Prozone, 2006



Similar technical studies have been extended by FIFA to

cover Champions League, Dutch Football, the U20’s World

Cup and the Russian League. The five Studies show

similarities between games played on artificial turf and

natural grass. To eliminate a potential home-team bias,

only the events for the away team were included in these

subsequent studies (see Table 12).

Event Artificial Turf Natural Grass

Passes 314 313

Passes completed 78 % 80 %

Passes forward 145 148

Balls received 351 353

Headers 64 64

Interceptions 125 118

Tackles 30 28

Crosses 12 13

Shots 14 13

Table 12: FIFA 5-Study Technical Overview

Dutch Professional Coaches Survey 6.3.2

The European Synthetic Turf Organization (ESTO)

commissioned a survey of members of the Dutch

Professional Coaches Association. Even though natural

turf in excellent condition remains the preference, the

responses given were positive towards artificial playing

surfaces (see Table 13).

Question? Yes No

Are players able to develop better

technical skills by training on synthetic

turf?

62 % 38 %

Longer term, will players’ techniques be

better developed by playing and training

on synthetic turf?

57 % 43 %

Does training and playing on synthetic

turf improve skill acquisition amongst

players?

69 % 30 %

Would you like your team to play passing

football, and if yes, is this easier to

implement on an artificial pitch?

71 % 29 %

Do you see synthetic turf as being the

future of the game?

64 % 36 %

Table 13: Survey of Dutch Professional Coaches Association

Study commissioned by Rugby Union 6.3.3

When reviewing the artificial turf specification and in

particular the pile height requirement of IRB regulation 22,

IRB commissioned biomechanical studies of the rugby

scrum. During machine scrumming, scrum engagement,

techniques for effective and safe scrumming and injury

risks were reviewed. The study concluded that scrumming

on artificial turf is safe and similar to natural grass and as a

result the minimum pile height requirement for artificial turf

could be lowered from the original 65mm down to 60mm31

.

Study commissioned by Australian Rules 6.3.4

Football

Due to the limited number of facilities with artificial playing

surfaces, there is currently no detailed study regarding

playability available for AFL activities. It should be noted

that a study conducted by the University of Ballarat32

was

utilised to assist in the development of standards for the

use of artificial turf for Australian Football and Cricket.

6.4 Health Risk to Community

The Environmental Protection Agency in America (EPA)

issued the following statement title “Playgrounds and

Synthetic Turf Fields”33

, in which it states:

“There have been concerns about the health implications of

the use of recycled tire crumb in playgrounds and in

synthetic turf athletic fields. In response to these concerns,

EPA conducted a Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of

Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds.”

The final report was issued in 2009 and concluded that on

average, concentrations of components monitored in this

study were below levels of concern. To supplement this

study’s limited data, the United States EPA met with state

and local representatives in 2010 to review other available

field monitoring studies including a 2010 risk assessment of

artificial turf fields conducted by four state agencies of the

state of Connecticut which concluded that exposures and

risks were not elevated (relative to what is commonly found

in outdoor air) for either children or adults using the fields.

In 2010, the California Office of Environmental Health

Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a safety study of

artificial turf containing crumb rubber made from recycled

tyres34

. The study which was founded by the Department

of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and

examined the possible human health risks of outdoor

athletic fields made from artificial turf containing recycled

crumb rubber with respect to skin abrasions, bacteria

harbored by the turf, inhalable particulate matter, and

volatile organic compounds. The report concluded these

fields do not pose a serious public health concern, with the

possible exception of an increased skin abrasion rate on

artificial turf relative to natural turf.

31

IRB Regulation 22, Artificial Rugby Turf Performance Specification, One Turf Technical Manual, 2012 32

Twomey, D, Otago, L., Saunders, N.; Development of Standards for the Use of Artificial Turf for Australian Football and Cricket; University of Ballarat; 2007 33

source: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/tires/health.htm 34

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2010). Safety study of artificial turf containing crumb rubber infill made from recycled tyres: Measurements of chemicals and particulates in the air, bacteria in the turf, and skin abrasions caused by

contact with the surface. Sacramento, CA.

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/tires/health.htm



6.5 Players Safety and Injuries

There is a perception that there are more sports injuries on

synthetic grass surfaces than natural turf. The New York

State Department of Health35

provides specific guidance

from their research, namely:

“There is a common perception that there are more sports

injuries on synthetic than on natural turf athletic fields.

Many factors influence the rate of sports injuries, including

the type of playing surface. The many kinds of synthetic turf

surfaces and changes in the turf products over the years

complicate the assessment of how the playing surface

affects injury rates".

The Synthetic Turf Council has identified the following

research Studies and Technical Papers (See Appendix 3

for detail) for consideration:

Epidemiology of Patellar Tendinopathy in Elite Male

Soccer Players, Hagglund, Zwerver and Ekstrand

(2011)

Patellar tendinopathy is a relatively mild but fairly common

condition among elite soccer players, and the recurrence

rate is high. This study investigated the epidemiology of

patellar tendinopathy in 2,229 elite male soccer players

from 51 European elite soccer clubs playing on natural

grass and synthetic turf between 2001 and 2009. Objective:

To compare the risk for acute injuries between natural

grass (NG) and third generation artificial turf (3GAT) in

male professional football.

Conclusion: Exposure to artificial turf did not increase the

prevalence or incidence of injury.

Risk of injury on third generation artificial turf in

Norwegian professional football, Bjorneboe, Bahr and

Andersen (2010)

The study aimed at comparing the risk for acute injuries

between natural grass (NG) and third-generation artificial

turf (3GAT) in male professional football. All injuries

sustained by players with a first-team contract were

recorded by the medical staff of each club, from the 2004

throughout the 2007 season. An injury was registered if the

player was unable to complete the football activity or match

play. From a total of 668 match injuries, 526 on grass and

142 on artificial turf the overall acute match injury incidence

was 17.1 per 1,000 match hours on grass and 17.6 on

artificial turf. Correspondingly, the incidence for training

injuries was 1.8 on grass and 1.9 on artificial turf

respectively.

35


Conclusion: No significant differences were detected in

injury rate or pattern between 3GAT and NG in Norwegian

male professional football.

Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and

grass by male and female elite football players,

Ekstrand, Hagglund and Fuler (2010)

The objective of this study was to compare incidences and

patterns of injury for female and male elite teams when

playing football on artificial turf and grass. Twenty teams

(15 male, five female) playing home matches on third-

generation artificial turf were followed prospectively; their

injury risk when playing on artificial turf pitches was

compared with the risk when playing on grass. Individual

exposure, injuries (time loss) and injury severity were

recorded by the team of medical staff. In total, 2105 injuries

were recorded during 246 hours of exposure to football.

Seventy one percent of the injuries were traumatic and 29

percent overuse injuries.

Conclusion: There were no significant differences in the

nature of overuse injuries recorded on artificial turf and

grass for either men or women.

Injury risk on artificial turf and grass in youth

tournament football, Soligard, Bahr and Andersen

(2010)

The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of acute

injuries among youth male and female footballers playing

on third-generation artificial turf compared with grass. Over

60,000 players 13 – 19 years of age were followed in four

consecutive Norway Cup tournaments from 2005 to 2008.

Injuries were recorded prospectively by the team coaches

throughout each tournament. The overall incidence of

injuries was 39.2 per 1000 match hours; 34.2 on artificial

turf and 39.7 on grass. However, there was a lower risk of

ankle injuries, and a higher risk of back and spine and

shoulder and collarbone injuries, on artificial turf compared

with on grass.

Conclusion: There was no difference in the overall risk of

acute injury in youth footballers playing on third-generation

artificial turf compared with grass.

Very Positive Medical Research on Artificial Turf, FIFA

Medical Assessment and Research Centre (2010)

The aim of this research was to compare injuries sustained

at the FIFA U-17 tournament in Peru, which was played

entirely on “football turf” (synthetic turf) with the injuries

sustained at previous U-17 tournaments, which were

played mainly on well-manicured grass.



Conclusion: There was very little difference in the

incidence, nature and causes of injuries observed during

those games played on artificial turf compared with those

played on grass.

Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf

versus natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study,

Ekstrand, Timpkin and Huggland (2006)

The aim of the study was to compare injury risk in elite

football [soccer] played on artificial turf compared with

natural grass.

Conclusion: No evidence of a greater risk of injury was

found when football was played on artificial turf compared

with natural grass. The higher incidence of ankle sprain on

artificial turf warrants further attention, although this result

should be interpreted with caution as the number of ankle

sprains was low.

Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in

young female football [soccer] players, Steffen,

Andersen and Bahr (2007)

The aim was to investigate the risk of injury on artificial turf

compared with natural grass among young female football

[soccer] players.

Conclusion: The overall risk of acute injury to among

young female football [soccer] players was similar between

artificial turf and natural grass.

Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of

injuries sustained on grass and new generation

artificial turf by male and female football players, Fuller,

Dick Corlette and Schmalz (2007)

The aim was to compare the incidence, nature, severity

and cause of match injuries (Part 1) and training injuries

(Part 2) sustained on grass and new generation turf by

male and female footballers. The National Collegiate

Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System was used

for a two-season (August to December) study of American

college and university football teams (2005 season: men 52

teams, women 64 teams; 2006 season: men 54 teams,

women 72 teams).

Conclusion: There were no major differences in the

incidence, severity, nature or cause of match injuries or

training injuries sustained on new generation artificial turf

and grass by either male or female players.

Although each study found some differences in specific

injury types, there was no consistent pattern across the

studies.

One of the key safety considerations is the potential for

head injuries from contact with a synthetic surface, which

have been assessed by determining the ability of the

surfaces to absorb impact. The force of impact on frozen or

well-worn natural turf is typically below the acceptable level

but many pitches are not tested against this.

6.6 Infection Risk

Tworney Dotogol, Saunders, and Schwarze (2008)36

, on

behalf of Cricket Australia and the AFL, researched the

issue of health considerations concerning the infill used in

synthetic grass. The research asserted that the infill could

present health problems if it was inhaled or swallowed.

The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has

also explored the concern of infection risk, with the

following outcomes from its studies:

“Some people have expressed concern that infections,

including Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus

(MRSA), may be more common among users of synthetic

turf fields than users of natural turf fields. This possibility

has not been studied systematically, and no definitive

statements can be made about differences in risk between

the two surfaces.” It continues, “At least two questions are

important in evaluating the risk of infection. Does skin

damage occur more frequently on synthetic turf than

natural turf, thus providing a place where infections are

more likely to occur? And are there more germs on

synthetic turf than natural turf?”37

While injury studies have not consistently identified

differences in abrasion and laceration risks between natural

and infilled synthetic turf, some types of synthetic turf may

result in more skin abrasions. Although very few tests have

been performed, data available does not suggest the

widespread presence of infectious agents, such as MRSA,

on synthetic turf fields. As reported by the New York State

Department of Health38

, outdoor or indoor synthetic turf

surfaces are no more likely to harbour infectious agents

than other surfaces in the same environments. Disease

outbreak investigations conducted in response to illnesses

caused by a variety of germs (e.g., MRSA, campylobacter,

meningococcal, echovirus, herpes simplex virus, hepatitis

virus, coxsackie virus) have not identified playing fields,

either natural or synthetic, as likely to increase the risk of

transmitting infections.

36

Twomey, D., Otago, L., Saunders., & Schwarz, E. (2008). Development of standards for the use of artificial turf for Australian Rules Football and Cricket. University of Ballarat 37

Fact Sheet: Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields (2008) (NYS DOH Factsheet) 38




Skin cuts and abrasions that may result from contact with

athletic fields, including both natural and synthetic fields,

are susceptible to infection. Athletes and others

developing skin abrasions should clean the wounds and

seek prompt medical attention. There are conflicting

reports that the ground rubber materials used for infill may

be unhealthy. Yet, most studies on toxicity levels dispel this

notion. Most studies show that rubber does not pose any

serious risks39

. The only exception is when people are

allergic to latex (6 percent of population), which is

sometimes found in tyre rubber.

Photo 39: Rubber granular infill for a synthetic surface

6.7 Heat Stress

The temperature of artificial surfaces rises significantly

more than natural turf surfaces, especially on a hot sunny

day (20 – 40 percent hotter). Reported surface-to-air

temperature ratios are approximately one for both natural

turf and artificial turf under overcast conditions40

.

According to one research on synthetics the mean (range)

of ratios for natural grass was 1:41 (1.38 to 1.44) whilst the

mean (range) for artificial turf was 1:62 (1.3 to 1.81).

In this study, the results of the temperature measurements

obtained from the fields studied in Connecticut indicate that

solar heating of the materials used in the construction of

synthetic turf playing surfaces does occur and is most

pronounced in the polyethylene and polypropylene fibres.

39

A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 2009. 40

Milone and Macbroom, Environmental Effects of Synthetic Turf Athletics Field (2008

Photo 40: Synthetic Baseball Diamond, where heat policy means no play during peak sun, as directed by the sport

Maximum temperatures of approximately 156°F were noted

when the fields were exposed to direct sunlight for a

prolonged period of time. Rapid cooling of the fibres was

noted if the sunlight was interrupted or filtered by clouds.

Significant cooling was also noted if water was applied to

the synthetic fibres in quantities as low as one ounce per

square foot. The elevated temperatures noted for the fibres

generally resulted in an air temperature increase of less

than five degrees even during periods of calm to low winds.

The rise in temperature of the synthetic fibres was

significantly greater than the rise in temperature noted for

the crumb rubber. Although a maximum temperature of

156°F was noted for the fibres, a maximum temperature of

only 101°F, or approximately 16 degrees greater than the

observed ambient air temperature, was noted for the crumb

rubber.

The heat issue is being considered by many of the

synthetic grass manufacturers. At the 2011 FSB Synthetic

Surfaces Tradeshow in Cologne, Germany this was a key

topic with a number of initiatives being promoted, including:

i. Cool grass technology

A number of synthetic system manufacturers have worked

with the yarn manufacturers and using specific polymers to

offer cool grass technology that can reduce heat by up to

20 percent compared with traditional synthetic grass.

ii. Water on grass

The latest technology demonstrates how water can be

harvested from the natural rain and then recovered on the

pitch system. One example by a lead European company41

shows how a small capillary action takes the water from

under the surface and lets it drip onto the grass around it.

This showed a reduction of around 14°C between two

synthetic grasses under an infrared light / heat lamp.

41

Hydrograss Technology from Domo Grass



Photo 41: Demonstration of Hydrograss technology from Domo Grass (Cologne FSB Trade Show 2011)

Another example was the use of a balance tank next to a

hockey pitch, which kept the pitch water at the right level

for the FIH Global Standard, thus reducing the need for

water cannons and reducing the evaporation. This test

case was for hockey and the results used to impact other

turf types by 2014 for all pitches. It is expected that this

could reduce the heat by 20°C from where normal synthetic

surfaces would be on a 40°C+ day.

iii. Infill

There was a clear move from many infill suppliers to

provide options that move away from the very cost effective

SBR. The move to infill’s such as coated SBR (Styrene-

Butadiene-Rubber), coated and/or cryogenically frozen

sands, EPDM (Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Rubber), TPE

(Thermoplastic Elastomers) and natural organic infills.

High surface temperatures can lead to heat stress related

conditions, especially in children. In hot climates artificial

surfaces are often watered to reduce the surface

temperature; however this can increase the humidity, which

is not desirable for participants. A heat policy (e.g. restrict

play when surface temperatures reach a certain level) may

be required in hot climates.

6.8 Risk Management

To alleviate some of the risks associated with the perceived

health concerns surrounding synthetic surfaces, the New

York Department of Health provided a summation as

viewed in Table 14.

Health

concern

Finding

Heat stress Surface temperatures on crumb-rubber infilled

synthetic turf fields can reach levels of

discomfort and may contribute to heat stress.

This warrants consideration when making

decisions about installing and using a synthetic

turf field. While watering synthetic turf may

briefly reduce surface temperatures, a number

of factors may influence its effectiveness.

People using these fields should be advised to

remain hydrated and to seek relief from the

heat in shaded areas.

Injury Overall, studies have found no consistent

differences in injury rates between natural and

crumb-rubber in filled synthetic turf.

Infection Skin cuts and abrasions that may result from

contact with athletic fields (natural and

synthetic turf) are susceptible to infection.

Athletes and others developing skin abrasions

should clean the wounds and seek prompt

medical attention.

Latex allergy At the present time, NYSDOH is unaware of

any occurrences of latex allergy resulting from

contact with crumb rubber or synthetic turf

fields.

Chemical

exposures

Based on the available information, chemical

exposures from crumb rubber in synthetic turf

do not pose a public health hazard. Refer to

DIN 18035.

Table 14: Summary of information for Crumb-Rubber infilled Synthetic Turf Athletics Fields Fact Sheet (Source: Original detail from New York Department of Health)



Section 6 Case Study- Turf One – Health, Safety and Risk

2 pages



SECTION 7:

SPORT BY SPORT



7 Sport by Sport

7.1 Sports Adoption of Synthetic Technology

This Smart Guide to Synthetic Surfaces has explained the

process for establishing standards for key sports. This

section explores each sport’s standard in layman’s terms,

provides key contacts for each sport and how the reader

can gain additional information.

When developing the specification for a new synthetic field

the suggested process should be:

Appreciate and be able to articulate how the field will

be used – community or stadium use or more

specifically ≤ 20 hours (stadium) or more likely 40

hours plus (community),

Link your forecasted usage with the sports standards,

Contact the sports’ governing bodies to ensure that the

field sizes meet the standards,

Build the complementary services around the fields,

including appropriate fencing; lighting; changing

facilities and coaches boxes etc., and

Obtain “sign off” from the peak body to ensure the

design will meet their competition levels (e.g. Hockey

NSW; Football Federation Victoria etc.)

The sports included in this section are:

1. Australian Rules Football (AFL)

2. Baseball

3. Bowls

4. Football (soccer)

5. Gridiron (American football)

6. Hockey

7. Rugby league

8. Rugby union

9. Tennis

10. Multi-sport / One Turf Standard

7.2 Australian Rules Football / Cricket

Approach to using Synthetic Surfaces 7.2.1

As custodian of the game, the AFL has recognised the

need to develop ways to increase the carrying capacity of

their surfaces and protect them against weather extremes

as more people wish to play their sport. This approach

should assist in increased participation rates, reduce

injuries and allow more people to play more often.

In 2007 the AFL together with Cricket Australia, Sport and

Recreation Victoria and Australia’s largest public sector

insurance company, JLT Trustees, collaborated with

researchers42

to develop a set of guidelines for community

use of synthetic surfaces on which to play Australian Rules

Football and cricket. As the majority of Australian Rules

Football grounds are also cricket grounds, it was important

for any standards to ensure it was suitable for play by both

sports.

The study explored the playing characteristics of quality

natural turf and developed the performance criteria that the

surface needs to play against, including the mechanical

properties of the surface, ball and player interactions with

the surface, using internationally recognised testing

equipment and procedures.

The results of the study enabled a development of

standards for Artificial Turf for AFL and Cricket43

since this

time three AFL pitches have been tested, a number of

others have been installed where cricket is played on

football (soccer pitches), and the same standards are used.

In 2013 the standards were updated with a user-friendly

handbook44

for any sport. The handbook ‘fine-tuned’ the

standards, in light of what has been learnt on synthetic turf

since 2008.

Standards for the Sport 7.2.2

The AFL and Cricket Australia standards that have been

adopted are targeted to the community level and not for

elite or professional levels. The performance standards are

listed in Table 15. It is worth noting that other quality and

durability requirements also apply:

TEST TEST METHOD CONDITIONS REQUIREMENT

Critical Fall Height

Uniaxe Impact Tester (AS/NZS 4422) Uniaxe Impact Tester (BS EN 1177)

Dry, Wet and Aged

≥ 1.2 m ≥ 1.3 m

Hardness Clegg Impact Tester Dry, Wet and Aged

≤ 120 G

Force Reduction

Advanced Artificial Athlete

Dry, Wet and Aged

50 – 70%

Energy Restitution


Dry, Wet and Aged

20 – 50%

Vertical Deformation


Dry, Wet and Aged

4 – 11 mm

Abrasion – Change in Friction Force

Securisport Test Apparatus

Dry ≤ 30%

Friction – Coefficient of Friction

Securisport Test Apparatus

Dry ≤ 0.70%

Traction Football Studs

Studded Boot Apparatus (EN 15301-1 )

Dry, Wet and Aged

25 Nm – 50 Nm

a

Traction Cricket Spikes


Dry, Wet and Aged

15 Nm – 25 Nm

a

Traction Cricket Cleats


Dry, Wet and Aged

7 Nm – 15 Nm

a

Ball Roll Inclined Ramp Dry and Wet 4 m – 12

42

Ballarat University (now Federation University) 43

Development Standards for the use or Artificial Turf for Australian Football and Cricket (2008 DIW May; L. Otago; N. Saunders; E. Schwarz: University of Ballarat School of Human Movement and Sport Science 44

Australian Football League and Cricket Australia Handbook of Testing for Synthetic Turf (Sep 2013 www.aflcommunity.com.au)

http://www.aflcommunity.com.au/



TEST TEST METHOD CONDITIONS REQUIREMENT

Calibrated Ball (EN12234) m

Ball Roll Cricket

Inclined Ramp (EN12234)

Dry and Wet 4 m – 15 m

Vertical Ball Rebound Calibrated Ball

Vertical Rebound Frame (EN12235)

Dry, Wet and Aged

0.6 m – 1.0 m

Vertical Ball Rebound Cricket

Vertical Rebound Frame (EN12235)

Dry, Wet and Aged

0.1 m – 0.4 m

Angled Ball Rebound Calibrated Ball

Angled Ball Shooter Dry Wet

45% - 70% 45% - 80%

Angled Ball Rebound Cricket

Angled Ball Shooter Dry and Wet 35% - 60%

Infill Splash Vertical Rebound Frame

Dry ≤ Category 3

Table 15:AFL/ Cricket Australia key performance criteria for synthetic fields

Regarding cricket, many councils have used synthetic

wickets for years and this has historically been covered by

soil during the winter months. This often causes safety

concerns and reduces the consistency of play where the

soil is located. According to Cricket Victoria guidance45

, the

wicket should be 25m long and 2.4m wide, and the turf

should be between 9 and 10mm in length.

Licensee Program 7.2.3

Since the development of standards the AFL and Cricket

Australia established a licensee program that ensures the

quality of synthetic surfaces installed will meet the player

and ball performance criteria with the surface and has the

durability required.

The licensee program includes laboratory and field testing.

The six step process includes:

1. Synthetic turf manufacturer submits sample(s) to

accredited laboratory

2. Product is tested and results returned to the AFL

Must pass to continue

3. Field is installed with approved product, samples are

taken for identification and construction quality reports

must be provided to field test agent

4. Onsite testing is undertaken after one month of play

or 160 hours of play

5. Field test results returned to AFL/CA

If pass, AFL/CA issues field certification

6. Re-testing will take place approximately every two

years after installation

AFL/Cricket Australia has a number of licensed

manufacturers and these can be found at

45

Reference: Letter to LGA’s in Victoria –dated 2010

www.aflcommunity.com.au. The AFL/Cricket Australia

Licensed Manufacturers are listed as:

Desso Sports Systems (under license to H G Turf)

FieldTurf (under license to TurfOne)

Grassman

Sports Technology International

TEAM Sports

Each certified field needs to be re-tested every two years to

ensure that its performance is current.

Field Installation 7.2.4

Recent examples of Australian fields that have been

installed and certified include:

Wadhurst Oval, Melbourne Grammar School (Vic).

Saltwater Reserve, Point Cook, Wyndham Council

(Vic).

Narrabeen Sports High School, Pittwater Council

(NSW).

In addition other fields that have not been certified include:

Northbridge Oval, City of Willoughby (NSW).

JJ Holland Park, City of Melbourne (Vic).

For cricket the standard approach is normally a synthetic

wicket on a concrete base which allows for consistency of

play. There are no performance standards for these

predominantly permanent seasonally used wickets.

Photo 42: Australian Rules training at Wyndham Council’s new AFL/ CA certified pitch in Point Cook (Source: Team Sports)

Contact details: AFL and Cricket Australia

Ricky Bell, Infrastructure & Planning

Manager

Visy Park, Gate 3 Royal Parade

Carlton North VIC 3054

GPO Box 4337, Melbourne VIC 3001

t: +41 3 8341 6085

w: www.aflcommunityclub.com.au


http://www.aflcommunity.com.au/



7.3 Baseball

Although the first synthetic sports turf system was installed

into the Houston Astrodome in 1966 and the artificial grass,

ChemGrass was known as AstroTurf after the facility name,

there has been revised success in this sport.

The majority of synthetic fields were laid onto a concrete

base and therefore the spring and softness was lost. This

combined with the heat in some grounds, and the lack of

performance standards resulted in the majority of Major

League Baseball league facilities taking the turf out.

Photo 43: Geelong Baseball Centre

One appropriate solution would be for the grass of the

diamond and outfield to be a 3G grass, with shockpad to a

multi-sport standard such as the One Turf Standard.

The pitcher’s mound and ‘sliding boxes’ could remain as

clay/granetic sand for the top level games. There are a

number of synthetic sports turf installations for baseball in

Australia including Geelong and The State

Softball/Baseball Centre in Altona (Victoria).

Contact details: Baseball Australia

Baseball House

2 Palm Meadows Drive

Carrara QLD 4211

t: +41 (7) 5510 6800

w: www.baseball.com.au


7.4 Bowls

Synthetic bowling surfaces were introduced in the late

1970’s and early 1980’s. World Bowls approved the use of

synthetic turf as an acceptable playing surface for lawn

bowls in the year 2000. The two main types of synthetic

surfaces used for outdoor bowls are sand filled (tufted) and

non-sand filled (woven) with an option of needle-punched.

The rules of the game allow for the use of synthetics and

go as far as endorsing specific suppliers of lawn bowl

pitches on their international world bowls website,

www.worldbowlsltd.co.uk – three of which are Australian

companies.

Bowling green’s generally consist of all weather or multi

use short pile turf stands between 12mm – 25mm high and

are normally dressed with sand, with some rare

installations being filled with rubber granules, or

alternatively the needle felt carpet where there is no infill.

The fibres used are generally more dense and stable

because of the use of tufted filaments woven into a carpet

like template. This type of surface closely imitates the

speed and playability of natural turf and is ideal for fast

paced ball to ground contact for sports like hockey, where a

consistent smooth playing surface increases performance

characteristics.

It should be noted that synthetic bowling greens still require

water if grass is used (i.e. not the carpet). Irrigation of the

surface during extended dry periods will maintain a

consistent moisture level in the sub-base material and

prevent movement. Some clubs also water their synthetic

greens to control pace and those with sand filled carpets

regularly water to contain the sand particles and settle dust.

Photo 44: Lawn bowls have been using synthetic carpets for decades

There is no set specification for any particular artificial turf

type as long as the surface matches the playing

characteristics regulated by the state/national body (e.g.

Royal Victorian Bowls Association (RVBA) Greens

Committee). These regulations are referred to as the

‘Green Laws’ specifying the playing characteristics of lawn

bowls in Australia.

The running speed requirement of the green is an integral

part of the playing characteristics and was developed in

2005 and is endorsed by the RVBA. The specification

applies to all clubs and competitions associated with the

RVBA and the recommended speed of the green is set at

between 13 and 17 seconds.

Synthetic and other artificial surfaces have been used in

community level bowls since the late 1970’s and have

increased in quality and design each year. Community level

bowls still use a variety of artificial surfaces and in some

cases on wet days, clubs roll out the traditional carpet like

http://www.baseball.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.worldbowlsltd.co.uk/



material to provide an alternative playing surface when

others are not available.

Community and club level lawn bowling greens are

governed by the state associations and greens undergo

what is known as a ‘Green Inspection’. Country

associations, metropolitan groups and councillors adhere

to the ‘Green Inspection’ report criterion. The greens

undergo a ‘Green Inspection’ conducted by the green

keeper and the outcome of this inspection is the ‘Green

Inspection’ report. The report will identify which category

of playing surface the bowling green falls into. The state

associations apply a letter grading system to their surface

grading of the green, where; A = very good, B = good, C

= average, D = poor and E = unsuitable for pennant.

Anything below this standard is not for use under any

circumstances.

Draw is related to the green speed – as the speed

increases there is greater draw. Due to the bias on the

bowl, draw is an integral component to the game of bowls

as it requires skill to draw a bowl close to the target and

determines the way in which the game is played. The

‘running speed’ of the green is also measured with the use

of a timing ramp. The recommended speed of the green is

set between 13–17 seconds and applies to all clubs and

competitions associated with the RVBA.

A slow green (<12 seconds) means that there will be

narrow draw – a game of diminished skill, more akin to

“skittles”. Excessive draw is common on greens with

speeds in excess of 17 seconds and is undesirable as the

bowls can infringe on adjoining rinks or restrict which side

can be played when playing on end rinks. Playing on

excessively fast rinks can be difficult and is not enjoyable

for the average club bowler.

It is recommended a 1m concrete apron on surrounds, to

reduce lawn clippings dropping onto and contaminating the

surface.

For further details on the specification criteria and

evaluation methods log on to www.bowlsvic.org.au.

Contact

Details:

Bowls Australia

Darebin International Sports Centre

John Cain Memorial Park

281 Darebin Road, Thornbury VIC 3071

t: +41 (3) 9480 7100

w: www.bowlsaustralia.com.au


7.5 Football (soccer)

Approach to using Synthetic Surfaces 7.5.1

Football has been played on synthetic grass for a number

of decades with the Federation International de Football

Association (FIFA) embracing the benefits of synthetic turf

allowing more people to play ‘The World Game’. The use

of synthetic grass surfaces (designated ‘Football Turf’ by

FIFA) over the past 15 years has resulted in the

development of performance standards based on quality

natural turf performance standards.

Photo 45: Football Turf has now been laid in more than 75 fields in Australia

To ensure that the quality of football turf was consistent

across the globe FIFA developed the FIFA Quality

Programme in 2001 and is continually improved with the

latest guidelines46

. These guidelines are due to be updated

and re-issued late 2014 or early 2015.

The FIFA Quality Programme for Artificial Turf is a rigorous

test program for football turf that assesses the ball surface

interaction, player surface interaction and durability of the

product.

FIFA has two categories of performance standards,

namely:

FIFA Recommended 1 Star – aimed at high

surface use for municipal or sports club level

field (recommended for more than 20 hours

use per week).

FIFA Recommended 2 Star – for professional

and stadium usage (recommended for less

than 20 hours use per week).

Within each recommended category there is a durability

test (Lisport Test) which simulates wear and tear from

usage. This durability test is key to the decision making of

which type of field to purchase. The FIFA 2 Star pitch only

needs 5,200 cycles simulated wear, while FIFA 1 Star pitch

is 20,200 cycles.

46

FIFA Quality Concept for Football Turf – Handbook of Requirements –January 2012

http://www.bowlsvic.org.au/

http://www.bowlsaustralia.com.au/



Therefore the durability of a FIFA 1 Star is four times that of

a standard FIFA 2 Star Recommended pitch.


The performance standards measured are the same for

both categories, although the acceptable criteria range

differs slightly. This allows the FIFA 1 Star Recommended

field categories, which only has to be tested every four (4)

years to have greater latitude (less than 5 percent

difference in most categories) to meet the needs of the

intensity that a 40 - 60 hour usage pattern would expect.

The standards for the two surfaces are identified in Table

16:

Pro

per

ty

Tes

t

Met

ho

d

Test Conditions

Preparation Temp Condition

FIFA 2 Star

FIFA 1 Star

Vertical ball rebound

FIFA 01 &

FIFA 09

Pre-conditioning

23ºC

Dry 0.60m –

0.85m

0.60m – 1.0m Wet

Simulated Wear – 5,200 cycles

Dry 0.60m

– 0.85m

N/A


Dry N/A 0.60m –

1.0m

Angle ball rebound

FIFA 02 Pre-conditioning 23ºC Dry

45% - 60%

45% -70%

Wet 45% - 80%

Ball roll FIFA 03 Pre-conditioning 23ºC Dry

4m – 8m

4m – 10m Wet

Shock Absorption

FIFA 04a &

FIFA 09

Pre-conditioning

23ºC

Dry 60% - 70%

55% - 70%

Wet


Dry 60% - 70%

N/A


Dry N/A 55% - 70%

Pre-conditioning 40ºC Dry 60% - 70%

55% - 70%

FIFA 04a 1st impact

- -5ºC Froze

n 60% - 70%

55% - 70%

Vertical Deformation

FIFA 05a &

FIFA 09

Pre-conditioning

23ºC

Dry 4mm – 10mm

4mm – 11mm Pre-conditioning Wet


Dry 4mm – 10mm

N/A


Dry N/A 4mm – 11mm

Rotational Resistance

FIFA 06 &

FIFA 09

Pre-conditioning

23ºC

Dry 30Nm –

45Nm

25Nm – 50Nm Wet


Dry 30Nm

– 45Nm

N/A


Dry N/A 25Nm – 50Nm

Linear Friction – Stud Deceleration Value

FIFA 07

Pre-conditioning 23ºC

Dry 3.0g – 5.5 g

3.0g – 6.0 g

Wet

Linear Friction – Stud Slide Value

Pre-conditioning 23ºC

Dry 130 – 210

120 – 220

Wet

Skin / surface friction

FIFA 08 Pre-conditioning 23ºC Dry 0.35 – 0.75

0.35 – 0.75

Skin abrasion

FIFA 08 Pre-conditioning 23ºC Dry ± 30% ± 30%

Table 16: FIFA Quality Concept for Football Turf – Handbook of Requirements – Key Performance Criteria

The re-testing of fields is FIFA 1 Star Recommended pitch

every four years and FIFA 2 Star Recommended pitch

every 12 months.

Licensee / Preferred Producer Program 7.5.3

FIFA has developed a two-tier accreditation program for

manufacturers and suppliers of football turf to the industry

to ensure that the client is purchasing from a reputable

supplier.

FIFA Licensee

The two-tier systems entry level is known as a FIFA

licensee, which indicates that the company is both

committed to the FIFA Quality Programme, has quality

systems in place and has fields ready to test. The pre-

requisites47

for application include:

ISO 9001 or equivalent,

Evidence that the company is a tufting company,

3 fields that have been tested to the International

Artificial Turf Standards (IATS),

Maintenance guidelines for at least one of its synthetic

systems,

Reference of a qualified civil engineer who conducts

work for the organisation,

Product declaration of the product that is to be tested

in the initial test,

Method statement for the installation of the artificial turf

system to be tested initially, and

Business plan covering the company’s intentions as a

FIFA Quality Programme Licensee.

At the time of the Smart Guide going to press, FIFA has 21

licensees of which four (4) seem to be offering products in

Australia/ New Zealand. They are:

Astroturf,

Desso,

Mondo S.P.A., and

TigerTurf.

A full list can be found on the FIFA website at

www.FIFA.com/Quality

FIFA Preferred Producer (FPP)

To provide greater certainty to purchasers of ’Football Turf,

FIFA introduced a second tier accreditation program in

2004 to focus on the quality assurance of the installation for

the Whole of Life of the field.

47

FIFA Quality Programme for Football Turf: Application as Licensee

http://www.fifa.com/Quality



The eligibility criteria is more onerous than the licensee’s

accreditation. Applicants must:

Have been a FIFA licensee for a minimum of two (2)

years,

Have a minimum of ten (10) FIFA-certified fields at the

moment of application,

Comply with the Code of Conduct of the WFSGI

(World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry),

and

Have no legal action or dispute in the past two years

by or with FIFA or a member association of FIFA.

The key aspect of this FPP status is that the manufacturer

has to ensure that any of their distributors, partners,

affiliates or anyone representing them, installs a quality

product, otherwise as the parent company/FPP they may

have to ensure that any corrections or repairs are

conducted. For the end consumer the main advantage in

using a FIFA preferred producer is that they only have to

deal with one company for the whole installation from the

construction planning to maintenance.

In the majority of tenders that Smart Connection Company

works on, we encourage closed tenders with only FPP’s

eligible to apply because the FPP status significantly

reduces risk to the purchaser.

With Australia/New Zealand the following FPP’s offer their

products directly or through licensees:

CC Grass (Tuff Turf),

FieldTurf (One-Turf),

Greenfields (HG Turf),

Limonta (Greenplay),

Polytan / STI,

Saletx Oy (HG Turf), and

TEAM Sports,

Full details of contacts for both FIFA licensee’s and FIFA

preferred producers are listed at www.FIFA.com/Quality.


Recent installations over the past 6 - 7 years for football

fields total over 60, Victoria has the majority (over 50), and

NSW has approximately 10, with another 30 plus pitches to

be installed by 2015. Recent commitment and installations

for Tasmania, ACT, WA, SA and Qld demonstrate how this

technology is encouraging people to play the game.

To obtain more information about the FIFA Quality

Programme directly from FIFA visit www.FIFA.com/Quality.

Contact details: FIFA

FIFA – Strasse 20

PO Box 8044 Zurich, Switzerland

t: +41 (0) 43 222 777

w: www.fifa.com

e: http://www.fifa.com/contact/form.html

7.6 Gridiron / American Football

In 1969, Franklin Field, University of Pennsylvania switched

from grass to artificial turf. Over the past 40 years some of

the National Football League (NFL) teams have changed

back to natural grass, with some also deciding to reinvest

in the latest generation synthetic technology. The

University of Pennsylvania is one example that switched

from synthetic (2nd

generation) to natural grass before

reverting to a 3rd

generation pitch.

In Canada all eight stadiums in the Canadian Football

League (CFL) use synthetic sports turf.

There are no standards for gridiron / American football

except the Clegg Hammer Test which measures hardness.

If an organisation was to consider this in Australia / New

Zealand, it is recommended they should consider the IRB

rugby union or AFL/Cricket Australia standards, especially

due to the critical head fall criteria.

Contact details: Gridiron Australia

P.O. Box 170

Woden, ACT 2606

w: www.gridironaustralia.org.au


7.7 Hockey

Approach to Using Synthetic Surfaces 7.7.1

Hockey, under the guidance of the International Hockey

Federation (FIH) has been promoting the use of synthetic

surfaces since the first surface was used in Canada in

1976 for an international game. In their latest handbook for

synthetic surfaces48

FIH state that their objectives to code

the relevant performance requirements is to ensure that

hockey pitches and matches are conducted for:

Consistency – to reflect relative team merit,

Quality – to provide an opportunity for players to

display and develop their skills,

Safety – to ensure playing conditions offer

comfortable playing considerations and reduce

risk to players/officials, and

48

Handbook of Performance, Durability and Construction Requirements for Synthetic Turf Hockey Pitches (FIH – May 2013)



http://www.fifa.com/

http://www.fifa.com/contact/form.html

http://www.gridironaustralia.org.au/




Playability – to extend playability, especially in

adverse weather conditions.

FIH are keen to promote the game across the world and

believe that the use of synthetic sports and synthetic

hockey surfaces will provide greater access to facilities to

participate in various forms of hockey. By providing quality,

safety and consistency of play, participants will feel more

confident in developing their skills, enjoying the game more

and FIH hope, continue playing the game throughout their

life.

Photo 46: London Blue Hockey Field, as its now known (Source: STI)


In 2013, FIH re-scoped the approval levels for the use of

synthetic turf products, with three standards of turf now

being recognised:

Global For FIH world-level competitions, including

specified qualifying tournaments.

National For other instrumental matches and higher

level national competitions.

Multi-sport For other levels of play; subject to national

association regulations, surfaces designed

to cater for a number of sports and where

hockey may not be the primary sport.

These are the key aspects that FIA have identified to

underpin their performance requirements49

.

i) The performance standards aim at allowing

players to use the fields in a safe and comfortable

manner,

ii) Approved products from licensed manufacturers

are published on the FIH website (www.fih.ch)

which has been tested by an FIH accredited

laboratory, demonstrating compliance to the

appropriate FIH standards. These products are

only valid for the specified duration, and

iii) Pitches are granted a certificate of compliance

after field testing by an accredited laboratory, only

when they meet the specified performance

standards. A current list of certified pitches is

49

Handbook of Performance, Durability and Construction Requirements for Synthetic Turf Hockey Pitches (FIH – May 2013)

published on the FIH website (www.fih.ch) which

are valid for two (2) years from the date of testing.

The performance standards for installed pitches are

illustrated in Table 17:

Performance Requirements

Global Pitch National Pitch

Multi-sport Pitch

Product compliance with manufacturer’s declaration

Yes Yes Yes

Ball rebound

Mean 100mm to 400mm

Individual test positions < ± 10% from mean

Mean 100mm to 400mm


Mean 75mm to 400mm


Ball roll

Mean ≥ 10m

Individual test < ± 10% from mean

Mean ≥ 8m


Mean ≥ 5m


Ball roll deviation ≤ 3° ≤ 3° ≤ 3°

Underfoot friction

Leroux Pendulum

Coefficient of friction 0.6 to 1.0

Individual tests < ± 0.1 from mean






25 – 45 Nm

Individual tests < ± 3 from mean

25 - 45 Nm


25 – 50 Nm


Impact response 40 to 60% 40 to 65% 40 to 65%

Individual tests < ± 5% from mean



Pitch dimensions and markings

Line length ± 50mm

Line width ± 10mm

Circle radius ± 30mm

Penalty spots position ± 30mm

Length of 300mm marks ± 30mm

Diagonals < 300mm difference

Pitch run-offs (minima) Back-line 2m same synthetic turf surface

Side-line 1m same synthetic turf surface

Both plus 1m synthetic turf or alternative

Pitch slope Longitudinal fall < 0.2%

Longitudinal fall < 1.0%

Longitudinal fall < 1.0%

Pitch profile

Lateral fall < 0.4%

Exceptions < 0.4% permitted on FIH approval

Lateral fall < 1.0%

Lateral fall < 1.0%

Pitch smoothness

Deviation ≤ 6mm above or below 3m straight edge

Deviation above or below 300mm straight edge

≤ 2mm ≤ 3mm ≤ 3mm

Pitch watering As specified by turf manufacturer

If specified by turf manufacturer

If specified by turf manufacturer

Pitch permeability ≥ 150mm per hour

≥ 150mm per hour

≥ 150mm per hour

Colour FIH approved FIH approved

FIH approved

http://www.fih.ch/

http://www.fih.ch/



Performance Requirements

Global Pitch National Pitch

Multi-sport Pitch

Artificial lighting See FIH Guide to the Artificial Lighting of Hockey

Pitches

See FIH Guide to the Artificial Lighting of

Hockey Pitches

See FIH Guide to the Artificial Lighting of

Hockey Pitches

Table 17: Key Performance Requirements for Hockey Fields

Product Licensing 7.7.3

Manufacturers of synthetic turf for hockey pitches or multi-

sport used for hockey may apply to the FIH to have their

products registered as FIH approved products. Once

tested by an independent and accredited laboratory they

are listed on the FIH website. Only licensed manufacturers,

their subsidiaries and licensees may seek FIH approval for

their products.

Contact details: International Hockey Federation

Rue du Valentin 61

CH – 1004 Lausanne, Switzerland

t: +41 (21) 641 0606

w: www.fih.ch


7.8 Rugby League

Approach to using synthetics Surfaces 7.8.1

Rugby league in Australia and New Zealand is controlled

under their national governing body, namely the National

Rugby League (NRL) in Australia and the NZRL in New

Zealand.

The world governing body for the sport, the Rugby League

International Federation (RLIF) currently seems to have

limited scope in relation to synthetic surface governance.

The UK’s governing body for rugby league, the Rugby

Football League (RFL) have embraced the technology and

set standards which have been used at both community

and stadium/professional level.


The Rugby Football League (RFL) standard based on the

European Standard EN 15330-1: Surfaces for Sport Areas

has been modified for the specific requirements of rugby

league. The standard takes into account the results of a

comprehensive study into the performance of natural grass

pitches. Typically, a natural grass-synthetic turf hybrid

system called Desso Grassmaster is found in major

stadium installations around the world alongside root-

stabilized fibre-sand or fibre-elastic natural grass systems.

Recognising that many artificial turf rugby league pitches

will also be used for football or rugby union the RFL

standard has been aligned with the requirements for FIFA

and IRB regulation 22 wherever possible.

Similar to the FIFA Quality Concept the RFL performance

standard recognises requirements for community and

stadium use (see Table 18). Products suitable for rugby

league play have to pass initial laboratory approval before

being able to be installed and tested in the actual field

application. Whilst community pitches shall be retested

every two years, stadium pitches require a field retest on

an annual basis.

Property Stadium fields Community Fields

Ball Rebound 0.8 – 1.1 m 0.6 – 1.1 m

Rotational Resistance 35 – 50 Nm 25 – 55 Nm

Shock Absorption 50 – 65 % 50 – 70 %

Vertical Deformation 3.0 – 8.5 mm ≤ 11.0 mm

Head Injury Criterion ≥ 1.3 m ≥ 1.3 m

Table 18: Selected RFL Field test Performance Requirements

The English RFL standard specifies two categories of

performance: The category called ‘stadium’ is intended to

replicate the characteristics of high-level natural grass as

found in well maintained stadium settings. Surfaces

meeting the ‘stadium’ category are intended for use in

professional matches and training. The second category

called ‘community’ which has a wider acceptance range

than the stadium category is supposed to replicate the

characteristics of good quality community natural grass

fields.

In general, community grounds have to sustain a much

higher level of use compared to stadium pitches that are

predominantly used for competition matches and

professional training. In this respect, the RFL categories

‘stadium’ and ‘community’ are comparable to the FIFA

recommended Two Star and One Star categories.

However, in terms of expected durability the RFL standard

recognises only a high level of resistance to simulated use

by specifying 20,200 conditioning cycles whereas FIFA

allows 5,200 cycles for its FIFA recommended Two Star

category. The RFL approach seems to reflect the

expectation that in a stadium setting artificial turf has to

sustain a much higher level of use compared with natural

grass. Accordingly the different categories and their

respective acceptance ranges apply to both the laboratory

test requirements as well as the field test requirements.

http://www.fih.ch/




The RFL Rugby League Standard - The detail 7.8.3

From the research conducted with similar long grass ball

sports including the football codes of rugby union, soccer

and Australian rules there are many similarities to the

needs of rugby league in Australia that will influence any

future considerations for Australia.

From comprehensive testing by Labosport International into

the performance of natural turf fields at community and

stadium levels during both winter 2010 and summer 2011,

they developed a standard which best replicated the

playing conditions of quality grass fields. The Rugby

League Performance and Construction Standard for

Synthetic Pitches are now used for both training and

competition fields at community and elite level.

Similar to other performance standards, the specifications

for laboratory and field test requirements in the RFL

standard can be divided into three areas:

1. Product identification and durability

2. Ball-surface interaction

3. Player-surface interaction.

Product identification tests apply to all components of the

surface system. The artificial grass component is analysed

in terms of its carpet configuration, such as machine gauge

(e.g. distance between the rows of tufts), pile height, pile

weight as well as tufts and total mass per unit area. Pile

yarn materials are characterised in terms of the polymer

used and the tensile strength of the pile yarn. The quality of

the carpet construction is determined by the tuft withdrawal

force, tensile strength of the carpet and joint strength. The

prescribed shock pad or elastic layer is identified by its

thickness, tensile strength and force reduction.

Performance and stabilising infill are characterised by

particle grading and shape in addition to bulk density. Both

yarn and performance infill typically of polymeric nature,

are subjected to artificial weathering testing for color

change and changes in material composition (e.g.

degradation).

Due to the shape of the rugby league ball, the ball-surface

interaction tests generally refer to a football rather than a

rugby ball. The expectation is that hard and compacted

surfaces produce a ball rebound that is too high, whereas

very soft surfaces cause the ball to rebound too low.

Player-surface interaction tests have also been harmonised

with FIFA Quality Concept and IRB One Turf standard.

Measurement of shock absorption, vertical deformation and

energy restitution are being determined using the new

Advanced Artificial Athlete (AAA) device. The RFL

standard acknowledges that values prescribed for energy

restitution are meant as target values and do not prevent

passing of a product if values are found to be outside the

prescribed range. Similar to other performance standards,

rotational resistance, skin friction and abrasion are used to

set parameters for safe interaction between the player and

the surface. Similar to the rugby union standard in IRB

Regulation 22, the RFL standard uses the head injury

criterion in accordance with EN 1177 and specifies a critical

fall height of equal or greater than 1.3m. Generally, the

majority of laboratory tests are conducted on dry and wet

sample specimen.

Photo 47: Stadium Perimeter Advertisement (Source: Signgrass)

For field testing, the surface, ambient temperature and the

ambient relative humidity are recorded as part of the field

test report. Field testing also assesses surface regularity

using a straightedge and graduated wedge and the

gradient of the pitch. Finally, infill depth and vertical free

pile height have to fall within prescribed ranges of the

manufacturers declared value.

Additionally the porosity of pitches may be perceived as an

issue in certain parts of the country, which receives short

bursts of rain that is intense and often curtails games and

training on natural turf. The RFL standard for porosity is

the toughest of all sports; the shock pad needs to be

permeable enough to allow more than 300mm of water to

pass through its surface.


There is no product licensing presently in Australia, or by

the world governing body. It is anticipated that in 2014

Australia’s NRL will consider this process.

Contact details: National Rugby League

Rugby League Central

Driver Avenue, Moore Park NSW 2021

t: +41 (2) 9359 8500

w: www.nrl.com

http://www.nrl.com/



7.9 Rugby Union

Introduction 7.9.1

Rugby union has historically been played on grass, despite

several proposals over the years for alternative solutions,

including clay, shade, sand and the second generation

artificial grass. All presented a similar problem of critical

head fall and skin abrasion.

Photo 48: Rugby Union playing on synthetic field (Source: Team Sports)

In the past half-decade the technology around synthetic turf

has provided proven solutions for the game of rugby and

the International Rugby Board (IRB) has embraced this

because of the benefits for increasing participation, quality

of play and consistency for the game.

To ensure the quality and consistency of the surface the

IRB developed, the IRB Artificial Rugby Turf Performance

Specification50

, in consultation with FIFA. This standard

was integrated into the Game Regulation 2251

and provides

guidance on how it can be used for the game.

In order to boost global participation in the game, rugby

shares the use of sports fields with various sports, and in

2010, the IRB introduced the IRB Turf One Program. This

standard integrated the key ‘long grass’ sports such as

football, rugby union, Australian rules, American football

and hockey. See Section 7.10 for full details.

The IRB has only one standard for synthetic turf, that

applies to both community and stadium use.

50

IRB Artificial Rugby Turf Performance Specification One Turf Technical Manual 51

Regulation 22: Standard relating to the use of artificial rugby turf

Performance Standards 7.9.2

Similar to the FIFA performance standards, the IRB has

identified three basic categories that are broadly defined

as:

Ball/surface Interaction: The reaction of a ball to the

surface.

Player/surface Interaction: The reaction of a player to

the surface.

Durability: The resistance of the surface to wear and

tear and the environment.

For a field to become compliant to the IRB Regulation 22,

the following process needs to be followed:

Step 1 Unions, clubs or organisations seeking to

install or use an artificial surface should

follow the IRB Regulation 22 requirements.

Step 2 Manufacturer/IRB Preferred Turf Producer

submits a product to an IRB Accredited Test

Institute.

Step 3 Laboratory Test including:

Identification tests,

Durability,

Climatic resistance,

Player/surface interaction, and

Ball/surface interaction.

If the product passes these tests, the

manufacturer/IRB Preferred Turf Producers

can proceed to Step 4.

Step 4 Installation of pitch with a ‘Laboratory

Approved System’.

Step 5 Field Testing – The field has four key

aspects tested, including:

Construction tests,

Player/surface interaction,

Ball/surface interaction, and

Identification tests.

Step 6 Approval Status

Once the pitch meets all requirements the

national Member Union then grants it

‘approved status’.

The performance criteria for the surface are identified in

Table 19 and Table 20.



Property Test Method

Test Conditions Require- ments Preparation Temp. Conditi

on

Vertical ball rebound - football

EN 12235 (results expressed as absolute rebound)

Pre-conditioning 23°C

Dry 0.60m – 1.0m

Wet 0.60m – 1.0m

Simulated Wear 23°C Dry 0.60m – 1.0m

Angle ball rebound

Determination of Angle Ball Rebound f


Dry 45% - 70%

Wet 45% - 80%

Shock Absorption

AAA Version (Appendix 2)


Dry 55% - 70% Wet

Simulated Wear Dry 55% - 70%

Pre-conditioning 40°C Dry 55% - 70%

Pre-conditioning -5°C Frozen 55% - 70%

Energy Restitution

AAA Version


Dry 20% - 50% Wet

Simulated Wear Wet 20% - 50%

Pre-conditioning -5°C Frozen 20% - 50%

Pre-conditioning 40°C Dry 20% - 50%

Head Injury Criteria

EN 1177 Loose particulate

Pre-conditioning

23°C

Dry ≥ 1.3m Wet

Simulated Wear **

Dry ≤ 1000 HIC @ 1.0m Fall height

Head Injury Criteria*

EN 1177 Loose Particulate

Pre-conditioning 40°C Dry

≤ 1000 HIC @ 1.3m Fall height

Vertical Deformation**

AAA Version

Pre-conditioning 23°C Dry 5.5mm – 11mm

Pre-conditioning

23°C

Wet 5.5mm – 11mm

Simulated wear Dry 5.5mm – 11mm


EN 15301 – 1 With football studs

Pre-conditioning 23°C Dry 30Nm – 45Nm

Wet 30Nm – 45Nm

Simulated Wear 23°C Dry 30Nm – 45Nm

Linear Friction – Stud Deceleration Value

Determination of Linear Friction Stud Slide Value and Stud Deceleration f


Dry 3.0g – 6.0g

Wet 3.0g – 6.0g

Linear Friction – Stud Slide Value


Dry 120 – 220

Wet 120 - 220

Skin / surface friction

Determination of Skin/Surface Friction and Skin Abrasion f

Pre-conditioning 23°C Dry 0.35 – 0.75

Skin abrasion

Procedure for simulated mechanical abrasion during use f

Pre-conditioning 23°C Dry ± 30%

Table 19: Laboratory Test Requirements f Developed by FIFA as FIFA Test Methods for the FIFA Quality Concept for

Football Turf Handbook of Test Methods January 2012 Edition.

*The HIC (Head Injury Criteria) test at 40°C needs to be conducted as soon

as practicable after removing the sample from the heating chamber. It is

then tested via the determination of three single impacts of HIC <1000 at

1.3m drop height.

** As determined by three single drops on the surface of the conditioned

sample after simulated wear.

Samples shall be preconditioned using a studded roller as

per the FIFA methods. Simulated wear means 20,200

cycles of the Lisport machine.

Where the test method specifies that a sample shall be

tested ‘wet’ a standard wetting procedure is adopted.

Property Characteristic Test Method Requirement

Following Artificial Weathering in accordance with EN 14836:2005 (UVA) the following tests

should be carried out

Artificial turf Colour change EN ISO 20105-A02 ≥ Grey scale 3

Pile yarn (s) Tensile strength

minimum

requirements

EN 13864

Fib ≥ 30N

Mono ≥ 8N

Pile yarn (s) Tensile strength EN 13864 Percentage

change from

unaged to be no

more than 50%

Polymeric infill Colour change EN ISO 20105-A02 ≥ Grey scale 3

Joint strength:

stitched seams

Joint strength -

unaged

EN 12228 Method 1

2500N/100mm Joint strength – after

immersion in hot

water

EN 13744 & EN 12228

Method 1

Joint strength:

bonded seams

Joint strength -

unaged

EN 12228 Method 1

2500N/100mm Joint strength – after

immersion in hot

water

EN 13744 & EN 12228

Method 1

Joint strength:

peel strength

(bonded

seams only)

Joint strength – after

immersion in hot

water

EN 13744 & EN 12228

Method 2 25N/100mm

Carpet

strength

Direct tension ISO 13934-1 25N/mm

Table 20: Laboratory Test Requirements (continued)

Property Test Method Condition Requirement

Tensile strength of shock

pads and e-layers (if

supplied as part of system)

EN 12230 Unaged 0.15Mpa

Water permeability* EN 12616 Unaged > 500mm/h

Table 21: Additional tests for Rugby Union under Regulation 22

*Not applicable to surfaces designed specifically for indoor use.

Surfaces that fail the shock absorption test at -5°C may

only be installed on pitches that have an under pitch

heating system or in locations that do not experience

temperatures below 0°C.

Note: SBR and coated SBR are treated as two separate

products.

IRB Preferred Turf Producer 7.9.3

The following companies are Preferred Turf Producers

(PTP’s) and a full updated list can be found on the IRB

website (www.irbplayerwelfare.com):



Edel Grass B.V. (N/A),

Field Turf Takett SAS (TurfOne),

Greenfields B.V. (HG turf / TigerTurf),

Limonta Sports C.P.A. (Greenplay Limonta

Australia),

Polytan / Sports Technologies Australia (STI), and

SIS Group (TEAM Sport).


Over the past few years global embracing of synthetic turf

for Rugby Union has progressed significantly with countries

such as Canada ( with 3 fields); China (1); Hong Kong (3);

France (23); United Kingdom (15); and New Zealand (8)

installing the surface.

Within Australia is it expected that the first couple of pitches

will be installed in 2014 at Lane Cove in NSW.

Contact details: Australian Rugby Union (ARU)

ARU Headquarters, Ground Floor 29-

57 Christie St

St Leonards NSW 2065

t: +41 (2) 8005 5555

w: www.rugby.com.au

International Rugby Board (IRB)

Huguenot House,

35-38 St Stephen's Green

Dublin 2, Ireland

t: + 00 353 1 240 9200

w: www.irb.com


7.10 Tennis

Introduction 7.10.1

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has developed a

series of ‘Court Surface Association Programs’ that

categorise the speed of the courts and quantify the quality

of installation. Irrespective of the surface type, the two

programs explore the pace of the surface through the ITF

Court Pace Classification Program. The ITF Recognition

Program allows for both products to be tested against the

Court Pace Classification Program and individual courts

can be rated.

Types of Surface 7.10.2

The types of surfaces that are recognised by the ITF have

been classified in their publication ITF Approved Tennis

Balls, Classified Surfaces and Recognised Courts. A

Guide to Products and Test Methods52

and are

summarised in table 22 following.

Surface code

Type Description

A Acrylic1 Textured pigmented, resin-

bound coating

B Artificial Clay2 Synthetic surface with the

appearance of clay

C Artificial grass2 Synthetic surface with the

appearance of natural grass

D Asphalt3 Bitumen-bound aggregate

E Carpet Textile or polymeric material supplied in rolls or sheets of finished product

F Clay4 Unbound mineral aggregate

G Concrete3 Cement-bound aggregate

H Grass Natural grass grown from seed

J Other e.g. modular systems (tiles), wood, canvas

Table 22: ITF Approved Tennis Balls, Classified Surfaces and Recognised Courts

Notes: All surfaces may be porous or non-porous, with the exception of

‘clay’ and ‘grass’, which are always porous.

1 Normally forms only the uppermost few millimetres of a court.

2 “Appearance” relates only to the form of the uppermost surface material

and not other characteristics (e.g. colour). These surfaces are typically

composed of a carpet matrix dressed with clay, sand and/or rubber

aggregate.

3 Used only when the material itself forms the playing surface. When used

as a base for other surfaces (e.g. acrylic), reference will be made only to the

playing surface.

4 This term denotes a type of surface that is constructed from naturally-

derived materials, and includes unbound sand or clay.

ITF Court Pace Classification Program 7.10.3

To assist clubs and tennis organisations to select the

surface most suited to their requirements the ITF Court

Pace Classification Program identifies the surface into one

of five (5) categories:

1. Slow ≤ 29,

2. Medium-slow 30 – 34,

3. Medium 35 – 39,

4. Medium-fast 40 – 44, and

5. Fast ≥ 45.

52

www.itftennis.com/technical

http://www.rugby.com.au/

http://www.irb.com/


http://www.itftennis.com/technical



Photo 49: Andy Murray returns a shot at the Australian Open on the cushioned floor

The court pace is established by using a simple test53

which records the velocity before and after the bounce.

The increased smoothness of the court surface increases

the speed of the ball and similarly the rougher the surface

the more it slows the ball down. Additionally the higher a

bounce a surface produces the slower the court will be

because players have more time to reach the ball. Both of

these factors are reviewed.

A product that has been tested in an ITF Accredited

Laboratory (on site or in a laboratory) is included purely on

the Court Park Rating and is classified for three (3) years.

This list can be seen as part of ITF’s website

(www.itftennis.com).

ITF Recognition Program 7.10.4

The ITF Recognition Program is targeted at those venues

where the standard of play demands the specification of

precise playing characteristics. Although ITF states that

this may include regional tennis centres or where

national/international tournaments may be held, it is just as

relevant as a quality control progress to ensure that the

court standards and pace required have been delivered.

There are two levels of recognition, which according to the

ITF54

guidelines state:

1) One-Star ITF Recognition, and

2) Two-Star ITF Recognition.

The ITF Recognition Programme is targeted at those

venues where the standard of play demands the

specification of precise playing characteristics, e.g. at

international tournaments and national or regional tennis

centres.

One-Star ITF Recognition

Key installation properties of a court must meet ITF

recommendations, which include a visual inspection to

identify any cracks or gaps in the surface and to confirm

53

ITF Approved Tennis Balls, Classified Surfaces and Recognised Courts – A Guide to Products and Test Methods 54

ITF Court Surface Assessment Program

that the appearance is uniform. Any bumps or dips in the

surface are measured and the slope and planarity of the

court are established. Finally, the positions of the court

markings and net are checked to ensure they are within

acceptable limits.

Two-Star ITF Recognition

In addition to the One-Star ITF Recognition process, the

Court Pace Rating is compared with the ITF Classified

value for the surface product. Therefore, only surfaces

which have obtained ITF classification can be tested for

Two-Star ITF Recognition. If the surface product is not

classified, the supplier can apply for ITF classification using

the results of the on-site Two-Star Pace Rating test.

Applications and Validity

An application for ITF Recognition can be submitted by any

party with interest in the tennis facility, such as the owner,

the organiser of a tournament held at that facility, or the

supplier or installer of the court.

ITF Recognition expires when the court is resurfaced, or

after 10 years, depending on which is sooner. However,

the results are only valid on the day of testing, as

properties of the court may change, due to factors such as

ambient conditions, use and maintenance.55

If the venue is

therefore used for competitions annually at a high level it

should be re-tested accordingly.

The application for ITF Recognition can be submitted by

the installer, court owner (e.g. Local Government), the

tennis club or peak body (e.g. Tennis NSW etc.) or a

tournament organiser.

If successful, the results for the venue and courts will be

published on the ITF technical website for a One-Star

Recognition. If a Two-Star is established the product brand

name will also be displayed.

ITF Recognised Supplier or Installer 7.10.5

Suppliers who have obtained a certain number of ITF

Recognition awards for their courts will be awarded Elite

ITF Recognition Supplier/Installer status, in recognition for

their continued quality of their products and workmanship.

The two levels are:

Elite Silver Level – for 10 or more installations as

either an installer or supplier, and

Elite Gold Level – for 50 or more installations as

either an installer or supplier.

55

ITF Court Surface Assessment Programmes (p6)

http://www.itftennis.com/



Within Australia the governing body of tennis is Tennis

Australia (www.tennis.com.au)

Contact details: International Tennis Federation

The Technical Centre

ITF Licensing (UK) Ltd.

Bank Lane, Roehampton,

London SW15 5XZ United Kingdom

t: +44 (0) 20 8878 6464

w: www.itftennis.com


Tennis Australia

Melbourne Park, Olympic Boulevard,

Melbourne Vic 3000

t: +61 (3) 9914 4000

w: tennis.com.au


7.11 Multi-Sport Areas

Approach to Synthetic Surfaces 7.11.1

There are many positive examples where a purchaser of a

new synthetic sports turf is interested to use the surface for

more than one sport. In these cases a request has been

made to ensure the performance standards meet the needs

of the sports involved. Some of these collaborations have

included:

Football code collaboration (soccer; Australian

Rules Football; Rugby Union and Rugby League)

Football (FIFA 1 Star) with Hockey (National and

Multi-sport)

Hockey (National) and Tennis (untested)

Photo 50: Collaboration of multi-sport field (Football, AFL & Cricket) between Whittlesea City Council and Mill Park Secondary College

In Australia there is only one published standard to date

that formally combines two sports and that is the

AFL/Cricket Australian community surface standard. The

reality of this standard is that it is predominantly for Aussie

Rules, as the cricket wicket has no standard, just the

outfield.

Photo 51: Football and Hockey (Source: Team Sports)

Draft standards are expected to be issued in 2014, that

combine the football codes of soccer, rugby union, rugby

league, Australian rules/cricket, gridiron and Gaelic football.

In addition hockey’s world governing body (FIH) has

endorsed these standards, for their multi-sport performance

criteria.

The benefits for the client or purchaser will be that they can

program many sports at different times of the year, which

could be very beneficial.


The draft standards are presently being agreed and will be

promoted by all of the partnering sports once agreed. This

should be ready in 2014. The IRB are the key driver of this

approach and the standard will likely be communicated by

them.

Photo 52: Proposed Design for Lane Cove Council (NSW) for a Cricket, AFL, Football and Rugby Union Multi-sports Field (Source: Smart Connection Company/DCE)


There is no licensing scheme in process at present.

http://www.tennis.com.au/

http://www.itftennis.com/


http://www.tennis.com.au/




Section 7 case study – Sport by Sport – ABS Sports Fields



SECTION 8:

FINANCIAL

STRATEGY TO

AFFORD A

SYNTHETIC

SURFACE



8 Financial Strategy to Afford a

Synthetic Surface

8.1 Introduction

For a prospective purchaser to appreciate the cost of the

investment, this section explores a number of aspects

including:

The expense commitment, which includes:

- The whole of life costs of a typical synthetic pitch

installation.

- The maintenance costs.

- The replacement costs.

The ability to generate revenue to offset the

investment.

- The pricing strategy.

- The return on investment.

This section explores a typical 110m x 71m football pitch

covering 7,810m2. These same principles can be used for

any sports surface.

Photo 53: Melbourne Grammar School, with a Football (TigerTurf) and AFL field (HG Turf)

8.2 The Whole of Life Expense Commitment

To appreciate the investment needed, there are three

stages of a field’s whole of life (WOL) which need to be

considered and are shown in Table 23 – 25. These are for

a FIFA 1 Star recommended pitch and includes ancillary

equipment such as goal posts, fencing and floodlights. The

three stages are:

Capital Investment – including field and ancillary

items, fences, lights etc.

Maintenance Costs – depending upon the level of

use.

Replacement Costs – considered over 10, 20 and 30

years.

Within each of these WOL stages, the tables have

considered the following aspects:

Capital Investment and Installation Costs 8.2.1

Consider the design and construction costs of a field of

7,810m2 field to a FIFA 1 Recommended Pitch standard

pitch (Table 23 example). In addition, ancillary items such

as fencing, lighting, goals and coaches boxes have been

considered and therefore costed in.

Table 23: Capital Investment Required

Maintenance Costs 8.2.2

The recurring maintenance costs consider the routine

professional grooming that is essential for appearance,

playability and preventative maintenance, in order to

maximise the field’s life expectancy.

The greater the usage, the greater the maintenance

needed – the modelling therefore considers three usage

rates with additional maintenance investment needs,

namely:

Less than 40 hours per week usage needing six

hours maintenance per week,

Between 40 and 60 hours usage per week

needing eight hours maintenance per week, and

Over 60 hours per week of usage needing 10

hours maintenance per week.

The maintenance calculations in Table 24 have been

based on an external maintenance company meeting the

suggested maintenance program that FIFA recommends.

Capital Investment and Installation Costs

Component Aus. $ cost

Pitch Costs

Design $10,000

Site establishment, documentation & project

management$60,000

Sub grade works $70,290

Drainage, gutters and concrete works $164,010

base pavement and asphalt $335,830

synthetic surface $312,400

shock pad installation $156,200

Pitch Sub total $1,108,730

Ancillary Costs

Fencing $78,100

Lighting $273,350

Irrigation (optional) $0

Equipment $50,000

other $0

Ancillary costs Sub-Total $401,450

TOTAL COST FOR FIELD $1,510,180



Table 24: Maintenance Costs

Replacement 8.2.3

The funding required for the field, shockpad and ancillary

items over three periods of 10, 20 and 30 years is identified

in Table 25. The shockpad and ancillary items (fencing,

lights etc.) will need some minor repairs every 10 years and

the shockpad replaced every 20 years. All of this has been

identified in the modelling.

Table 25: Replacement Costs

Whole of Life Costs 8.2.4

To appreciate the WOL costs for the field, Table 26 shows

the workings. It assumes a capital amortisation timeline

over 10, 20 and 30 years. Table 26 shows the annual

amortisation rates for each of the three options:

Table 26: Whole of Life Costs

From the figures shown in Table 26 it is possible to identify

the cost of investment on a per hour basis. The calculations

are based on the field being programmed for 50 weeks of

the year. Table 27 shows that the costs vary significantly

depending on the amortisation strategy and the facility’s

level of usage. It ranges from $36p.h. based on 60 hours

usage over a 30 year amortisation strategy, to $201p.h.

based on a 10 year strategy. This allows the purchaser to

decide on the pricing strategy needed to fund a WOL return

on investment strategy.

Photo 54: Football (FIFA 1 Star) and Hockey (FIH National) at ANU in Canberra (Source: HG Turf)

The number of hour’s usage is the other variable that will

influence the ROI strategy. Table 27 shows the costs

based on a range of five levels, from a stadium usage of 20

hours per week up to 60 hours. It is envisaged that with

the right programming most facilities would be between 50

and 60 hours per week.

This would mean that an average cost for using the facility

would have to be around $36 per annum, assuming that

council was funding the whole investment.

Component Aus. $ cost

Pitch Costs under 40 hours 40 - 60 hours Over 60 hours

Routine maintenance grooming $ 12,000 16,000$ 20,000$

Professional service grooming $ 3,000

4,000$ 5,000$

Algaecide / Weedicide materials $ 500 $ 500 $ 500

Pitch Sub total $ 15,500 20,500$ 25,500$

Ancillary Costs

Fencing

Lighting

Irrigation (optional) $ -

Equipment

Ancillary costs Sub-Total $ -

TOTAL COST FOR FIELD 15,500$ 20,500$ 25,500$

Maintenance Costs (based on 40 hours use)

Replacement Costs

Component

years 10 & 30

costs year 20 costs

Pitch Costs

Removal & disposal of

existing synthetic grass

surface

$ 19,525 $ 19,525

Shock pad rectification $ 25,773

Synthetic surface installation $ 312,400 $ 312,400

Shock pad replacement every

20 amortised pa $ 156,200

Pitch Sub total $ 357,698 $ 488,125

Ancillary Costs

Fencing (replace chainmesh) $ 15,000 $ 15,000

Lighting $ 48,000 $ 48,000

Irrigation (optional)

Equipment $ 7,000 $ 7,000

Ancillary costs Sub-Total $ 70,000 $ 63,000

TOTAL COST FOR FIELD 427,698$ 551,125$

Time Period Replacement Assumptions

Less than 40 hr.

WOL Cost $

Annual

Amortised

Rate

40 - 60 hrs.

WOL Cost $

Annual

Amortised

Rate

More than 60

hr. WOL Cost $

Annual Amortised

Rate

$2,092,878 $209,288 $2,142,878 $214,288 $2,192,878 $219,288

Replace the surface & some ancillaries

Replace shock pad $2,799,003 $139,950 $2,899,003 $144,950 $2,999,003 $149,950

$3,381,701 $112,723 $3,531,701 $117,723 $3,681,701 $122,723

Ten years (10)

Twenty years

(20)

Thirty years

(30)



Whole of Life Costing's for Field



Table 27: Whole of Life Costs Model per hour of use

Alternative Expense Commitment Options 8.2.5

Some purchasers take the view that the capital cost is a

commitment that they make and the recurring revenue is

what needs to be addressed in the pricing strategy. To

assist in appreciating the cost of this the following Tables

explore the maintenance and replacement costs (at today’s

prices) over the agreed amortization period, Table 28

shows the cost based on the capital not being taken into

account.

Table 28: Maintenance and Replacement Cost Model, per hour of use

There is a significant difference in the costs that need to be

covered in an ROI pricing strategy. This is shown in Table

28 with the hourly rate of recovery needed to cover all

costs.

8.3 Revenue Generation Strategy

Introduction 8.3.1

The revenue generation strategy and the pricing strategy

will influence the ability for the purchaser to develop a

comprehensive ROI on their capital investment. This

section shows the potential through a modelling exercise

that focuses on the ability for the facility to program field

usage for a number of users and the prices that could be

charged (Table 29 provides an example). The strategy on

Programming is explored in Section 13.

Pricing Strategy 8.3.2

The pricing strategy reflects a balance between the ability

to pay and the need to pay. One option is that the

organisations who cannot afford to pay, such as schools,

have reduced costs and the adults using the facility pay an

appropriate fee.

The suggested pricing points that need to be considered

and possibly adjusted by the purchaser may include:

Pricing Considerations

Cost of Full Pitch Hire $70

Cost of Half Pitch Hire $50

Cost of Quarter Pitch Hire $40

No. of people playing on full 24

No. of people playing on each half 20

No. of people playing on each quarter 16

Cost per person for soccer $10

Cost of coaching - Jnr $5

Cost of coaching -Snr $10

Cost for -FFS - Snr $3

Cost of - FFS - Jnr $2

Cost for School Usage -full $10

Cost for School Usage - half $7.50

Cost of School Usage - quarter $5

Com'y Club Usage (inc. floodlights) $75

Number of weeks usage a year 50

Typical membership rate (20% to pitch) $270

Table 29: Pricing Considerations

From this pricing strategy the programming strategy can be

considered based on levels of usage. Typically the

programming strategy explores 20 to 70 hours a week

usage and can generate a significant return, depending on

the programming approach. By appreciating the cost

needed to cover the ROI the programming can be

structured to ensure that this is achieved. Programming is

addressed in Section 13.

Weekly Hours

UsageDescription 10 years 20 years 30 years

20 Very low - stadium usage $201 $135 $108

30 Low usage $134 $90 $72

40 Medium usage $101 $67 $54

50 High usage $80 $54 $43

60 Very high usage $67 $45 $36

3.1:WOL Costs ROI per Hour of Use per YearUsage Cost Comparator Options

Weekly Hours

UsageDescription 10 years 20 years 30 years

20 Very low - stadium usage $56 $62 $60

30 Low usage $37 $41 $40

40 Medium usage $28 $31 $30

50 High usage $22 $25 $24

60 Very high usage $19 $21 $20

Maintain & Replace Costs ROI per Hour of UseUsage Cost Comparator Options



Section 8 case study – Sekisui Foam - Financial Strategy

to Afford a Synthetic Surface



SECTION 9:

PLANNING FOR

SYNTHETIC FIELDS



9 Planning for Synthetic Fields

9.1 Introduction

Simply, the more time spent in the planning process the

more likely procurement of the right synthetic surface will

meet the needs of an organisation and its users.

This section explores the planning, justification and scoping

process that an organisation should undertake prior to

committing such a large amount of resources.

9.2 Why Produce a Synthetic Pitch/Field

Strategy?

Producing a playing pitch strategy (natural, synthetic or

both) is important for Local Government and sports to

ensure that future needs, playing loads, standards and

location are correct and that the management is

appropriate. Although this may seem time consuming

initially, it will become a benchmark as the municipality

grows or the sport’s participation numbers increase. The

benefits, opportunities and considerations for planning at

an early stage include:

Strategic benefits

Ensures a strategic approach to playing pitch provision,

as part of an open space or recreation facilities strategy.

Provides robustness for grant aid and internal funding

bids. It can also be used with developers to quantify

future needs and therefore ensure adequate developer

contributions are focused in the right place.

Address sport and recreation strategy, policy delivery,

and demonstrates how it will meet other broader

strategies including health, social inclusion,

environmental, community development or specific

activity centre strategies.

Planning

Provide evidence for establishing new pitches in growth

areas or development applications.

Acts as a protection tool against loss of facilities in the

future or working with other providers (e.g. education

providers, state Government), to ensure that decisions

they take will not impact negatively on the recreation or

sports facility provision.

Provides an asset register and categorisation of use.

Acts as a tool to unlock latent demand by ensuring that

the best management model is used.

Funding

It identifies the most appropriate funding options to

realise the delivery of the strategy against the WOL costs

which include:

- Construction costs (CapEx or capital works),

- Maintenance costs,

- Replacement costs (plus CPI),

- Revenue opportunities, and

- Return on investment (ROI).

Considers a philosophical approach to costing the

hire/use of the field needs to be considered. Should it be

subsidised like natural grass pitches are or should it be a

fee for service that offsets the maintenance and

replacement costs?

What third parties can assist with the capital costs?

These may include Government funding, sports

organisation donations, education establishment co-

funding or developer contributions.

Risk reduction

The strategy should consider all risks associated in being

able to deliver a strategy with suggested interventions

needed to minimise risk and optimise usage.

9.3 The Smart Planning Framework

To ensure that an organisation achieves the best value for

itself, its players and the community, it should consider its’

needs from a number of perspectives. The Smart Planning

Framework will guide an organisation through a rigorous

and comprehensive process to ensure all aspects are

considered. This Framework comprises of 10 points:

1. Agree and Commit to Process

Ensure the process is embraced by all stakeholders, tailor

the Smart Planning Framework for your specific needs.

2. Demand Analysis

Use research, such as ERASS, ABS and sports specific

projections over life expectancy (20 years plus), to identify

the present demand, future projections and likelihood of

growth in participation. This should provide the

organisation with the latent demand opportunity.

3. Supply Considerations

Compare the present facilities, capacity and utilisation of

facilities in the area to identify any gaps in provision and at

what standard.

4. Projected Facility Needs

Identify the projected number of pitches/surfaces/courts

needed to satisfy the likely converted latent demand for

peak and off peak. Ensure the seasonality research on



usage is conducted over the whole year and not specific to

a single sports season.

5. Place Management

Identify within the geographical area all of the potential

sites, develop an assessment tool to evaluate against the

environmental, financial and community considerations to

develop a ranking for the preferred locations. Ensure that

the latent demand, if it is to be converted, has a strategy

that is realistic and achievable; otherwise any projections

could be wasted.

6. Management Options

Develop a management strategy for how to optimise usage

and return for the organisation.

7. Design Strategy

Develop the cost and design options for the new facility.

8. Financial Strategy

Structure the whole of life costs into a capital and

operational or recurring revenue strategy to identify how

much the facility will cost annually. Using the management

philosophy, explore the costing strategy to recoup the

annual whole of life costs as necessary.

9. Recommendations

Be succinct and to the point on the recommendations

together with detailing how the process moves forward.

10. Continuous Improvement

Keep the strategy robust and up to date as changes to the

variables arise (e.g. population projections; new

policy/strategy adoptions etc.)

Photo 55: North Park University Masterplan Design

9.4 Funding Strategy

Initial Thinking 9.4.1

An organisation should consider its ability to fund the

investment, over what period and who it can collaborate

with if they need to raise funds. This section explores some

of the options available, whether the organisation is a Local

Government authority (LGA), school, college, university,

sport or other organisation.

Photo 56: North Park University Actual Field

From the planning process, the organisation should

appreciate the cost of the facility and be able to identify the

probability of being able to fund the three key stages

(capital costs, maintenance and replacement costs). The

options available for an organisation to raise the money

needed for each stage should meet the aspects in the

following section.

Capital Raising 9.4.2

To raise money for the project the organisation could

consider the following:

o Government funding initiatives

State/Territory and Federal Government may offer financial

support for part of the capital cost or part of the

development such as lighting, accessibility, club rooms,

water harvesting or even a grant towards the synthetic

surface system. Discuss the options with your

State/Territory, Sports and Recreation Department or local

State/Federal Member.

o Philanthropic trusts and foundations

Grants or donations may be available from various

philanthropic trusts and foundations. By being creative and

applying with other stakeholders (e.g. specialist target

community groups focussing on the health or social

outcomes as well as selling the geographical

access/inclusive benefits of facilities) there may be a

greater chance of success.

Most organisations only offer support once or twice a year.

One of useful resource to access is GrantSearch

(www.grantsearch.com.au) which has a database of 3,000

entries, providing $8 billion to 18,000 recipients every year.



o Loans

Secure loans through banks or agencies that may offer a

lease purchase agreement. Smart Connection Company

can develop a business case for clients which can be used

to secure funding.

Alternatively, unsecured loans or debentures are available,

normally provided by people keen to support the sport in a

personal capacity. They may seek recognition (e.g. as a

sponsor) and the repayment would be over an agreed

timeline and include interest.

Sometimes loans can be guaranteed by the LGA, the

Education Department, or sport peak body etc. in which

case the sport organisation can gain an improved

preferential rate due to the guarantee status.

o In-kind contributions

There may be options for members of clubs or local

community organisations to donate time, skills or resources

to a particular project. This may be in the form of

consultancy or project management assistance, removal of

soil/debris, construction or demolition of specific materials.

It is important to ensure that the generosity of the donation

is not lost on the quality of the infrastructure needed for

such a substantial project undertaking.

Sponsorship can also contribute either in-kind or financial

resources to projects. In return the sponsor may want their

brand promoted. It may be possible to secure a surface

supplier to sponsor the facility and reduce their cost

accordingly.

9.5 Professional Support & Advice

The success of any project involves sourcing expert advice

at each critical stage. The purchasing organisation needs

to ensure that the best technical knowledge is used to

support a project team of people from within the

organisation.

In Victoria more than 10 percent of synthetic football

(soccer) pitches have been forced to have major

rectifications made, such as re-laying of the turf or relaying

the pavement base, at significant cost to the supplier and

or client. To ensure that the likelihood of this is significantly

reduced, the project committee needs to ensure that the

following skills at each of the appropriate stages; namely

knowledge based information, is sourced.

Photo 57: Martin Sheppard (Author) providing advice at Synthetic Surfaces Master Class, Melbourne

Planning

A sport planning consultancy with extensive experience in

synthetic surface management.

Site condition assessment

A geotech engineer to produce a report will be required for

the site at intervals that reflect the quality of the subsurface.

This will allow an appropriate pavement to be developed

that focuses on the isolation of potential movement of the

synthetic surface system and subgrade.

Design

The type of procurement adopted; namely detailed

specification or design and construct, will determine the

level of design and engineering skills. A civil consultancy is

strongly recommended to ensure that the engineering

component is considered appropriately.

Procurement

An experienced consultant who appreciates the tendering

process, the use of sport preferred providers and the civil

engineering needs, as well as the sports facilities technical

accessories.

Project management

To ensure that each stage of the quality control of the

project is being achieved (e.g. surety of pavement,

drainage capacity and synthetic surface standards) the

Project team should ensure that critical hold points are

programmed and resourced. This should then ensure that

the project reaches the delivery dates.

Quality standards assessment

An independent sport-testing laboratory should be engaged

to assess the fields/surface performance to ensure what

was ordered has been delivered (e.g. FIH Global Hockey

Field, FIFA 1 Star recommended pitch).

When choosing organisations to support the project, they

should be able to demonstrate:

- Experience with synthetic surfaces, specific to your scope,

- Qualifications and/or number of installations,

- Sports/peer recommendations, and



- Independence from any of the

manufacturers/installers/suppliers.

Obtain a schedule of fees and references before engaging

the consultant, engineer or project manager.

9.6 Useful Contacts and Reading

Most State Departments of Sport and Recreation provide

resources that can be downloaded as part of their support

to the industry. For example, under “Publications”, WA

Department of Sport and Recreation has a comprehensive

guide of resources. In addition other State/Territory

departments have resources which can be sourced from

these web sites:

WA – www.dsr.wa.gov.au

VIC – www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/sport

NSW – www.dsr.nsw.gov.au

TAS – www.development.tas.gov.au/sportrec

QLD – www.communities.qld.gov.au/sportrec

NT – www.sportandrecreation.nt.gov.au

SA – www.recsport.sa.gov.au

Peak leisure organisations such as Parks and Leisure

Australia provide documentation for their members on

planning etc. www.parksleisure.com.au

Funding may be available from state government

departments or state bodies such as water authorities.

Photo 58: Installing a Global (wet) hockey pitch (Source: STI)

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/sport

http://www.dsr.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.development.tas.gov.au/sportrec

http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/sportrec

http://www.sportandrecreation.nt.gov.au/

http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/

http://www.parksleisure.com.au/



Section 9 Case study – Multisport Concepts – Planning for your Synthetic Surface

Ad



SECTION 10:

DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS



10 Design Considerations

10.1 Introduction

The construction, maintenance and replacement of the

synthetic surface need to be considered at the design

stage, to ensure that the best outcomes are achieved for

the life cycle of the facility.

The design and planning needs to consider:

Planning issues,

The synthetic surface system of sub-base and base,

drainage, shock pad and synthetic surface,

The construction and engineering process,

Lighting, fencing, netting and ancillary spaces,

Multi-sport or single sport layout and design,

Environmental and sustainable issues, and

How to minimise maintenance.

10.2 Statutory Planning Considerations

The location of the synthetic sports field will impact on

whether you need to apply for planning permission which

may vary in each state/territory. In some education

facilities (schools and universities) you may not need

planning permission. In some states a full Development

Application (D.A.) process needs to be followed, which

includes community consultation.

The key aspects that need to be considered are:

The asset proposed; fencing, synthetic field, design,

colour etc.,

Floodlights; number, luminous intensity, spread,

spillage, glare etc.,

Logistics; Hours of use, noise generation, and

Vehicle parking; access and egress to the site and

number of cars parking if increased usage is expected.

10.3 Site Selection

A transparent and rigorous process whereby community

and stakeholders are engaged in the selection process will

result in achieving the best site. Failure to do this

adequately may result in the possible challenge by

stakeholders and community who may not appreciate the

‘bigger picture’ if they have not been involved.

The selection criteria for a typical site may consider some

or all of the following:

Central location

The chosen site should have an appropriate overlay (e.g.

district or regional playing fields) so that there isn’t conflict

throughout the municipality or with neighbouring LGA’s.

There are good examples where a number of LGA’s share

the resourcing of a single regional sports facility or precinct.

As the users do not distinguish the council ownership, this

approach can be linked to regional needs across local

council boundaries.

Photo 59: Football field designed to ensure that the footballs did not stray onto the Road (Source: Grassports)

Park siting

When exploring the best site within a specific parkland, the

most appropriate positioning may need to consider the

following:

- Siting to replace current deteriorated field,

- Next to current pavilion and utilities,

- On a non-home field of any specific club, if shared,

- Best site to optimise management and usage options,

- Away from trees and flood plains,

- Preferably not over a rubbish tip, that still shows

movement,

- Close to public transport,

- Large enough so that the fully designed field can

include ‘run-offs’ and warm-up areas etc., and

- Access to the field for machinery whilst being built.

The logistics around the field need to be considered to

optimise usability, including:

Lighting

Consider the field’s needs for both training and competition

as well as any spill for residents. Most systems now have

remote control of lights. A lightning plan is needed for any

new site to ensure it achieves the sports standards. Some

sports can request significantly high specifications for lights

and this should be considered appropriately as the

investment in such a system may not be warranted for the

majority of use.

Access

Within the parkland and around the local area, there will be

significant increases in traffic, both by vehicles and



pedestrians. Consider access and egress for pedestrians,

spectators and users of the turf.

Orientation

Ideally north-south to avoid low sun-glare.

Maintenance

The logistics of bringing vehicles (e.g. cherry pickers),

tractors and maintenance machines onto the pitch including

emergency vehicles.

Water and utilities

Ensure that portable water can be sourced for users and

spectators, as well as electricity for both the lighting and

the pavilion etc.

10.4 Park Master Planning

There are a number of components that should be

considered to ensure that the site is appropriately “master

planned”.

History of site: - what has it been used for previously?

Are there any locations which have significant historic

interest? Was the site used as a tip etc.? These and

other aspects could have an impact on both the

management and the asset development strategy

adopted.

Engineering assessment: - by conducting a

geotechnical engineering assessment the report

should identify the base and soil structure which will

then interfere with the base needs.

Flood and rain levels: - explore the 1 in 20; 1 in 50 and

1 in 100 year flood levels and implications to the site.

Also check the rain levels over the past five and 10

year periods to ascertain the water drainage levels

needed to be able to cope with accommodating that

level of drainage in the synthetic system.

Drainage/utility services: – identify any existing sub-

surface utility and drainage services under, across or

connected to the area that the playing field may impact.

Topography and earthworks: – explore the site to

ascertain the levelness of the site, the need to move

earth around the site to gain the best level base and

the needs of the spectators (e.g. using the excess top

soil for viewing hills) so that this can be costed as part

of the project.

10.5 Pitch Design

The design of the pitch will be dictated by the sports needs

at the State/Territory/National Level, dependent upon what

level the field will be played at. The design for the field can

normally be sourced from the National/State/Territory peak

body which has a website to promote the dimensions etc.

Alternatively the Western Australian Department of Sport

and Recreation has useful resources, which show the latest

pitch markings for all key Australian sports.

(www.dsr.wa.gov.au).

In Sydney a new pitch has been designed for a client by

TEAM Sports that allows the football pitch to be designed

and managed Monday to Thursday as a 5-a-side centre,

with 8 mini-pitches. Friday night to Sunday night it will be

used for 11-a-side competitive games. This multi-use

approach allows both recreational and competitive use of a

facility. As seen in Section 10.6, flexibility of design around

key management options has been resourced.

10.6 Ancillary Design Options

To ensure that the field works effectively, key ancillary

design options should be considered including:

Dividing Nets: Nets can be used for keeping balls in and

spectators out, but in a manner that is more flexible than a

static fence. The photos above shows how with a set of

nets being drawn north south and east west on a full

football field can be divided into numerous sections, ready

for recreational use.

Photo 60: Cricket nets being used to protect spectators as well as participants (Melbourne Grammar School - HG Turf)

Fencing: If fencing is used, consider whether it can be

moved or removed for certain events and whether it needs

gates that are locked or just closed over. Access onto the

pitch for maintenance and machinery needs to be

considered.

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/



Photo 61: Fences on mini-courts can also be used to attach netball rings etc. (Endeavour Sports High School - NSW)

Water: Drinking fountains situated closed to entrance

gates are beneficial to both players and spectators.

Floodlights: Floodlights allows for greater programming of

the synthetic field in the evenings, which means increased

patronage and a greater return on investment. The lighting

system chosen must be able to provide flexibility to the

purchaser and users. Look for the following offerings:

Ability to light all or parts of the field, depending on

use,

Use for training (e.g. 50 lux) and competition (e.g.

100 lux) so you can choose which level,

Ability to program, turn on and off remotely,

Light sensitive settings, and

A system that meets the needs of the sport for the

standard being played. TV standard lights are not

required, as the majority of large ball sports are

adequately played on 50/100 lux settings.

It is recommended that a lighting engineer is employed as

part of the project tem to ensure that the best lighting

options are chosen.

If an organisation cannot afford lights at the same time as

the field installation, it is recommended that the power

supply and cables are laid under the synthetic turf ready for

the lights at a later date. In other words, design them at the

same time, gain planning permission and ensure that the

footings are designed into the field.

Photo 62: Capital Football Facilities include a warm up area behind main field. (ACT - TigerTurf Field)

Warm-up/Skill Drill Areas: Consider designing a space

so that the next user can warm-up off the main pitch,

allowing for smooth and quick transition. The use of a

different colour turf for a sprint straight or boxes for ball

drills etc. should be considered, maximising use of the

whole field.

Photo 63: Wesley College Emblem (Source: Grassports)

Logos and Emblems: Although some sports do not allow

logos and emblems on the playing area some

manufacturers can now offer these located close to the

pitch.



Section 10 Case Study – TEAM Sports – Design

Consideration

Ad



SECTION 11:

SUSTAINABLE

CONSTRUCTION



11 Sustainable Construction

11.1 Introduction

To ensure that the planning, engineering, construction,

maintenance and recycling of the end product is achieved

in a sustainable manner, this section explores a selection

of principles for sustainable management.

Sustainable construction explores three key perspectives

which are inter-related but when managed, can reduce the

environmental impact over a construction project’s entire

lifetime, while optimising its economic viability and

remaining socially inclusive within the community.

For projects considering using synthetic turf technology the

following framework should be considered:

Figure 3: A Sustainable Management Framework

To appreciate the model, the sustainable approach

considers the environment, economic viability and social

perspective. The areas where each aspect intersects,

allows for a category to define how you describe the project

as shown in Table 30.

Perspective

Sustainable A perfect balance to a project between

environmental impact being low; social

inclusiveness that encourages greater uptake

safely and is economical.

Viable Any affordable and viable approach to manage

the environmental impact.

Equitable Balance between the social inclusiveness and

optimising the economic viability of the project,

normally against the WOL costs.

Bearable The environmental impact can still optimise the

social inclusiveness in the community.

Environmental

Impact

Reduction

Aim to reduce the environmental impact over

its WOL, the environmental impact on the site.

This could reduce maintenance, using recycled

products and could be recyclable at its end of

life.

Economically That the WOL costs are affordable including

the capital investment of the installation, the

Perspective

Viable maintenance costs and the replacement

funding needed. The revenue opportunities that

can be generated offset the WOL costs,

making the project economically viable.

Socially

Inclusive

Encourage the greatest level of use by the

broadest spectrum of the community.

Table 30: Sustainable Management Definitions

11.2 Engineered Base Pavement

The synthetic surface system needs to sit on a secure base

to ensure that any sub-surface movement or changes do

not affect the playing and performance characteristics of

the surface. The pavement base should be specified by

the geotechnical engineer from a detailed geotech report

that needs to be completed for each field. The needs for

the pavement base will also be influenced by any site

investigations including topographical survey, drainage

studies, ‘Dial Before You Dig’ analysis and the Geotech

Report.

Depending on the complexity of the site, the engineer

(geotech, structural or civil), should be able to determine

the recommended form of construction to prepare the sub-

base and the pavement type.

The pavement should be designed for 30 years life

expectancy and guarantee’s requested accordingly. This

should allow for three synthetic carpet lives.

Photo 64: Preparing for the base by taking the top soil off the field (Source: Turf One)

The pavement should allow for vertical loads (e.g. cherry

pickers, ambulance, and maintenance vehicles), playing

loads and the protection of the sub-base from water or the

pavement from sub-base movement.



The typical pavement bases include:

Road base

Aggregates normally form larger crushed rock on the base,

reducing in size to stones, gravel and sand providing a

porous base for the water to drain.

Open asphalt

Normally provides a long lasting base, to allow a better

base for the synthetic grass to ‘sit on’. The asphalt has

less chance of movement due to the binding agents used

and is normally laid over a crushed rock road base.

Concrete

A significant base that offers no porous tendencies and is

normally used when there is significant movement

expected from the sub-base. As many playing fields in

NSW are over rubbish tips, this is a viable proposition to

maximise the life of the surface. It is certainly the most

expensive, but also provides the optimum base to use.

Photo 65: Tennis Court over concrete roof (Source: Grassports)

The construction process may vary between suppliers but

the following principles are normally followed:

Excavate top soil to the agreed level that provides a

firm road–bearing striation,

Prepare drainage infrastructure,

Build base,

Install drainage into sub-base or under sub-base if

natural drainage. If horizontal drainage, a waterproof

membrane would be used under the synthetic surface,

and

Compact sub-base to maximum then prepare

synthetic carpet system.

11.3 Construction Considerations

The key considerations after the type of pavement has

been agreed, includes:

Drainage 11.3.1

The drainage strategy needs to consider the following

aspects:

o The ability to drain adequate water from the pitch once

water is applied (e.g. Hockey Global Water based

system); or through rain or floods is critical for the

surface performance. The porosity of the surface and

drainage channels need to be able to cope with the

sports performance standards regarding porosity

which are between 180ml (FIFA) and 500ml (IRB) per

hour.

o The type of drainage for all the sports needs to be

vertical through the synthetic grass component of the

system, with either horizontal or vertical drainage

under the carpet. Vertical drainage normally drains

through the pavement and sub-base to agricultural

drains (Aggi drains), before being ‘taken away’ through

storm water drainage, possibly for water harvesting.

Horizontal drainage usually uses an inclined sub-base

under the pavement that uses gravity to disperse the

collected water to collection pits or drains around the

outside of the sports field. Alternatively the use of

drainage cells that sit below the shockpad and above

the pavement are becoming more common. Both

horizontal options normally use an impervious

membrane so that the water does not drain below the

sub-base.

Irrigation 11.3.2

Currently, irrigation for synthetic sports fields are only

considered necessary for hockey’s elite level pitches and

organic filled long grass fields.

The predominantly accepted irrigation systems are static

and normally include pop-up sprinklers, similar to natural

turf pitches or the cannon type watering for hockey sports

fields. The Cannon System normally involves fitting three

or four high pressure water cannons down each long side

of the pitch, allowing them to be able to shoot water to

cover half a pitch width. These substantial rain guns

usually have strong pumps to ensure the pressure needed

to deliver around 66 – 76m3 per hour, or 3mm of water in

10-15 minutes over the whole field.

To achieve this, the water is stored and recycled in a tank

under or close to the hockey field.



Water Harvesting 11.3.3

The construction of a synthetic sports surface provides an

opportunity to water harvest rainfall. For instance, a typical

football (soccer) pitch (0.8h) can collect 0.06mL of water for

every 1mm of rain on the pitch, which means for Melbourne,

Victoria typical annual rainfall of 650mm, approximately

3.9mL of water can be collected.

By identifying the irrigation needs for a natural turf pitch

and comparing various technical components, including the

specific rain fall for that region, a water collection capacity

can be identified and a water harvesting strategy employed

between the synthetic surface and the natural pitch.

A recent case study in Victoria demonstrates the ability to

use a synthetic soccer turf pitch for watering cool and warm

grass pitches.

Case Study 1: Water Harvesting

The estimated water and irrigation requirements of

cool-season turf (e.g. ryegrass, p.o.a.) and warm-

season turf (e.g. couchgrass, kikuyu) in Melbourne

was calculated using a model based on rainfall,

evaporation, and crop factors:

Rainfall & evaporation: Monthly averages were

obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology station

(Melbourne Regional Office 2009).

Month Rainfall

(mm)

Evaporation

(mm)

January 10.8 39.9

February 11.9 36.4

March 11.3 27.3

April 13.4 17.5

May 12.7 11.2

June 11.5 7.7

July 10.8 8.4

August 11.3 11.9

September 13.6 17.5

October 15.0 24.5

November 13.9 30.8

December 13.3 36.4

Annual 650 1,167

Table 31: Monthly rainfall and evaporation

Chart 1: Monthly rainfall and evaporation

Crop factor: The crop factor is the proportion of

water used by a plant compared to the depth of

water evaporated from a Class ‘A’ pan. Crop

factors of 0.6 and 0.8 were used for warm-season

and cool-season turf respectively (strong vigorous

growth).

Turf water requirement: The water required by the

turf (evapotranspiration) is calculated by

multiplying evaporation by the crop factor and this

must be supplied by either rainfall or irrigation.

Theoretical irrigation requirement: The amount of

irrigation required is calculated by subtracting the

rainfall from the water used by the turf. The volume

of irrigation required can then be calculated given

1 L equals 1 mm of water over 1m2.

Realistic irrigation requirement: The theoretical

irrigation requirement will be significantly less than

the actual amount used in practice due to inherent

inefficiencies in sprinkler distribution, the effect of

wind on distribution and non-effective rainfall (e.g.

deep drainage, runoff, evaporation). In practice the

annual irrigation requirement may be up to 50

percent greater when these factors are taken into

account.

It must also be noted that the calculated irrigation

requirement assumes the incidence of average

rainfall and in a drought year, this is an under

estimate.

Weekly Turf

Water

Requirement

Weekly Turf Irrigation

Requirement

Monthly Turf Irrigation

Requirement

Mth mm/wk mm/wk ML/ha/wk Theoretical

ML/ha/mth

Realistic

ML/ha/mth

Jan 31.9 21.1 0.21 0.93 1.4

Feb 29.1 17.2 0.17 0.69 1.03

Mar 21.8 10.5 0.11 0.47 0.7

Apr 14.0 0.6 0.01 0.03 0.04

May 9.0 -3.7 -0.04 -0.17 -0.25

Jun 6.2 -5.3 -0.05 -0.23 -0.34

Jul 6.7 -4.1 -0.04 0.18 -0.27

Aug 9.5 -1.8 -0.02 0.08 -0.12

Sep 14.0 0.5 0 0.02 0.03

Oct 19.6 4.6 0.05 0.2 0.3

Nov 24.6 10.8 0.11 0.46 0.69

Dec 29.1 15.8 0.16 0.7 1.05

3.5 5.25

Table 32: Estimates Turf Water Use and Irrigation Requirement - Cool Season Turf. Shaded values indicate irrigation required

The realistic annual irrigation requirement for cool-

season turf grown in Melbourne is 5.25 ML/ha and

irrigation is required from September to April (eight

months). Typical scenarios of size of pitch and type

of grass are shown in Appendix 2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Rainfall (mm) Evaporation (mm)



Section 11 Case Study(add) – Pierlite– Sustainable

Construction



SECTION 12:

MAINTENANCE



12 Maintenance

12.1 Maintenance in Perspective

Maintenance is critical for the short-term effectiveness of

the surface in terms of playability, injury minimisation and

aesthetics including the longer term because it can

increase longevity and sustainability of the field.

Photo 66: Example of maintenance with drag brush

Key sports such as football (FIFA) and hockey (FIH)

provide excellent guides for maintenance considerations,

which both have the same objectives, namely to:

Promote the benefits of developing a documented and

policed maintenance regime linked to the level of use,

Educate the reader to the different protocols and

procedures needed,

Emphasise the need for regular monitoring and

inspection,

Recognise the need to refer to experts, and

Ensure that the maintenance is considered as part of

the procurement process.

The maintenance guides can be sourced from both

websites (see Section 7) for contact details or specialised

maintenance companies in Appendix 1.

12.2 General Principles

The key quality manufacturers will all have maintenance

manuals for the surface being installed and this should be

requested as part of the procurement process.

Using the appropriate maintenance equipment specific to

that type of sports surface is critical to a successful plan.

Indeed most of the main suppliers can now offer

maintenance contracts to maintain the fields. The price

normally ranges from $10,000 to $25,000 depending on the

surface type (hockey being the easiest) to third generation

football.

Maintenance plans should be developed around a

structured routine linked to usage. The type of maintenance

listed below includes a typical regime for a 3G field. The

types of maintenance include:

i. Surface cleaning

Leaves, nuts, needles and other airborne detritus, should

not be allowed to remain on the pitch surface as they may

break down and form a growing re-division for algae and

moss. A soft brush or mechanical leaf sweeper works

effectively. The use of litterbins, soil mats for shoes and

cigarette bins reduces the debris.

ii. Grooming

Aimed at reducing the probability of compaction or a ‘skin’

forming and reducing the drainage properties or indeed the

build-up of algae and moss.

Drag brushing, with a stiff brush preferably weekly,

depending upon usage rates. It is important that this is

carried out at a pace that allows the brushes to effectively

operate, it is suggested that this is not performed at more

than 3km per hour.

Photo 67: Specialist Power brushes (Source: STI)

A deeper ‘power brush’ grooming may be used to disturb

the rubber infill and ensure no compaction. This is normally

conducted by the installer as it needs a specialist machine

which de-compacts and redistributes the infill particle. This

also ensures that the fibres remain upright.

iii. Deep cleaning

If the surface becomes over-compacted or impervious, a

deep clean may be needed, where the installer will use a

specialist machine to remove a proportion of the infill

(containing most of the dirt) from the carpet and replace it

with either cleaned or new infill. This can extend the life of

the pitch. For moss algae prevention and removal, the pitch

should be treated with a quality proprietary moss and algae

killer annually. In some cases, twice yearly may be needed.

iv. Removal of weeds

Weeds will occasionally appear on the surface due to wind-

blown seeds. Hand removal carefully taking out the roots

should suffice. Oil-based weed-killers should not be used.



v. Stain removal

Most stains can be removed with hot water and a typical

household detergent.

The responsibility for maintenance normally falls between

routine and specialist maintenance where specific

machinery is needed. This is best explained in the Table 33.

Maintenance

Activity

Responsibility Examples

Regular Ground staff

Field owners

Daily inspections

Weekly

grooming

Specialist Surface installer

Trained technician

Surface de-

compaction

Rotating brush

and infill cleaning

Infill rejuvenation

Repairs

Algae treatment

Table 33: Maintenance Activity

A typical maintenance schedule may look like this:

Daily Weekly Monthly

Fixtures

and

fittings

Make sure

gates are

shut and

secure

Top up

levels at

key places

(penalty

area etc.)

Clean

natural

debris and

any

rubbish

Clear any

weeds,

especially

around

fences

Brush

surface of

field

Infill

levels

Seams of

inlaid

lines

checked

Drag

brush

Treat pitch for

moss and weeds

Power brush

Deep clean

Surface

Decompaction (6

monthly)

Ensure that in the design process, maintenance

considerations are addressed, including:

- Pavement base needs to be able to cope with

weight of maintenance machinery, including pitches

for lights etc.,

- Additional goal areas to reduce ‘high wear areas’,

- Installation of shoe/boot cleaners, rubbish bins,

- Routing player traffic so that high pedestrian wear

areas are reduced,

- Smoking/rubbish bins provided so that rubbish is not

taken onto the field,

- Signage educating users on the type or style of

footwear to be used, and

- Provision for access of maintenance equipment in

fence design by using double gates etc.

The key guidance for 3G pitches from the FIFA

Maintenance Guide56

includes:

- Regular maintenance,

- Brush the surface regularly in accordance with the

manufacturer’s instructions with the process

following all directions and not just a single

direction,

- Keep the infill levels appropriately high as per

recommendations,

- Keep the surface clean from contaminants (e.g.

cigarettes, gum, leaves etc.),

- Decompaction should be programmed in,

- Check seams to ensure safety,

- Winter maintenance, and

- Treatment of moss, algae and weeds.

12.3 Specialised Maintenance

This activity must be performed by a trained technician with

specialist equipment only. This type of maintenance is

complementary to the regular maintenance and will only be

of benefit if the regular activity is performed diligently.

For a sand and rubber filled surface, an in depth cleaning

of the surface is performed. We recommend this two times

per year. In conjunction with this, the technician will also

groom the fibres to ensure they are standing upright. These

activities have a direct impact on ball roll and rebound, and

the shock absorbent characteristics of the surface.

This cleaning procedure involves the use of a rotating

brush with a suction component, which proceeds to

straighten the pile, clean the infill and remove extraneous

materials from the surface. For ultimate benefit, this activity

ideally needs to be performed when the surface is dry.

As per the regular maintenance, the surface will also be

checked for seam integrity, wear in high traffic areas, and

vegetation growth on the surface and immediate surrounds.

The surface will also be groomed in four directions as

indicated in the following diagrams:

56

FIFA Quality Program for Football Turf: How to Maintain Football Turf



Treatment of Algae and Moss

Algae growth is a natural occurrence due to humidity.

Algae invasions in wet pitches occur more frequently in

warmer climates, especially in pitches that are not cleaned

regularly and thoroughly. Usually the first sign is when the

synthetic grass turns brown or black in patches and

becomes slippery.

As a preventative measure, spraying the surface at given

intervals with an approved algae treatment is

recommended. The most important action by the pitch

proprietor is the early detection and reporting to their

maintenance company. Normally there is a need to obtain

approval from the turf supplier before any chemical is

applied to the surface.

12.4 Maintenance Resources

FIFA has developed a maintenance portal that has online

maintenance manager software, with a log book that:

Provides weekly, monthly and biannual

maintenance guides,

Ensures all maintenance is recorded, and

Includes the ‘FIFA virtual learning environment’ to

provide additional maintenance knowledge.

Their maintenance manual can be downloaded from their

website (FIFA Maintenance Portal

https://turfmaintenance.fifa.org/index.php)

FIH has developed an excellent maintenance guide for

hockey pitches. The “Guide to the Care and Maintenance

of Synthetic Turf Hockey Pitches’’ and is available from its

website (www.FIH.ch).

Photo 68: Typical specialist machine for third generation fields

https://turfmaintenance.fifa.org/index.php

http://www.fih.ch/



Section 12 Case Study – Grassports - Maintenance



SECTION 13:

PROGRAMMING

MANAGEMENT OF

SYNTHETIC TURF



13 Programming and Management

of Synthetic Turf

13.1 Introduction

The management and programming of the synthetic sports

facility needs to be considered prior to the procurement

process and should be planned at the initial stage as this

will impact on aspects such as:

Usage and capacity of the surface,

Programming of usage, maintenance and rest,

Pricing points to encourage greatest usage, and

Footwear arrangements which may impact on

design issues.

This section explores all of these areas to provide guidance

for an organisation’s consideration.

Photo 69: Endeavour Sports High School format allows for optimising the programming of the fields

13.2 Usage and Capacity of the Surface

The usage of the synthetic turf is dependent on many

aspects that have already been addressed within this guide.

In essence, if the nature of how the facility will be used is

recognised this will influence the durability needs of the

surface that is chosen.

If the field will be used intensively and in excess of 50

hours per week it is worth ensuring that the durability of the

Lisport Test is in excess of the 20,200 requested by FIFA 1

Star Recommended Pitches. We recommend at least

50,200 cycles.

The usage strategy can vary from 20 hours for a traditional

stadium up to in excess of 70 hours per week for a

comprehensively programmed facility. The options may

include:

Stadium usage

Low use, around 20 hours per week for training a couple of

hours per day and matches at the weekend. In this case a

FIFA 2 Star, FIH Global, RFL Stadium standard pitch could

be used.

Club (medium) usage

Medium use, around 30 hours per week and used for

training (four hours per day) and weekend matches (five

hours each day). The usage would indicate a higher

durability need than the one identified in the FIFA 2 Star

Standard of 5,200 to 20,200 reps (FIFA 1 Star Lisport Test).

Club/mixed (high) usage

Integrating week day, evening times and weekend usage

for matches allows organisations such as schools and

community groups use - approximately 40 hours usage.

Mixed (intense) usage

Starting around 50 hours per week, requires greater

durability with usage being opened to coaching sessions,

club use and matches. Normally this diversity of use is

programmed by the owner to ensure transparency and a

rigour in the allocation of times.

Intense program

Programming daily (seven hours plus) including weekend

games. Many organisations may have usage that includes

schools (at a nominal fee), lunch time recreational

competitions, coaching sessions, club training and social

competitions on weekdays, and matches on a weekend.

Typically a 60 hour week.

Comprehensive program

Developing the previous category to around 70 hours or

above. There needs to be a sufficient amount of time built

into the program for maintenance at this level.

13.3 Programming of Use, Maintenance and

Rest

Even synthetic sports turf needs to be managed carefully.

If the junior coaching is always held in the same spot 3 - 4

hours every day, the wear patterns and the intensity will

quickly be identified.

Intensive use of the field needs to be rotated within the

programming, so that areas can be rested and groomed.

Maintenance should be programmed every 40 hours and

not just weekly, irrespective of how often used.

Maintenance, rest, programmed usage should be seen as

complementing each other.



Photo 70: Lily Football Field (NSW) - (Source TEAM Sports)

13.4 Pricing Points

The cost that many clients charge to allow people to play

on the field varies from free to a commercial rent. Some of

the considerations when deciding on the pricing points

include:

ROI Strategy

What level of costs do you want the income to cover?

Is this the WOL costs (capital installation, maintenance

and replacement), maintenance and replacement or

just maintenance etc.?

Development Pathway

Is the focus to encourage targeted groups to play more

sport (e.g. school children) and therefore wish to only

charge them a nominal cost or offer it free of charge?

What Will People Pay

Many sports clubs claim they cannot afford to pay a

commercial rate to use a synthetic sports field and

gain the support of local politicians etc. There are

many examples where clubs have been successful in

gaining use for a very low or free of charge rate, only

then to promote and run their own competitions and

generate tens of thousands of profit. The same

council are then left to pick up the additional

maintenance costs.

In NSW recently one commercial centre rented out their

synthetic football (soccer) pitch for around $50,000 for 6

months on a Sunday where the association plays all of its

matches. This amounts to approximately $13 per player for

90 - 120 mins a game; a price that was agreed by all clubs.

LGA’s and sports organisations need to show leadership

and balance the price points depending on the costs that

need to be recovered.

13.5 Footwear for Users of Synthetic

Introduction 13.5.1

To optimise the life expectancy of the synthetic yarn,

research by manufacturers and universities has been

conducted regarding the wearing of appropriate footwear57

.

Appropriate footwear should be worn to:

Minimise damage to the playing surface,

Manage the risk of injury.

Types of Shoes 13.5.2

Most manufacturers of synthetic sports fields provide

guidance on the appropriate footwear to use. With some

manufacturers, the warrantee may be linked to the use of

appropriate footwear.

The types of footwear could include:

Moulded stud,

Screw-in studs (aluminium or metal),

Bladed boots,

Dimpled boots,

Flat soled shoes, and

Non-sports shoes (e.g. stilettos, walking shoes).

An excellent guide for long-grass sports is the English FA

publication ‘Third Generation Football Guidance’ (2012

www.theFA.com)

Minimising Damage to the Playing Surface 13.5.3

The concept of the synthetic turf being held upright by the

infill allows the players to wear studs that “touch and lay off

the infill” as opposed to the yarn. If the player is wearing

flat shoes, such as trainers, then the sole of the shoe

compress both the infill and the grass yarn as the whole of

the shoe is providing friction against the yarn.

Over time, the yarn will break down; so flat shoes on Third

Generation Grass should not be used.

Propensity for Injury with Inappropriate 13.5.4

Footwear

In December 2013, the Chartered Institute for the

Management of Sport and Physical Activity58

, published

their guidance on this subject. Research from the

University of Dundee59

and Exeter60

identified key findings

around texts that they had completed independently,

including:

57

CIMSPA GUIDANCE NOTE: GN011 Acceptable sporting footwear for users of synthetic sports surfaces 58

Acceptable sporting footwear for users of synthetic sports surfaces – CIMSPA Guidance Note: GNO11 59

University of Dundee, Institute of Motion Analysis and Research; Prof Ranis Abboud – 2010 60

University of Exeter: Daniel Craig; the effects of playing surfaces and footwear on biomechanical responses of soccer players

http://www.thefa.com/



The traditional stud is safe for use on synthetic

surfaces, and

Choosing to wear football boots with bladed cleats

puts the users at greater risk of injury.

Recommended Footwear 13.5.5

The English FA guidance has been used as a basis,

together with information from the FIH and CIMSPA is

shown in Table 34.

Type of

Boot

v’s

Type of

Surface

Studs

Bla

des

Dim

ple

d

Fla

t s

ole

d

(Tra

iner

etc

.)

No

n-s

po

rts

sh

oe

s

Mo

uld

ed

Scre

w i

n

<15m

m

Scre

w i

n

>15m

m

3G Field

Sand-

dressed

Sand-

filled

Not

ideal

Fully

synthetic

carpet

Water

based

carpet

Not

ideal

Table 34: Type of Boot v’s Type of Surface

Key: acceptable not acceptable



NSSCE flyer inserted here



SECTION 14:

MANAGEMENT OF

THE FACILITY



14 Management of the Facility

14.1 Introduction

The management of many sports grounds and facilities are

determined historically. The development of a synthetic

surface provides the opportunity to review the management

approach of the facilities.

Different sports facilities will have different peak and

seasonal peak times, which will impact on the programming

of the surfaces and may also allow them to be used for

other sports. e.g. netball and tennis may share a cushioned

surface during the year.

Bowls may have peak usage during the day and not the

evenings due to the demographic of the users, soccer

plays in the winter and cricket could use the surface in the

summer and so on. Ultimately, it’s about how

complementary sports can work together to optimise usage,

and then how can this be best managed.

Photo 71: Unique Management Option at Knox Football Stadium between Knox City Council and Football Federation Victoria

The decision on how best to manage a synthetic surface

sports field can be influenced by many political and

logistical issues including:

Council’s sport club usage or facility management

philosophy and provision - should it be internally,

procured, leased or managed by clubs etc.,

The ability of organisations (e.g. sports clubs) or the

commercial sector (e.g. YMCA, Belgravia Leisure) to be

able to provide the type of services needed at the

community level,

Council’s approach and philosophy on charging sports

clubs or associations to recoup the level of cost of

maintenance or for the capital investment possibility, and

Charging a market rate with strong programming would

generate surplus funds that councils can put towards

developing other facilities or more importantly

establishing a replacement fund.

14.2 Vision Drives Management

To identify the best management approach, key goals

should be agreed on what the facility is hoping to achieve.

A recent Local Government facility that adopted synthetic

technology had the following vision and strategic focus,

which Smart Connection Company developed with the

client.

Vision: To provide an opportunity for more people to

recreate and participate in sport, by providing

quality, safe and sustainable playing fields.

Mission: To use the technology of synthetic sports turf to

allow for greater use by the community who wish

to play, recreate, train and compete, whilst

satisfying demand.

Key Principles: The sports fields will be managed

programmed and maintained in accordance with

the following principles:

Priority Alignment

We will manage in accordance with our organisations’

strategic priorities, which also reflect our stakeholders and

collaborators needs.

Accessible and Community Inclusiveness

The design, management and how we position access to

the facility reflects our desire to encourage local and

citywide participation so the field encourages use by the

whole community.

Environmental Integration

The design will be environmentally friendly, integrating into

the natural environment and where possible be driven by

‘Green Technology Principles’ by using recycled products,

maintaining the fields in an environmentally responsible

manner and recycling the waste products after its use.

Economically Prudent

The facility will ensure that over its WOL (30 years) it will

be cost neutral to our community (i.e. the income raised will

at least cover the cost of the installation, maintenance and

replacement).

14.3 Management Options

There are a number of options on how best to manage a

sports field on precincts, whether that is with synthetic

surfaces or not. The four basic models are shown in Table

35.



Social

Consideration

Environmental

Consideration

Financial

Consideration

Governance

Consideration

1. Directly managed

Council’s priorities

for community

development &

social priorities will

influence focus,

priorities and

strategy for

delivery.

Ability to align with

council’s open

space plan & can

change more

readily if needed.

All income to be

retained by council

to be reinvested as

appropriate.

Total governance

control.

2. Partnership / Committee of Management

Important that the

‘Committee of

Management’ has

the same focus as

council. If not there

is limited social

and community

benefit.

The Committee of

Management

needs to be given

a strong

environmental

focus. Normally

the council still has

the responsibility

for this area as

asset owner.

The Committee of

Management may

keep the income

and profits. It may

be charged a rent.

It should establish

a ‘replacement’

fund for the pitch

upgrade every 8-

10 years.

May need

substantial

support, as it may

not have the

governance ability

either strategically

or operationally.

3. Clubs

Total focus is

normally on their

needs and they do

not always think

about other sports

or the broader

community needs.

The club needs to

be given a strong

environmental

focus. Normally

the council still has

the responsibility

for this area, as

asset owner.

The club keep the

income and profits.

They may be

charged a rent.

They should be

made to keep a

‘replacement’ fund

for the pitch

upgrade every 8-

10 years.

May need

substantial

support, as they

may not have the

governance ability

whether

strategically or

operationally.

4. Sub-contracted management (management or lease)

Normally a

specification is

developed to

ensure that the

social dimensions

are considered. If

it is part of a

leisure centre,

there will be a

strong skill base

already

established.

Council’s and the

management

company need to

agree on

environmental

outcomes for the

facility for which

they may be jointly

responsible.

Management

company receive

income or a profit

share and pay a

management fee.

The benefit of this

model is the strong

programming will

generate

significant returns.

Management

company is

responsible for

governance.

Table 35: Management options

Some councils have found that the current tenancy

arrangement (sole occupancy) does not lend itself to the

installation of synthetic turf surfaces for some sports. This

is due to a number of considerations including:

Tendency of clubs to have sole use of specific pitches

and control of use. This does not encourage open access

for all clubs.

Low rent. Some councils are only charging 2 - 5% of the

yearly nominated cost for natural turf which means that

there may be an expectation that the rent for the

synthetic surface will be the same.

The need for the replacement cost of a synthetic turf to

be introduced through a fee for service costing model.

We recommend this is linked to a defined replacement

period based on hours use per week. e.g. 15 percent of

replacement value per year needs to be raised by hire

fees so that every 10 years there is adequate money to

pay for the replacement.

A number of councils have adopted a management hybrid

model whereby it manages the booking and maintenance

of the facility directly, mainly through its parks or recreation

departments. In particular, the programming aspect is

addressed by having a representative act as a go between

for all clubs, in order to prioritise usage, and ensure a fully

inclusive policy dome against some key principles, which

may include allowing free usage for training whilst allowing

the clubs natural turf pitches to recuperate.

Photo 72: Summerville Secondary College working with local community clubs to increase participation outside school hours (Source: http://www.evergreen.com.au

14.4 Funding Arrangements

There are a number of options on how best to identify and

fund a sports field or precinct, whether that is with synthetic

surfaces or not. The four basic options include:

Council funded – Councils may choose to fund

the pitches from reserves and some may expect to receive

a replacement/return on that investment through fees

charged. Council could borrow to fund such investments.

Some councils can claim ‘developers contribution’ funding.

State Government / peak body funding – sports

and recreation departments in Victoria and NSW have a

number of funding grants (up to $300,000) for synthetic turf

pitches and a the major facilities fund. In addition peak

bodies (e.g. Tennis Australia, AFL etc.) may be able to

provide some financial assistance for such purchases. To

date, other State Government Departments have not

established funded programs for synthetic surface

investment.

Club funded – Some clubs may have the

reserves to fund, or ability to borrow to fund such an

investment. Some clubs could offer to prepay rental of the

pitches in advance to assist the council to fund the capital

cost.

Lease purchase – Some local suppliers of

synthetic turf offer a lease purchase scheme over an

agreed period (normally 3 - 5 years) and this allows the

owners to use the guaranteed income to offset the lease

costs. This is similar to the approach of a fitness gym

equipment lease.



14.5 Alternative Funding and Management

Options

Depending on the vision of an organisation there may be

alternative options to consider for the funding and

management of the proposed synthetic facility. These

options include:

Partnership Funding

Where two parties co-fund a facility and both have different

needs (e.g. school during the day and council of an

evening) usage or management is normally reflected in the

amount that each invests.

They may have limited land options, so could partner with a

local school, which can use and manage it during the day,

as it would be on their land. In the evening it would be

managed by the LGA. Successful examples of this include:

Mill Park Secondary College and Whittlesea City

Council (Vic)

Photo 73: Mill Park Secondary College

RMIT University – Victoria

Photo 74: RMIT University invested in a Football field with running track and a Hockey / Football Multi-sport field

Other partnerships may include developments between the

private sector and the education sector, such as the one at

Endeavour Sports High School in Sutherland (NSW),

where the private sector funded and developed a full size

football (soccer) field and ten 5-a-side mini-pitches.

During the day, the school uses it for their children at the

secondary school and the evenings and weekends ‘Soccer

Fives’ manage and provide programs for its use for the

community on a fee for service basis.

Photo 75: East Keilor Leisure Centre can program and hire the field out as they would a sports hall to generate income for Council who programs the majority of club usage of the field.

In Victoria, Knox City Council developed a partnership with

the State Football Federation (FFV) who co-funded and

managed the Knox Regional Soccer Centre.

Replacement Funding

Many LGA’s can find the resources to develop the funding

of the initial capital investment, then the clubs who use the

facility have the opportunity to collect all income and invest

into a ‘sinking fund’ for the maintenance and replacement.

This is a very common approach with hockey pitches and

leased tennis courts or bowls rinks and this model is

expected to be seen more in other sports such as soccer.



Section 14 case Study – TEAM Sports – Management of

the Facility

Ad



SECTION 15:

PROCUREMENT



15 Procurement

15.1 Introduction

The aim of any procurement project must be to secure the

most appropriate goods and services that are fit for

purpose at a best value for organisation and

community/stakeholders.

To achieve such an outcome a due process needs to be

considered. The Smart Procurement Model © provides a

step-by-step process in the logistics that surround the

procurement of a synthetic sports field. The Smart

Procurement Model has four key stages:

Planning

Procurement process

Evaluation program

Project management.

This section explains each stage.

15.2 Planning

At the start of any synthetic field project, the planning

phase needs to be conducted to ascertain a clear project

need, scope, financial costing and management strategy.

A simple approach would include:

i) Understand what you want to achieve

How will it be used and who will manage it?

ii) What standards will it need to perform to?

In relation to a sports performance outcome, playability,

local overlay, safety, environmental considerations,

testing/certificate and warranty.

iii) What technology aspects should you consider

in the design?

Everything from the type of pavement, infill options,

recycled or recyclable yarn, use of shockpad and what

sports design overlay is needed.

iv) What can you afford?

Be creative and consider the revenue implications from the

hire and use of the facility. Does the organisation amortize

the cost over a defined period (e.g. 30, 20, 10 years etc.)?

v) Benchmark against others

Seek advice from other venues and facilities and explore

what has worked well and what hasn’t. Even negatives can

be very positive learning for your design and procurement

process.

vi) Ancillary considerations

As part of the planning explore car parking, access and

egress at the site, use of fences, type of changing rooms,

water, security etc.

vii) Risk assessment for the site

From a procurement process, community and stakeholder

public relations, financial and engineering etc.

These seven steps should provide you with a game plan

that can be used to communicate and document what you

are looking to achieve. The use of an independent

consultant, such as Smart Connection Company, can

provide you with an independent approach to this planning

stage.

15.3 Procurement Strategy

The procurement strategy has a number of components

that need to be considered and then a strategy tailored to

your own needs. The approach that we promote with

clients includes:

Promotion and Procurement Phase 15.3.1

There are two options, a single or two stage process. The

two stage process, normally known as an Expression of

Interest (EoI) stage is followed by the Request for Tender

(RFT) stage.

This two stage process allows the short-listing of

companies, normally based on experience, quality,

capacity and capability to do the project. This stage also

identifies whether that organisation has the product line

needed. The EoI stage focuses on their ability as opposed

to the technical project management content needed for

your specific needs.

The second stage, or single stage of only a one step

process, is known as the Request for Tender (RFT) or

Request for Quote (RFQ) process. This stage is very

specific; normally each of the companies who tender at this

stage provide a price and product submission with absolute

detail against the tender/quote request. This will allow

council or sport to decide who would be the best supplier

for their needs.

Specification Type 15.3.2

There are predominantly three (3) types of specification

used for this process, which need to be considered:

i) Detailed Specification

This provides each tenderer with the detailed design and

specification so that everyone is bidding against the same

component design. The drawback with this is that each



manufacturer has their own design which makes their

systems work at an optimal level. So to provide the detail

on drainage etc. could mean that the best design and

product could not meet a detailed specification design. The

risk of success and failure sits with the client.

Photo 76: Northbridge Oval began as a Detailed Specification and ended up as a Design and Construct because it allowed for greater innovation to integrate the cricket wicket into the football turf

ii) Design and Construct (D&C)

This provides each tenderer with the outcomes needed

against the engineering needs (e.g. through a Geotech

report and recommendation) and sports surface (e.g. FIFA

1 Star recommended pitch).

iii) Design and Construct (Hybrid)

There may be certain components that need aspects of the

first two options. Such as, if a specialised pavement is

needed then this may be a detailed specification contract

together with a D&C specification for the synthetic turf

system. This is the approach we would normally adopt.

The Market

There are two (2) options that can be considered here as

part of the procurement strategy:

i) Open Tender/EoI – Any organisation that can deliver

what the project tenders/quotes require. This can be

time consuming for the client and may use a two

stage process as described earlier to short-list.

ii) Closed Tender – Where there has been a selection

process already. This can be seen as an internal (e.g.

an EoI process or a select list of tenders) that

council/sport may already have. Alternatively an

external list may be derived from an ‘approved list’ by

the sport’s governing body. They have required

quality manufacturers to prove certain quality

capabilities. Some clients are only offering projects to

either licensee’s or preferred producers/providers of

the product range. A full list of licensees and

preferred producers/providers for each sport is

identified in Section 7.

Evaluation Strategy 15.3.3

The key considerations are simple; who is going to

evaluate the tenderers and against what? The key aspects

should be:

Who:

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) should include the

client manager; the manager of the service/facility, the

project manager during the installation phase and an

independent consultant. The TEP should have access to

the Geotech engineer if a D&C specification is used to

ensure that what is proposed is adequate for the venue.

What:

The tender should be evaluated against key aspects and

components that can demonstrate:

▪ Quality of organisation – experience, capacity,

capability.

▪ Quality of product – accreditation, proven installations,

example of requested products and in a similar

environment, peak body recognition.

▪ Project logistics – qualified people, project plan.

▪ Price – with capital, schedule of rates and

maintenance.

Procurement Paperwork 15.3.4

The paperwork involved in the process is linked to a single

or two-stage process and normally you would expect to

have the following:

i) RFT – This documentation explains the process or

rules for tendering and most councils’ have

standard conditions that they use for the majority

of large capital works projects.

ii) Tender Schedules – these are critical and should

NOT be generic. They should be linked to the

information needed for evaluating each tender

against a tender evaluation strategy

iii) Conditions of Contract – The rules of how the

project will be managed, normally from a client’s

perspective, but should identify the roles and

responsibilities of all involved, including any third

parties who may be performing project

management roles

iv) Specification – Either a D&C, detailed or hybrid

specification as explained earlier.



Photo 77: Willows Oval - ANU University have installed a Hockey Football field (Source: HG Sports Turf)

15.4 Evaluation Process

The evaluation process starts once the tender is received

and circulated to the TEP members. Remember to ask for

the same number of bid documents as there are panel

members, plus one. This way you can keep the signed

original and also alleviates the need for you to photocopy

one for each TEP member.

The evaluation process should be completed independently

initially and then the TEP collectively agrees the consensus

score, thus ensuring agreement against EACH criterion.

The top two or three tenders normally then receive

reference checks followed by interviews to clarify any

aspects and also to check that you can work with them.

The tenderers should be asked to bring the key people who

will be involved in the project to the interview.

15.5 Project Management

The project management of the contract is critical to

provide confidence back to the client and also to ensure

that the engineering requirements have been installed to

ensure that the performance characteristics are achieved,

that the surface will be safe and last for a realistic time

period.

Photo 78: JJ Holland Park - Melbourne - was project managed by Melbourne City Council, but not all clients have the in-house skills - so understanding the critical hold points is essential

To ensure that these outcomes can be achieved it is wise

to have Critical Hold Points (CHP’s) where tests can be

carried out to ensure that the engineering components will

achieve the desired outcomes. It will not be easy to rectify

faulty workmanship retrospectively and this approach can

be very costly.

The CHP’s should be designed to complement the final

performance testing of the major sports, so that

construction or material defects do not occur. Typically the

inspections are at the end of each major stage of

construction, including:

Sub-grade preparation through drainage construction

depth, compaction levels, water permeability, gradients

etc.,

Pavement and foundations, and

Synthetic surface and line marking.

Samples of aggregates, shockpad, synthetic turf, infill

materials, e-layer etc. should be collected and confirmed by

an independent laboratory for compliance to the agreed

material specification.



Section 15 Case Study – DCE – Procurement



Appendix 1: Key Contacts

1.1 Solution Providers and Advisors

Smart Connection Consultancy

AAMI Park, Ground Level East, 60 Olympic Boulevard, Melb., Vic 3205

Tel: +61 (3) 9421 0133

[email protected]

www.smartconnection.net.au

Dalton Consulting Engineers (Civil Engineering Specialists)

255 Whitehorse Road, PO BOX 349 Balwyn, Vic 3103

Tel: +61 (3) 9888 6866 Fax: +61 (3) 9888 6880

[email protected]

www.dceprofile.com

Acousto-Scan Pty Ltd (Laboratory Testing)

20/109A Bonds Road, Punchbowl, NSW 2196

Fax +61 (02) 8006 4016, Mobile +61 (0)415 423334

[email protected]

www.acoustoscan.com.au

1.2 Australian Sports Surface Suppliers and Manufacturers

La

nd

scap

e a

nd

no

n-

accre

dit

ed

sp

ort

s f

ield

s

FIF

A P

refe

rred

Pro

du

cer

FIF

A L

icen

see

IRB

Pre

ferr

ed

Pro

du

cer

FIH

Lic

en

sed

man

ufa

ctu

rer

FIH

Pre

ferr

ed

pro

du

cer

ITF

AF

L/

Cri

cket

Au

str

alia

Lic

en

see

ABS Sports Fields Supply & install under

license from STI/ Polytan

yes 3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

Grassports Supply & install under

license from STI/ Polytan

yes 3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

Greenplay Australia Supply and install under

license from Limonta

yes 3rd

party

3rd

party

Grassman Manufacturer, supply and

install

yes yes yes

HG Sports Turf Supply & install under

license from Desso, Saltex

and Greenfields

yes 3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

STI / Polytan Manufacturer, supply and

install

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

TEAM Sports Manufacturer, supply and

install

yes yes yes yes yes yes

TigerTurf Manufacturer in New

Zealand, supply and install

yes yes yes

Tuff Turf Supply and install under

license from CCG

yes 3rd

party

Turf One Supply and install under

license from Fieldturf

yes 3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party

3rd

party






1.3 Supplier Details

Name of Organisation: Grassports Australia

Contact Person: Bernard Evans - Director

Address of Head Office: 1/38 Green Street, Doveton VIC 3177

Telephone: + 61 3 9792 0622

Web: www.grassports.com.au

Email: [email protected]

Sport

Product Range

(if under license)

Level of Association

(e.g. Licensee, Preferred Producer etc.)

Football (FIFA) Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Preferred Producer under license to STI

Rugby Union (IRB) Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Preferred Producer under license to STI

AFL/Cricket Australia Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Licensee under license to STI

Hockey (FIH) POLIGRAS Preferred Producer under license to STI

Athletics (IAAF) Rekortan, Spurtan Licensee under license to STI

Bowls Supergrasse Licensee under license to STI

Rugby League Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Supply/Contract

Tennis (ITF) Supergrasse, POLICLAY, Laykold Some systems ITF rated

Multisport FIFA/FIH Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Dual accreditation possible under license

to STI

Multisport FIFA/ITF POLIGRAS Dual accreditation possible under license

to STI

Multisport

FIFA/IRB/RFL/AFL/CA

Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Multi-accreditation possible under license

to STI

Multi-use court sports,

school ovals

Supergrasse, POLIGRAS Supply/Contract under license to STI

Indoor Sports Halls Dynapoint Supply/Contract under license to STI

Synthetic landscaping Evergreen Supply/Contract

Cricket Supergrasse

Cernturion

Supply/Contract

Supply/Contract

Name of Organisation: Greenplay Australia Pty Ltd

Contact Person: Anthony Saba - Director

Address of Head Office: 3/550 Churchill Rd, Kilburn SA 5084

Telephone: 1300 769 499

Web: www.greenplay.com.au


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA) Soccer Pro Range Preferred Producer under license to

Limonta

http://www.grassports.com.au/




Name of Organisation: Greenplay Australia Pty Ltd

Rugby Union (IRB) Rugby Pro Range Preferred Producer under license to

Limonta

Hockey (FIH) Newgrass Range Licensee under license to Limonta

Tennis (ITF) Newgrass Range Licensee under license to Limonta

Name of Organisation: Grass Manufacturers Pty Ltd T/A Grassman

Contact Person: Colin Scotts - Major Sporting Projects Executive

Address of Head Office: Unit 8.1, 1A Hale St, Botany, NSW 2019

Telephone: +61 2 9316 7244 / 0405 546 394

Web: www.grassman.com.au


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



AFL/Cricket Australia Various products Licensed synthetic turf manufacturer

Hockey (FIH) H204D, Truplay, Ultraglide Licensee

Tennis (ITF) Classic Game, Classic Clay,

Club40, Advantage Pro

General Member

Name of Organisation: HG Sports Turf Pty Ltd

Contact Person: Hamish Sutherland - Managing Director

Address of Head Office: 6/403 Flemington Road, North Melbourne VIC 3051

Telephone: +61 3 9329 8154

Web: www.hgsportsturf.com


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA)

Greenfields MX/Slidemax

Saltex MTRX

Desso iDNAx

Preferred Producer under license


Licensee under license

Rugby Union (IRB)

GreenFields Slidemax

Saltex MTRX

Desso iDNAx



AFL/Cricket Australia Desso iDNAx Licensee under license

Hockey (FIH) GreenFields TX Licensee under license

Rugby League

GreenFields MX/Slidemax

Saltex MTRX

Desso iDNAx

Licensee under license

http://www.hgsportsturf.com/




Name of Organisation: HG Sports Turf Pty Ltd

Tennis (ITF) Local and International Suppliers Some ITF certification

Multisport

FIFA/IRB/RFL/AFL/CA/FIH

Desso iDNAx Multi certification under license

No Infill GreenFields NF

Desso UNI-X

N/A

Name of Organisation: Pierlite Australia Pty Ltd

Contact Person: Andrew Nagy -Technical Manager - Sports

Address of Head Office: 96 Gow Street, Padstow NSW 2211

Telephone: +61 (2) 9794 9300

Web: www.pierlite.com


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA) Disano, Philips, Pierlite Master distributor – Australia and

manufacturer

Rugby Union (IRB)

Disano, Philips, Pierlite

Master distributor – Australia and

manufacturer



manufacturer

AFL/Cricket Australia



manufacturer



manufacturer

Hockey (FIH)



manufacturer



manufacturer

Athletics (IAAF)



manufacturer



manufacturer

Bowls



manufacturer



manufacturer

Rugby League



manufacturer



manufacturer

Tennis (ITF)



manufacturer



manufacturer

http://www.pierlite.com/




Name of Organisation: Sekisui Foam Australia; Sekisui Alveo

Contact Person: Phil Cocking – Sales and Marketing Manager

Address of Head Office: 1 Parraweena Rd , Taren Point NSW 2229

Telephone: +61 2 9525 9880

Web: www.alveosport.com

www.sekisuifoam.com.au


[email protected]

Name of Organisation: Polytan / Sports Technology International Pty. Ltd.

Contact Person: James Tritt - Technical Manager

Address of Head Office: Factory 3, Dunlopillo Drive, Dandenong South, VIC 3175

Telephone: +61 3 8792 8000

Web: www.sti-sports.com


Sport

Product Range



Football (FIFA) Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Preferred Producer

Rugby Union (IRB) Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Preferred Producer

AFL/Cricket Australia Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Licensee

Hockey (FIH) POLIGRAS Preferred Producer

Athletics (IAAF) Rekortan, Spurtan Licensee

Bowls Supergrasse Promaster Licensee

Rugby League Ligaturf, POLIGRAS N/A

Tennis (ITF) Omnicourt, Supergrasse,

POLICLAY, Laykold

Some systems ITF rated

Multisport FIFA/FIH Ligaturf, POLIGRAS Dual accreditation possible

Multisport FIFA/ITF POLIGRAS Dual accreditation possible

Multisport

FIFA/IRB/RFL/AFL/CA Ligaturf, POLIGRAS

Multi-accreditation possible

Cricket wickets Supergrasse N/A

Multi-use court sports,

school ovals Supergrasse

N/A

Indoor Sports Halls Dynapoint N/A

Synthetic landscaping Evergreen N/A

Name of Organisation: TEAM Sports

Contact Person: John Curtis - Chief Executive Officer

Address of Head Office: 165 Prospect Highway, Seven Hills NSW 2147,

PO Box 445, Seven Hills NSW 2147

http://www.alveosport.com/

http://www.sekisuifoam.com.au/



http://www.sti-sports.com/




Name of Organisation: TEAM Sports

Telephone: 1800 652 548

Web: www.teamsports.com.au


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA)

FIFA 1-Star

FIFA 2-Star

FIFA Preferred Producer

Rugby Union (IRB) Regulation 22 Preferred Producer

AFL/Cricket Australia AFL/CA Licensee

Hockey (FIH)

Global

National

Licensee

Athletics (IAAF) IAAF Registered

Bowls World Bowls Board Registered

Tennis (ITF)

Court Pace – Medium

Court Pace – Medium-Fast

Court Pace – Fast

ITF Foundation

Name of Organisation: TigerTurf Australia PTY Ltd

Contact Person:

Jos McKenzie - Sales and Marketing Assistant

Nick Kerr - National Sales and Marketing Manager

Address of Head Office: 1/12 Latitude Boulevard, Thomastown, VIC 3074

Telephone: +61 3 9464 5052

Web: Tigerturf.com


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA)

Endurance 40 – FIFA 1*

Endurance 50 – FIFA 1* & 2*

Endurance 60 – FIFA 1*

Endurance 60P – FIFA 1* & IRB

Pinnacle 40 – FIFA 1* & 2*

Pinnacle 60 – FIFA 1* & 2*

Pinnacle 60P – FIFA 1* & IRB

FIFA Licensee

Rugby Union (IRB)

Endurance 60P – FIFA 1* & IRB

Pinnacle 60P – FIFA 1* & IRB

IRB Preferred Producer

AFL/Cricket Australia

Evo Pro – English Cricket Board

Deluxe – English Cricket Board

Hockey (FIH) Evo Pro – FIH National FIH Licensed Manufacturer

http://www.teamsports.com.au/




Name of Organisation: TigerTurf Australia PTY Ltd

Glide – FIH Global

Trophy – FIH National

WETT Pro – FIH Global

Bowls

SuperGreen 2 – World Bowls

BowlsWeave – World Bowls

World Bowls

Tennis (ITF)

Evo Pro – ITF Fast

Trophy – ITF Fast

Advantage – ITF Medium / Fast

Commercial Grand Prix – ITF

Medium / Slow

Elite – ITF Medium / Fast

Momentum – ITF Fast

Tournament 1000 – ITF Medium /

Fast

Tournament – ITF Medium

Volley Pro – ITF Fast

ITF Foundation

Name of Organisation: Tuff Turf Pty Ltd

Contact Person: Fraser Gehrig - Company Director

Address of Head Office: 53 Shearson Crescent, Mentone Vic 3194

Telephone: 1800 887 326

Web: www.tuffturf.com.au


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA)

FIFA Star 1

FIFA Star 2

Preferred Producer under license to CC

Grass

Hockey (FIH)

National

Global

FIH Licensee under license to CC Grass

Tennis (ITF) International

http://www.tuffturf.com.au/




Name of Organisation: Turf One Pty Ltd

Contact Person: Lyndon Joslyn - Director

Address of Head Office: 330 Towts Road, Whittlesea Vic 3757

Telephone: +61 (3) 9719 1900

Web: www.turfone.com.au


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA) FieldTurf Revolution Licensee to FieldTurf (FIFA Preferred

Producer)

Rugby Union (IRB)

FieldTurf Revolution Licensee to FieldTurf (IRB Preferred

Producer)

AFL/Cricket Australia FieldTurf Revolution Licensee to FieldTurf (AFL/CA licensed

manufacturer)

Hockey (FIH) FieldTurf Hockey Gold Licensee to FieldTurf (FIH Preferred

Producer)

Athletics (IAAF) Beynon BSS 1000 and BSS 2000

Running Track

Licensee to FieldTurf (IAAF Preferred

Producer)

FieldTurf and Beynon are sister

companies under the Tarkett Sports

umbrella

Rugby League FieldTurf Revolution Licensee to FieldTurf

Tennis (ITF) Various premium tennis products

Any other

Airfield

FieldTurf Airfield Turf

Federal Aviation Administration

approved)

Licensee to FieldTurf

Name of Organisation: Acousto-Scan Pty LTD

Contact Person: Grant Humphreys - Managing Director

Address of Head

Office:

20/109a Bonds Rd

Punchbowl NSW, 2196 , Australia

Telephone: +61 (2) 9533 7220 Mobile +61 2 0415 423334

Web: www.acoustoscan.com.au


Sport

Product Range

(if under license)



Football (FIFA) Test Institute FIFA Field Test Institute

Rugby Union (IRB) Test Institute IRB Field Test Institute

AFL/Cricket Australia Test Institute AFL/CA Test Laboratory

http://www.acoustoscan.com.au/




Name of Organisation: Acousto-Scan Pty LTD

Hockey (FIH) Test Institute FIH Test Institute Laboratory

Athletics (IAAF) Test Institute IAAF Field Test Institute Pending

Bowls Test Institute Test Laboratory

Rugby League Test Institute Field Test Institute

Tennis (ITF) Test Institute Field Test Institute One Star

Any other

Basket Ball (FIBA)

ISSS

FIBA Test Laboratory

ISSS Scientific member



Appendix 1 ad/case study TEAM sports



Appendix 2: Water Harvesting

Modelling – Reuse of water

collected from a synthetic pitch

1. Scenario’s

Estimated water requirements for cool and warm

season turf. This case study was completed for a

Melbourne based client and developed with Sports Turf

Consultants.

Water collection and reuse

Scenario 1: Water collected from a full size synthetic

soccer pitched. Used for irrigating a football / cricket

oval (cool season)



oval (warm season)


soccer pitched. Used for irrigating a full size

soccer pitch (cool season)


soccer pitched. Used for irrigating a full size soccer

pitch (warm season)

Scenario 5: Water collected from a half size synthetic


oval (cool season)



oval (warm season)

Scenario 7: Water collected from half size synthetic


pitch (cool season)



pitch (warm season)

2.Rainfall Considerations

Month Rainfall (mm) Evaporation

(mm)

January 10.8 39.9

February 11.9 36.4

March 11.3 27.3

April 13.4 17.5

May 12.7 11.2

June 11.5 7.7

July 10.8 8.4

August 11.3 11.9

September 13.6 17.5

October 15.0 24.5

November 13.9 30.8

December 13.3 36.4

Annual 650 1,167

Table 36: Mean Weekly Rainfall (shown monthly) and Evaporation (Canberra)

Table 37: Mean Weekly (shown monthly) Rainfall & Evaporation (mm)

Turf watering Needs

Month Cool Warm

January 31.9 23.9

February 29.1 21.8

March 21.8 16.4

April 14.0 10.5

May 9.0 6.7

June 6.2 4.6

July 6.7 5.0

August 9.5 7.1

September 14.0 10.5

October 19.6 14.7

November 24.6 18.5

December 29.1 21.8

Crop Factor 0.8 0.6

Table 38: Weekly Turf Water Usage (mm/week)

0

20

40

60

Janu

…

Feb

r…

Ma

rch

April

Ma

y

June

July

Augu

st

Sept…

Octo

…

No

ve

…

De

ce

…

Rainfall (mm)

Evaporation (mm)



Month Cool Warm

January 21.1 13.1

February 17.2 9.9

March 10.5 5.0

April 0.6 -2.9

May -3.7 -6.0

June -5.4 -6.9

July -4.1 -5.7

August -1.8 -4.2

September 0.4 -3.1

October 4.6 -0.3

November 10.8 4.6

December 15.8 8.5

Table 39: Weekly Irrigation Requirement (mm/week) (Shaded values indicate irrigation required)

Month Cool Warm

January 0.21 0.13

February 0.17 0.10

March 0.11 0.05

April 0.01 -0.03

May -0.04 -0.06

June -0.05 -0.07

July -0.04 -0.06

August -0.02 -0.04

September 0.00 -0.03

October 0.05 0.00

November 0.11 0.05

December 0.16 0.08

Table 40: Weekly Irrigation Requirement (ML/ha/week) (Shaded values indicate irrigation required)

Month Cool Warm

January 0.93 0.58

February 0.69 0.40

March 0.47 0.22

April 0.03 -0.12

May -0.17 -0.26

June -0.23 -0.30

July -0.18 -0.25

August -0.08 -0.19


October 0.20 -0.01

November 0.46 0.20

December 0.70 0.38

Annual 3.5 1.8

Table 41: Monthly Irrigation Requirement (ML/ha/month)

(Shaded values indicate irrigation required)

Month Cool Warm

January 1.40 0.87

February 1.03 0.60

March 0.70 0.34

April 0.04 -0.19

May -0.25 -0.40

June -0.35 -0.44

July -0.27 -0.38

August -0.12 -0.28


October 0.30 -0.02

November 0.69 0.30

December 1.05 0.56

Annual 5.24 2.66

Table 42: Realistic Monthly Irrigation Requirement (ML/ha/month)

Shaded values indicate irrigation required



Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M61

Sto

rag

e M

L

Irri

gati

on

62

Dem

an

d M

et

May 56.2 0.34 0.34

no

irrigation

June 49.4 0.30 0.63

no

irrigation

July 47.7 0.29 0.92

no

irrigation

August 50.2 0.30 1.22

no

irrigation

September 58.2 0.35 0.03 1.54 100%

October 66.5 0.40 0.37 1.57 100%

November 59.5 0.36 0.83 1.10 100%

December 59.1 0.35 1.26 0.20 100%

January 47.9 0.29 1.68 0.00 29%

February 47.6 0.29 1.24 0.00 23%

March 50.2 0.30 0.84 0.00 36%

April 57.4 0.34 0.05 0.30 100%

650 3.90 6.29

Table 43: Water Collection and Reuse - Scenario 1

Water collected from: Full size (0.75ha) synthetic soccer pitch

Used for irrigating: Football/Cricket oval (1.2ha, cool season)

Maximum stored volume of water: 1.6ML

Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

et

May 56.2 0.34 0.34

no

irrigation

June 49.4 0.30 0.63

no

irrigation

July 47.7 0.29 0.92

no

irrigation

August 50.2 0.30 1.22

no

irrigation

September 58.2 0.35 1.57

no

irrigation

October 66.5 0.40 1.97

no

irrigation

November 59.5 0.36 0.35 1.97 100%

December 59.1 0.35 0.68 1.65 100%

January 47.9 0.29 1.05 0.89 100%

February 47.6 0.29 0.72 0.46 100%

March 50.2 0.30 0.4 0.36 100%

April 57.4 0.34 0.70

no

irrigation

650 3.90 3.20

Table 44 above Water Collection and Reuse - Scenario 2”


Used for irrigating: Football/Cricket oval (1.2ha, warm season)


61

EOM Storage – volume of water at the end of month 62

Irrigation Demand Met – percentage of the irrigation requirement met

Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

et

May 56.2 0.34 0.34 no irrigation

June 49.4 0.30 0.63 no irrigation

July 47.7 0.29 0.92 no irrigation

August 50.2 0.30 1.22 no irrigation

September 58.2 0.35 0.02 1.55 100

October 66.5 0.40 0.23 1.72 100

November 59.5 0.36 0.52 1.56 100%

December 59.1 0.35 0.79 1.13 100%

January 47.9 0.29 1.05 0.36 100%

February 47.6 0.29 0.77 0.00 84%

March 50.2 0.30 0.52 0.00 58%

April 57.4 0.34 0.03 0.32 100

650 3.90 3.93



Used for irrigating: Full size (0.75ha) soccer pitch (cool season)


Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

et





September 58.2 0.35 1.57 no irrigation

October 66.5 0.40 1.97 no irrigation

November 59.5 0.36 0.22 2.10 100%

December 59.1 0.35 0.42 2.04 100%

January 47.9 0.29 0.65 1.67 100%

February 47.6 0.29 0.45 1.51 100%

March 50.2 0.30 0.25 1.56 100%

April 57.4 0.34 1.90 no irrigation

650 3.90 2.00



Used for irrigating: Full size (0.75ha) soccer pitch (warm season)




Month M

on

thly

Rain

fall m

m

Wa

ter

Co

lle

cte

d

ML

Irri

ga

tio

n

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

ga

tio

n

Dem

an

d M

et





September 58.2 0.13 0.03 0.55 100

October 66.5 0.15 0.37 0.34 100

November 59.5 0.13 0.83 0.00 57%

December 59.1 0.13 1.26 0.00 11%

January 47.9 0.11 1.68 0.00 6%

February 47.6 0.11 1.24 0.00 9%

March 50.2 0.11 0.84 0.00 13%

April 57.4 0.13 0.05 0.08 100

650 1.46 6.29


Water collected from: Half size (0.28ha) synthetic soccer pitch

Used for irrigating: Football/Cricket oval (1.2ha, cool season)


Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

et







November 59.5 0.13 0.35 0.51 100

December 59.1 0.13 0.68 0.00 95%

January 47.9 0.11 1.05 0.00 10%

February 47.6 0.11 0.72 0.00 15%

March 50.2 0.11 0.40 0.00 28%


650 1.46 3.20



Used for irrigating: Football/Cricket oval (1.2ha, warm season)


Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

et





September 58.2 0.13 0.02 0.57 100

October 66.5 0.15 0.23 0.49 100

November 59.5 0.13 0.52 0.10 100

December 59.1 0.13 0.79 0.00 30%

January 47.9 0.11 1.05 0.00 10%

February 47.6 0.11 0.77 0.00 14%

March 50.2 0.11 0.52 0.00 21%

April 57.4 0.13 0.03 0.10 100

650 1.46 3.93



Used for irrigating: Full size (0.75ha) soccer pitch (cool season)


Month

Mo

nth

ly

Rain

fall

mm

Wate

r

Co

llecte

d M

L

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

L

EO

M S

tora

ge

ML

Irri

gati

on

Dem

an

d M

et







November 59.5 0.13 0.22 0.65 100

December 59.1 0.13 0.42 0.36 100

January 47.9 0.11 0.65 0.00 71%

February 47.6 0.11 0.45 0.00 24%

March 50.2 0.11 0.25 0.00 45%


650 1.46 2.00



Used for irrigating: Full size (0.75ha) soccer pitch (warm season)




Appendix 2 ad/case study ABS



Appendix 3: Literature Review of

Safety Research for Synthetic Surfaces

3.1 Safety Studies

“Safety Study of Artificial Turf Containing Crumb Rubber Infill

Made from Recycled Tires: Measurements of Chemicals and

Particulates in the Air, Bacteria in the Turf, and Skin

Abrasions Caused by Contact with the Surface” Summary

presentation by OEHHA and Cal/EPA.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment (OEHHA)

Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch: Funded by

the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

(CalRecycle)

October 2010

Conclusion: No public health concerns were identified

regarding the inhalation of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) or particulates (PM2.5) above artificial turf;

Artificial turf harbored fewer bacteria (including MRSA and

other Staphylococci) than natural turf; The rate of skin

abrasions per 1,000 player hours was two- to three-fold

higher on artificial turf compared to natural turf; The sum of

these latter two effects on the skin infection rate for athletes

competing on artificial turf relative to natural turf cannot be

predicted from these data alone.

"An Evaluation of the Health and Environmental Impacts

Associated with Synthetic Turf Playing Fields"

University of Connecticut Health Center The Connecticut

Agricultural Experiment Station Department of Public Health

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection July

2010

The headline from the July 30, 2010 News Release from the

Connecticut Department of Public Health announced, "Result

of State Artificial Turf Fields Study: No Elevated Health

Risk." Comprising separate reports from the four state

agencies listed above, the Final Report presents the results

of an extensive study into the health and environmental

risks associated with outdoor and indoor synthetic turf fields

containing crumb rubber infill. "This study presents good

news regarding the safety of outdoor artificial turf fields,"

stated Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. J.

Robert Galvin. The above link is to the Overall Executive

Summary, which includes links to the News Release, the four

separate reports from the state agencies, and the report by

the Peer Review Committee from The Connecticut Academy

of Science and Engineering.

“Review of the Impacts of Crumb Rubber in Artificial Turf

Applications”

University of California, Berkeley, February 2010 Laboratory

for Manufacturing and Sustainability

Prepared for: The Corporation for Manufacturing Excellence

(Manex)

“The research conducted by Manex and Berkeley is among

the most comprehensive reports to date, reviewing and

assessing existing studies from the past 12 years, as well as

containing independent analysis. The conclusions of this

study validate key findings from other recent studies,

demonstrating the materials are both cost-effective and

safe." From Manex/UC Berkeley Press Release posted

April 5, 2010. Click here for full Press Release.

"A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf

Fields and Playgrounds" U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, November 2009

This study and statements of safety by the U.S. EPA of

synthetic turf fields and playgrounds containing crumb rubber

from recycled tires complements the study and statement of

safety by the CPSC in 2008 (see below). In its Press

Release, the EPA summarized its findings, including the

following:

The levels of particulate matter, metals, and volatile organic

compound concentrations in the air samples above the

synthetic turf were similar to background levels;

All air concentrations of particulate matter and lead were well

below levels of concern;

Zinc, which is a known additive in tires,…was found to be

below levels of concern.

See December 10, 2009 EPA Press Release, “Limited EPA

Study Finds Low Level of Concern in Samples of Recycled

Tires from Ballfield and Playground Surfaces”

"Chemicals and Particulates in the Air Above the New

Generation of Artificial Turf Playing Fields, and Artificial Turf

as a Risk Factor for Infection by Methicillin-Resistant

Staphylcoccus Aureus (MRSA)" Office of Environmental

Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental

Protection Agency, July 2009

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/


http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/www.calrecycle.ca.gov

http://www.ct.gov/dep/artificialturf

http://www.ct.gov/dep/artificialturf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Manex-UC%20Berkeley%20Crumb%20Rubber%20Study_Feb_2010.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Manex-UC%20Berkeley%20Crumb%20Rubber%20Study_Feb_2010.pdf

http://www.manexconsulting.com/

http://www.manexconsulting.com/

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Manex-UC%20Berkeley%20CR%20Study-PRESS%20RELEASE%204-10.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/EPA_600_R-09_135.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/EPA_600_R-09_135.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/

http://www.epa.gov/

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/EPA.pdf



http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/CA%20OEHHA%20lit%20review%20re%20air%20quality%20and%20staph%20FULL%20RPT%2010-19-09.pdf






http://www.calepa.ca.gov/

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/



There is a negligible human health risk from inhaling the air

above synthetic turf, and, though data gaps exist, it is

“unlikely that the new generation of artificial turf is itself a

source of MRSA….” (Significantly the OEHHA did not review

the January 2009 results of the study into the lifespan of

staph on grass and synthetic turf sponsored by the STC and

the Pennsylvania Turfgrass Council - see below.) The

OEHHA summary of the results is posted on its website. The

full report includes an important Addendum that references

reports by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation and Department of Health (May 2009) and the

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

(March 2009) - see below.

"An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and

Temperature at Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Fields" New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation and

New York State Department of Health, May 2009

In its Press Release, the NYSDEC announced that this new

comprehensive study concludes that crumb rubber infilled

synthetic fields "poses no significant environmental threat to

air or water quality and poses no significant health concerns."

"Air Quality Survey of Synthetic Turf Fields Containing

Crumb Rubber Infill" TRC, March 2009. Prepared for NY

City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

"In summary, an analysis of the air in the breathing zones of

children above synthetic turf fields do not show appreciable

impacts from COPCs [Contaminants of Potential Concern]

contained in the crumb rubber. Therefore, a risk assessment

was not warranted from the inhalation route of exposure." Of

69 VOCs, 17 PAHs, including Benzothiazole, 10 metals, and

a range of particulate matter tested, the COPCs that were

detected in the ambient air samples above the crumb rubber

synthetic turf fields were found in similar concentrations in

the air samples above the grass field and the background

locations.

“CPSC Staff Finds Synthetic Turf Fields OK to Install, OK to

Play On,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,

NEWS from CPSC, July 30, 2008

The CPSC staff conducted tests of synthetic turf products for

analysis of total lead content and accessible lead. In the

above News Release it concludes that, “young children are

not at risk from exposure to lead in these fields.” For a

summary of the analytical methods used and the test results,

see “CPSC Staff Analysis and Assessment of Synthetic Turf

‘Grass Blades”

"A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks from

Synthetic Turf Fields Containing Crumb Rubber Infill"

Prepared for New York City Department of Health and

Mental Hygiene by TRC, May 2008

A comprehensive 180-page review of available scientific

literature and research on synthetic turf with crumb rubber

infill covering such topics as chemical composition and

human health risks from crumb rubber infill, risks of physical

injury, heat-related illness, staph, etc. A summary of the

available research is also included.

"Review of the Human Health & Ecological Safety of

Exposure to Recycled Tire Rubber found at Playgrounds and

Synthetic Turf Fields"

Prepared for Rubber Manufacturers Association by

ChemRisk, Inc., July 17, 2008

A report by an independent environmental firm on the human

health and ecological risks from ground rubber in

playgrounds and sports fields, and based on a thorough

review of studies from advocates and opponents to the use

of recycled tire materials.

"Environmental Effects of Synthetic Turf Athletics Fields"

Milone & MacBroom, December 2008

HEAT: On hot sunny days, surface temp of the fibers was

40-50 degrees hotter than ambient temp; air temp at 2’

above surface or under cloud cover was near

ambient. Crumb rubber was only a few degrees hotter than

ambient. Watering the field had a short-term effect.

OFF-GASSING: EHHI identified certain compounds of

concern in its very limited 2007 laboratory study of the

chemicals contained in crumb rubber – benzothiazole,

volatile nitrosamines, and 4-(tert-octyl) Phenol. MMI tested

for these compounds in the air above the synthetic turf fields

with crumb rubber infill at several locations. A “very low

concentration” of benzothiazole was found at 1 of 2 fields --

the other compounds were not detected.

LEACHING: Testing done over 1 year period. Test for zinc,

lead, selenium, and cadmium, and compared to lowest

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/CA%20OEHHA%20lit%20review%20re%20air%20quality%20and%20staph%20WEBSITE%20SUMMARY%2010-19-09.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/NYSDEC%20Study%20on%20Leaching%20Offgassing%20Heat%205%202009.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/NYSDEC%20Study%20on%20Leaching%20Offgassing%20Heat%205%202009.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/www.dec.ny.gov

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/www.dec.ny.gov

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/www.health.state.ny.us

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/NY%20City%20Dept%20of%20Health%20Air%20Quality%20Study%204-09.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/NY%20City%20Dept%20of%20Health%20Air%20Quality%20Study%204-09.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/CPSC%20Announcement%20that%20Syn%20Turf%20is%20Safe%207-30-08.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/CPSC%20Announcement%20that%20Syn%20Turf%20is%20Safe%207-30-08.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov/

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/CPSC%20Staff%20Analysis%20and%20Assessment%20of%20Synthetic%20Turf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/CPSC%20Staff%20Analysis%20and%20Assessment%20of%20Synthetic%20Turf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/NYC%20DOH%20TURF%20REPORT%205-08.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/NYC%20DOH%20TURF%20REPORT%205-08.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/RMA%20Lit%20Review%20Rubber%20Playground%20and%20Turf.pdf



http://www.rma.org/

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Milone%20&%20MacBroom-Leaching,%20Off-gassing,%20temp%2012-08-REVISED.pdf

http://www.miloneandmacbroom.com/



aquatic life criterion for each element. Only zinc detected,

and then well below water quality standard.

"Follow-up Study of the Environmental Aspects of Rubber

Infill, A Laboratory study (perform weathering tests) and a

field study, rubber crumb from car tyres as infill on artificial

turf"

INTRON, commissioned by two tyre associations, and

supervised by the National Institute for Public Health and

the Environment and by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial

Planning and the Environment in the Netherlands, April 2008

"The impact of weathering of the rubber crumb for the

technical lifetime of an artificial turf field (approx. 10 to 15

years) does not cause the leaching of zinc from the rubber

crumb...to exceed the threshold values..."

Environmental and Health Evaluation of the Use of

Elastomer Granulates (Virgin and from Used Tyres) as Filling

in Third-Generation Artificial Turf"

Author: Dr. Robert Moretto (EEDEMS) 1

ADEME/ALIAPUR/FIELDTURF TARKETT 2007 Scientific

long-term study for French organizations

Study of quality of water passing through SBR, TPE and

EPDM granules, and of gases emitted by the sports

fields. No impact from these materials on water resources;

no effect on health from inhaling VOC and aldehydes emitted

by materials in close, poorly ventilated indoor facility or

outdoors; ecotoxicologically, no impact on the

environment. Extensive bibliography.

"Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in

Playground and Track Products" Office of Environmental

Health Hazard Assessment of California EPA, January 2007

Evaluation of toxicity due to ingestion based on existing

literature - risk is well below de minimus level considered an

acceptable cancer risk. Evaluation of toxicity due to ingestion

based on gastric digestion simulation - same as above.

Evaluation of toxicity due to chronic hand-to-surface-to-

mouth activity -low risk of adverse noncancer health

effects. Slightly higher than de minimus level for chronic

ingestion of chrysene, but low enough to be considered an

acceptable cancer risk. Skin sensitization - no sensitization

observed.

Evaluating the potential for damage to the local environment

and ecology - soil samples under a playground surface

burned in a fire contained levels of metals, VOCs, PAHs,

dioxins and furans at or below background, suggesting low

risk. Air above the burn site was judged by the U.S. EPA as

posing no health risk. Concentrated leachate from tire

shreds produced in a lab was toxic to several organisms, but

a rain event would not likely produce leachate in such

concentrations to cause toxicity to these

organisms. Shredded tires used above the ground water

table produced no toxicity in sentinel species.

3.2 Player Safety

“Epidemiology of Patellar Tendinopathy in Elite Male Soccer

Players”

Hagglund, M., PT, PhD; Zwerver, J., MD, PhD; Ekstrand, J.,

MD, PhD American Journal of Sports Medicine, June 2011,

0363546511408877

Patellar tendinopathy is a relatively mild but fairly common

condition among elite soccer players, and the recurrence rate

is high. This study investigated the epidemiology of patellar

tendinopathy in 2,229 elite male soccer players from 51

European elite soccer clubs playing on natural grass and

synthetic turf between 2001 and 2009.Objective: To compare

the risk for acute injuries between natural grass (NG) and

third-generation artificial turf (3GAT) in male professional

football.

Conclusion: “Exposure to artificial turf did not increase

the prevalence or incidence of injury.”

"Risk of injury on third generation artificial turf in Norwegian

professional football"

Bjørneboe J, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2010) British Journal of

Sports Medicine, 44: 794-798.

Methods: All injuries sustained by players with a first-team

contract were recorded by the medical staff of each club,

from the 2004 throughout the 2007 season. An injury was

registered if the player was unable to take fully part in football

activity or match play.

Results: A total of 668 match injuries, 526 on grass and 142

on artificial turf, were recorded. The overall acute match

injury incidence was 17.1 (95% CI 15.8 to 18.4) per 1000

match hours; 17.0 (95% CI 15.6 to 18.5) on grass and 17.6

(95% CI 14.7 to 20.5) on artificial turf. Correspondingly, the

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/INTRON-Follow-up%20Study%20of%20Env.%20Risks%20of%20SBR%20Infill%203-08.pdf




http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Environmental%20Study%20Report-FieldTurf-2007.pdf



http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Health%20Effects%20of%20Tire%20Rubber%20California%20Study%202007

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Health%20Effects%20of%20Tire%20Rubber%20California%20Study%202007

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Patellar%20Tendinopathy%20study_June11_036354651140887.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Patellar%20Tendinopathy%20study_June11_036354651140887.pdf

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/11/794.abstract?sid=b53cca15-5434-495d-aff8-17ea221cede8

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/11/794.abstract?sid=b53cca15-5434-495d-aff8-17ea221cede8

http://www.bjsm.bmj.com/

http://www.bjsm.bmj.com/



incidence for training injuries was 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); 1.8

(95% CI 1.5 to 2.0) on grass and 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.2) on

artificial turf respectively. No significant difference was

observed in injury location, type or severity between turf

types.

Conclusion: No significant differences were detected in

injury rate or pattern between 3GAT and NG in

Norwegian male professional football.

"Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass

by male and female elite football players"

Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Fuler CW (2010) Scandinavian

Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, DOI:

10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.x

The objective of this study was to compare incidences and

patterns of injury for female and male elite teams when

playing football on artificial turf and grass. Twenty teams (15

male, 5 female) playing home matches on third-generation

artificial turf were followed retrospectively; their injury risk

when playing on artificial turf pitches was compared with the

risk when playing on grass. Individual exposure, injuries

(time loss) and injury severity were recorded by the team

medical staff. In total, 2105 injuries were recorded during

246 000 h of exposure to football. Seventy-one percent of the

injuries were traumatic and 29% overuse injuries. There were

no significant differences in the nature of overuse injuries

recorded on artificial turf and grass for either men or women.

The incidence (injuries/1000 player-hours) of acute

(traumatic) injuries did not differ significantly between

artificial turf and grass, for men (match 22.4 v 21.7; RR 1.0

(95% CI 0.9–1.2); training 3.5 v 3.5; RR 1.0 (0.8–1.2)) or

women [match 14.9 v 12.5; RR 1.2 (0.8–1.8); training 2.9 v

2.8; RR 1.0 (0.6–1.7)]. During matches, men were less likely

to sustain a quadriceps strain (P=0.031) and more likely to

sustain an ankle sprain (P=0.040) on artificial turf.

"Injury risk on artificial turf and grass in youth tournament

football"

Soligard T, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2010) Scandinavian

Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, DOI:

10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01174.x

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to investigate

the risk of acute injuries among youth male and female

footballers playing on third-generation artificial turf compared

with grass. Over 60000 players 13–19 years of age were

followed in four consecutive Norway Cup tournaments from

2005 to 2008. Injuries were recorded prospectively by the

team coaches throughout each tournament. The overall

incidence of injuries was 39.2 (SD: 0.8) per 1000 match

hours; 34.2 (SD: 2.4) on artificial turf and 39.7 (SD: 0.8) on

grass. After adjusting for the potential confounders age and

gender, there was no difference in the overall risk of injury

[odds ratio (OR): 0.93 (0.77–1.12), P=0.44] or in the risk of

time loss injury [OR: 1.05 (0.68–1.61), P=0.82] between

artificial turf and grass. However, there was a lower risk of

ankle injuries [OR: 0.59 (0.40–0.88), P=0.008], and a higher

risk of back and spine [OR: 1.92 (1.10–3.36), P=0.021] and

shoulder and collarbone injuries [OR: 2.32 (1.01–5.31),

P=0.049], on artificial turf compared with on grass. In

conclusion, there was no difference in the overall risk of

acute injury in youth footballers playing on third-generation

artificial turf compared with grass.

“Very Positive Medical Research on Artificial Turf”

Turf Roots Magazine 01, pp. 8-10 www.fifa.com

A report of medical research conducted by FIFA’s Medical

Assessment and Research Centre (F-MARC) comparing

injuries sustained at the FIFA U-17 tournament in Peru,

which was played entirely on “football turf” (synthetic turf)

with the injuries sustained at previous U-17 tournaments,

which were played mainly on well-manicured grass. “The

research showed that there was very little difference in the

incidence, nature and causes of injuries observed during

those games played on artificial turf compared with those

played on grass.”

“Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus

natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study”

J Ekstrand, T Timpka, M Hagglund British Journal of Sports

Medicine 2006; 40:975-980

Objective: “To compare injury risk in elite football [soccer]

played on artificial turf compared with natural grass.”

Conclusion: “No evidence of a greater risk of injury was

found when football was played on artificial turf

compared with natural grass. The higher incidence of

ankle sprain on artificial turf warrants further attention,

although this result should be interpreted with caution

as the number of ankle sprains was low.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.x/abstract




http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/peru_case_study_11170.pdf

http://www.fifa.com/

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Risk%20of%20Injury-Brit%20Jour%20SportsMed%202006.pdf

http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/associations/7632/files/Risk%20of%20Injury-Brit%20Jour%20SportsMed%202006.pdf



“Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in young

female football [soccer] players”

Kathrin Steffen, Thor Einar Andersen, Roald Bahr British

Journal of Sports Medicine 2007; 41:i33-i37

http://bjsm.bmj.com

Objective: “To investigate the risk of injury on artificial turf

compared with natural grass among young female football

[soccer] players.”

Conclusion: “In the present study among young female

football [soccer] players, the overall risk of acute injury

was similar between artificial turf and natural grass.”

“Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries

sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male

and female football players”

Colin W Fuller, Randall W Dick, Jill Corlette, Rosemary

Schmalz

British Journal of Sports Medicine 2007; 41 (Supplement

1):i20-i26 (Part 1: match injuries)

British Journal of Sports Medicine 2007; 41 (Supplement

1):i27-i32 (Part 2: training injuries) Abstracts available at

http://bjsm.bmj.com

Objective: “To compare the incidence, nature, severity and

cause of match injuries (Part 1) and training injuries (Part 2)

sustained on grass and new generation turf by male and

female footballers.”

Methods: The National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury

Surveillance System was used for a two-season (August to

December) prospective study of American college and

university football teams (2005 season: men 52 teams,

women 64 teams; 2006 season: men 54 teams, women 72

teams).

Conclusion of both Part 1 and Part 2: There were no

major differences in the incidence, severity, nature or

cause of match injuries or training injuries sustained on

new generation artificial turf and grass by either male or

female players.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/41/suppl_1/i33.abstract?sid=04730193-4c70-40cc-bcd2-0cbe01f14b1a

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/41/suppl_1/i33.abstract?sid=04730193-4c70-40cc-bcd2-0cbe01f14b1a

http://bjsm.bmj.com/

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/41/suppl_1/i20.abstract?sid=350e531e-358b-46d9-b72b-37eda0c5707d



http://bjsm.bmj.com/



Appendix 4: Self-assessment Questionnaire

To assist with ‘checking’ where your organisation is regarding being ready for the installation of synthetic surfaces, Smart

Connection Company use a questionnaire when we meet new clients. This questionnaire has been adapted into a self-

assessment questionnaire for your assistance

Follow the sections logically through and if you need any more assistance, we at Smart Connection Company would be

more than happy to provide a complimentary hour to review your answers and make suggestions on the way forward. Just

call us on (03) 8696 7500.

1. Planning considerations

1.1 Does the pitch fit into a planning overlay?

1.2 Does the pitch fit into a facilities hierarchy or could it?

1.3 Do you need to consider policies and strategies (e.g. health, environmental)?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Supply and demand considerations

1.1 Is the present supply of pitches allowing the demand to be met?

1.2 Is the present demand meeting state averages for the sport and could it continue to grow?

1.3 How much more growth can be sustained on the pitches?

1.4 How many pitches are above 20 hour usage per week?

1.5 How would a synthetic pitch fit into the sports facility hierarchy?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Surface type considerations

3.1 What sports would be played on the surface in season/out of season?

3.2 What type of play would the surface be used for? (e.g. recreation/play, training, competition)?

3.3 What would be the expected weekly usages?

i. In peak season

Junior

rec/school

Training Comp Juniors Comp Seniors Total

Less 12h

12h - 20h

20h - 40h

40h - 60h

Over 60h

ii. In off peak season?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.4 Are there any surface standards applied by the sports (e.g. FIH – National for Hockey) and which ones could apply to this

project?

Sport Standard Durability considerations Other considerations



4. Design considerations

4.1 Pitch line markings – What are the key sports you are looking to mark the pitch for?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Size of field – what size of field do you want (with run off etc.) that meets the standard of play you will be promoting?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Markings

i. What markings need to be considered?

ii. Can others be permanent/temporary blanked out or temporary put in?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you want training lines/dimensions marked out on pitch or to the sides?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ancillary facilities

i. Fences

Do you want the pitch fenced? If so what height?

Do you want high fencing behind the goals?

What entrance do you want onto the pitch players, maintenance machines, and spectators?

Do you need additional goal posts, training goals etc.?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Lighting

Do you need additional lighting?

If so what lux?

Where will the cables be run, do they need to be under the pitch?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Sports design

Does there need to be integration of sports built into the design (e.g. cricket, football, soccer)?

Is there adequate car parking for the increased patronage that the synthetic surface will generate?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Training aids

Do you need to contain between half or a third pitch so that the field can be used accordingly for competition and

training?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Management considerations

5.1 Programming

What would be a typical week’s program for winter (88) season and which would be:

R = School and casual recreational games



T = Training, intense usage (senior/junior)

JC = Matches/comps for juniors

SC = Matches/competitions for seniors

Calculate the number of hours use per day, per week/season.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Management

With this number of hours, how is it best managed in relations to:

i. Programming bookings

ii. Operational daily

iii. Collecting fees

iv. Maintenance

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Time /

Day

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Time /

Day

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

9am 9am

10am 10am

11am 11am

12noon 12noon

1pm 1pm

2pm 2pm

3pm 3pm

4pm 4pm

5pm 5pm

6pm 6pm

7pm 7pm

8pm 8pm

9pm 9pm

10pm 10pm

TOTALS TOTALS

Table 51: Summer and winter seasons

5.2 Economic consideration

1. Repayment philosophy

How does council expect to fund the capital development?

Does it need to borrow money and then use the income generation ability to repay the loan?

If so what period? What needs to be raised annually?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Replacement philosophy

Does council expect the annual income to be used to generate a replacement income base (RIB)?

What does the replacement income base need to be in 6/8/10 years’ time at both todays and projected costs?

What needs to be collected annually to be able to achieve the annual RIB



________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pricing philosophy

Does council have a pricing strategy philosophy for indoor sports, other synthetic surfaces and outdoor pitches? Which is

appropriate for this pitches bearing in mind replacement philosophy and repayment philosophy?

Are there any other similar standard pitches that can be used as a benchmark, if so where? And what price?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Pitch Owner Price peak Price off peak

What should the prices be for this pitch?

Notes:

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Description Hourly peak Hourly off peak



Smart Connection Consultancy –

Profile

Introduction and Overview

Smart Connection Consultancy Pty Ltd (SCC) is pleased

to share our company profile, so you have confidence that

we are experienced in providing advisory services in the

areas of synthetic surfaces technology for sport, from a

planning, standards, compliance, provision and playability

point of view.

For the past eight years Smart Connection Consultancy

has been providing advice to Local Government council’s

around Australia; State and Territory Governments as well

as national, state and territory sports peak bodies.

We take a highly consultative approach and work closely

with our clients during each stage of a project. We realise

that a number of skills are required to comprehensively

address your needs so we combine our own knowledge,

resources and skill sets with external specialists to provide

a one-stop-shop for your needs.

We have a very simple goal; we want to exceed

expectations and not only deliver on your goals and

address the outcomes that you are seeking, but also

provide transfer of knowledge to enhance the

understanding of your staff in the area of synthetic surface

technology.

Based in Melbourne, we work across Australia and the

Asia Pacific Rim, harnessing a multitude of professional

skills and expertise to provide advice and management

solutions for the leisure and sports industry.

Consultant Profile – Martin Sheppard – Managing

Director

Smart Connection Consultancy’s

Managing Director, Martin

Sheppard, is an international

speaker whose expertise is

recognised for aligning synthetic

surfaces and facility development,

with player pathways, supply and

demand forecasting and

participation strategies. His

2013/14 presentation and

conference schedule included Thailand, Hawaii, North

America, New Zealand and Cologne, in addition to the 30

plus presentations within Australia.

Martin has worked in the sport, recreation and leisure

industry for nearly 35 years, managing a diverse

portfolio of facilities including leisure centre’s, sports

facilities, museums, arts centres, theatres, parks,

cemeteries and crematorium, ice rinks, golf courses and

tourism destinations.

In addition, Martin has had a strong focus on program

development and delivery for specific target audiences,

including sports development, health promotion,

physical activity and recreation participation programs

and elite sports pathways. This allows him to have a

comprehensive understanding of the challenges that

many of his clients face.

Martin has developed a unique knowledge that has

resulted in the major synthetic surface suppliers and

manufacturers in Asia Pacific seeking his advice and

direction on the future of the industry. He has been

involved on some of the industry’s most innovative

Australian projects over the past seven years including:-

Working with and collaborating with the world,

Australian and state governing and peak bodies of

sport, including Hockey (FIH, HACT); Australian

Rugby League (NRL); Australian Rules Football

(AFL); Football (FIFA, FFV, Capital Football); Rugby

Union (IRB & ARU) and Tennis Australia.

Developing Australia’s first two National Synthetic

Surfaces Conference and Expo’s with support from

FIFA, IRB, Hockey Australia, AFL/Cricket Australia,

Tennis Australia, Skateboarding Australia, Parks

and Leisure Australia, New Zealand Recreation

Association, Community Sport Australia and more

than 30 key suppliers from the Asia Pacific Rim.

Feasibility studies and business cases for the

installation of synthetic solutions for the sports of

Football (soccer), Australian Rules, Cricket, Hockey,

Rugby Union, Athletics and multi-sport.

Procurement and project management of FIFA 1

and 2 star pitches; hockey national standard; AFL/

Cricket Australia; IRB Regulation 22 pitches.

Participation and growth strategies using synthetic

technology around the sports of Hockey, Football,

Australian Rules, Athletics and Rugby Union

Promotion of environmentally friendly solutions

including water harvesting, environmental infill’s and

green engineering practices.



Publication of Australia’s pre-eminent publication on

synthetic technology – The Smart Guide to Synthetic

Surfaces.

Rigorous business planning around how to manage

and optimise facilities.

Photo 79: Recent Project: Feasibility into City of Swan synthetic multi-sport field development

Martin continues to develop his knowledge of synthetic

sports surfaces. Over the past 30 years, he has

successfully managed facilities including synthetic

athletics tracks, football pitches, cricket wickets and

outdoor sports areas.

Conferences

Martin has chaired various national, state and local

community committees in addition to industry forums, and

working groups. Speaking on the management planning

and development of synthetic surfaces has taken Martin

into many sectors including the build and construction

sector, parks and open space sector, the prison service,

education sector and civil engineering.

Publications

Martin has published extensively for a global audience:

The Smart Guide to Synthetic Surfaces (editions 1-

3)

Procurement and Contract Management (2005)

Physical Activity and Participation (2007)

Australasian Leisure Management magazine (2007 -

2013: 10 articles)

He has been commissioned to write articles for industry

magazines on the latest trends in synthetic surfaces.

Professional Memberships

Fellow – Chartered Institute of Management of Sport

and Physical Activity (CIMSPA) (UK)

Chair – Physical Activity Australia Registration

Board for Fitness Professionals

Committee Member – School Sport Victoria

Foundation

Member – Australian Leisure Facilities Association

Member – Parks and Leisure Australia

Member – VicSport

Member – Physical Activity Australia (PAA)

Our Proven Track Record

The company’s expertise in leisure, sport and physical

activity planning, synthetic feasibility and community

wellbeing studies is well regarded, with individual team

members recognised as reputable professionals in their

own areas of expertise.

Smart Connection Company has comprehensive

experience with the issues involved in sports facility

management, planning and development. The civil

engineering properties and playability of synthetic

surfaces with regards to such provision over recent

years has been omitted in many project teams, but

Smart Connection Company has strong collaborators to

ensure that this is addressed for our clients. To this end,

we have successfully completed a number of standards

reviews, sports strategies, master plans and feasibility

studies relevant to the industry, including:

NRL (2013) – Review of playing standards for

synthetic surfaces

Marrickville Council (2013) – Procurement (Design

and Build) for Arlington Reserve (FIFA 1 Star)

Sutherland Shire Council (2014) – Procurement

(Design and Build) for two (FIFA 1) Football (Soccer),

AFL & Cricket pitches

City of Ryde Council (2013) – Synthetics

Feasibility Study & Strategy

ACT National Hockey Centre (2012-13) –

Participation and Business Case Strategy

MacArthur Football Association (2013) –

Business case for Synthetic Football pitch

City of Whitehorse (2012) – Synthetics Feasibility

Study & Strategy

Pittwater Council (2012) – Procurement (Design

and Build) for Narrabeen Sports College – AFL,

Rugby Union and Football (FIFA 1 Star) pitch

City of Swan (2011-13) – Feasibility of Synthetic

Surfaces for Ellenbrook District Playing Fields

including demographic modelling to identify needs

for the sports of Football, Rugby, Hockey, multi-sport

/ recreation as well as exploring cricket / AFL



City of Willoughby (2011) – Strategic Advice and

Procurement Process, advice on synthetic surface, to

meet needs of Football (FIFA 1 Star) and Cricket

(AFL/CA) with Australia’s first ever AFL/CA surface

standard also meeting FIFA standards

Moreton Bay Regional Council (2011 & 2012) –

Feasibility advice on development of synthetics policy

and feasibility tools for assessment of future facilities

Pittwater Council (2012) – Procurement advice and

project management for new synthetic facility in

partnership with education department and AFL

City of Warringah (2010) – Strategic Advice and

Procurement Process – provision of advice on surface

type for sport, and then we wrote the specification for

the civil and sports surface in conjunction with Dalton

Consulting Engineers (DCE)

City of Knox (2010 & 2011) – provision of strategic

advice on the modelling, participation and development

for the Knox Soccer Centre

ACT Territory Government (2011) – Synthetic

Surfaces Feasibility Study (including 3 specific master

planning programs and successful government

submissions for funding)

City of Whittlesea (2009) – 3 synthetic pitches (FIFA

2 + FIFA 1) - feasibility study and procurement advice

ACT Football Federation (2008) – Feasibility &

Business Modelling Study – Hawker Oval – FIFA 1

standard – feasibility study, business case modelling

and management strategy

Banyule City Council (2011) – Soccer Synthetic

Feasibility Study

City of Melbourne (2005-2008) – Synthetic Feasibility

Study (x2) and procurement advice for in process for

multi-sport synthetic

City of Melton (2011) – advice on synthetic surface

options for soccer and cricket

City of Kingston (2009) – Advice on type of surface

and procurement process for two FIFA pitches

Photo 80: Procurement of two football fields for Kingston City Council

ACT Education Department (2008) – Two grants

obtained for Multi-sports & Football (FIFA 2)

Yarra Ranges Shire Council (2010) – Procurement

support for a synthetics FIFA 1 Star

Moonee Valley Council (2010) – Successful grant

application and the procurement process is currently

being planned

City of Stonington (2010) – Synthetics Surfaces

Feasibility Study

ACT Government (2008) – Synthetic pitch strategy

development

ACT Government (2008) – Diagnostic tools –

synthetic pitches

Port Stephens Council (2009) – Advice on

synthetic surfaces

Delfin Land Lease (Penrith) (2007) – Sports

precinct master planning study

Boroondara City Council (2009) – Sustainable

sports surfaces study

Kingston and Bayside City Councils (2008) –

Artificial sports surface study

Photo 81: Recent Project: Procurement of Northbridge Oval – Football FIFA 1 Star & AFL/ Cricket Community Standard pitch

Football Federation Victoria /Surf Shire Council

(2008/09) – Regional soccer feasibility study

East Gippsland and Wellington Shire Councils

(2009) – Development of strategic plan for sporting

infrastructure

Eastern Region soccer strategy (2007) – SRV,

FFV and six councils

Baw Baw Shire (2006) – Trafalgar and Yarragon

recreation needs study and sports precinct master

plans

What we can offer

Smart Connection Consultancy offers a range of services

for each stage of the planning, design, procurement,

project management, and programming of the synthetic



surface. This allows our clients to have confidence that

they only need to contract one organisation and we will

project manage the process for them. The key stages

include:

Planning and knowledge building

We offer clients advice and knowledge sharing at this first

stage so they can contextualise the opportunity, consider

the options strategically, with rigor and demonstrable facts

tested and prioritised to ensure that the most appropriate

options are determined. These services include:

Knowledge sharing master classes

Planning workshops

Sports participation strategies

Facility feasibility studies and strategies

Synthetic field installation tours - The good, bad

and the (very) ugly

Photo 82: Master class tour of a facility with Local Governments by Martin Sheppard

Design

Our strategic relationship with Dalton Consulting

Engineers (DCE) in Melbourne, (www.dceprofile.com/)

and with similar organisations in other countries and states

ensures we have the design studio to work with our clients

so their vision can be achieved.

This includes the design for procurement or in-house

development. Our links to the world governing bodies of

sport are at the key levels and we can ensure that the

design meets the needs of our clients and also the

standards of the sport.

Photo 83: Design example for project in NSW

Procurement support

Smart Connection Consultancy has supported and

managed a large number of procurement projects for

Local, State and Territory Government departments as

well as sport at a local and state level. The

collaboration with DCE brings strong backgrounds in

both procurement and the civil engineers perspectives

allowing us to cover all bases whether that is Design

and Construct or Detailed Specification options.

We assist and support every stage of the procurement

process to ensure that the client is provided with a

solution that is fit for purpose, considering the following

aspects:

1. Planning and Design – Identifying what level

of performance is needed, what durability, how it

integrates with the landscape, how it is going to be

managed and what constraints there are on site. All of

this will guide the decision making around the

Procurement Strategy (1 or 2 stage process);

2. Procurement Strategy – Expression of

Interest and /or Request For Tender – we can run the

program or support our client to do it. We can design

and develop the specification, schedules, complete the

drawings, develop the evaluation strategy as well as

take it to market. Every stage of the process has rigor

and is transparent.

3. Tender Evaluation – Offering independent

process that ensures that the right organisation and

product is chosen for your project in a transparent

manner.

4. Project Management – Through DCE’s

expertise they can project manage the process for our

clients from design to practical completion.

http://www.dceprofile.com/



Program provision and management

Understanding how to manage the synthetic facilities is

critical for success. Martin has managed synthetic

surface sports facilities since the early 1990’s. He

understands the balance between community use,

sports pathway and development sessions while

ensuring there is a strategy for replacement cost

recovery.

Smart Connection Consultancy has conducted business

cases and strategies for more than 50 sport and

Government organisations with the aim of developing

greater participation at their facilities. Recently, we’ve

been working with a five pitch hockey centre to optimise

their usage and increase their return so that they can

afford to replace the fields.

Standards & advocacy

Smart Connection Consultancy has worked with key

sports bodies in Australia in the development and

guidance of new standards including the National

Rugby League (NRL).

In addition we have provided guidance to national and

state sport organisations on how to interpret and inform

their clubs and organisations on the use and installation

of synthetic surfaces.

With support and open access to FIFA, IRB, Tennis

Australia, Bowls Australia, AFL; Hockey Australia as

well as peak industry bodies in Australia, New Zealand,

Asia, America and Europe, Smart Connection

Consultancy is a strong collaborator to have on any

synthetic surface project.

We continue to promote the benefits of synthetic

surface technology as a way for an organisation to

promote opportunities for their community to be more

active through play, recreation and sport at all levels.



Po Box 5247 South Melbourne

Victoria, Australia, 3205

[email protected]

+61 3 9421 0133

0404022355


the smart guide to synthetic sport surfaces€¦ · the popularity of synthetic surfaces used by...

Documents