paces to test the effect of brushing during
maintenance. the tests were carried out using a Fanuc R2000i B series robot
team put an artificial surface through its
Dr Paul Fleming’s
Technical Surfaces have commissioned the world’s first study to assess the effects of brushing on the wear of synthetic sports carpet systems
with reality ... A BRUSH
E
arlier this year Technical Surfaces, the UK’s leading synthetic maintenance specialists, commissioned the undertaking of a report by Loughborough University at the
Sports Technology Institute to assess the effect of brushing on the wear of synthetic sport carpet systems. The research was undertaken by Dr. Paul Fleming to give factual back-up, to what Technical Surfaces already knew through field work, that brushing, carried out in the correct frequency, and with the right machinery, will not detrimentally damage the carpet. “We began sweeping our first pitch back in 1995,” commented Jon Gunn, Technical Director at Technical Surfaces.”This evidence was more to silence the critics within the industry than the pitch or facility owners who have always been over the moon with the work we do.” The preliminary meetings between Technical Surfaces and Dr. Fleming identified three brush types and three surface types for testing. The specifications for the test procedure (including rotation speed, brush head ground speed, depth of brush embedment into the surface under test, direction of rotation and brush size) were also agreed during the initial trials. “The tests basically concentrated on three brushing techniques we use, frequent/regular soft brushing, frequent/regular harder brushing and more intensive annual or bi-annual Revite®
. The
reason we use two different types of brush on our frequent monthly/bi-monthly sweeping is dependent on surface type,” says Jon.
The cycles chosen give extreme examples of the use of the company’s brushing techniques as they wanted to show the worst case scenario and give a clear unequivocal conclusion. However, the cycles for the Dulevo brush (brush used for
regular brushing) clarified as being done weekly. This is certainly possible, however, in reality when they normally go in at best monthly to compliment in-house drag brushing. Therefore, the results for this section which show 0,10, 50 weeks then 3, 5, 10 and 20 years can, in theory, be multiplied by 4 to give even more staggering results of 0, 40 weeks, 2, 12, 20 and 80 years - still with minimal damage!
14
Notes: * 1 cycle = 2 passes of the brush in opposite directions of travel. The cycles are equated to ‘life’ as follows:
Dulevo brushes - done weekly at 2 passes (maximum) so 0, 10, 50, 150, 250, 500 and 1000 cycles is equated to 0, 10, 50 weeks and 3, 5, 10 & 20 years approximately.
Summer head brush - done approximately annually (1 visit, 18 passes at each visit), so 0, 9, 18, 36, 72, 135 and 180 cycles is equated to 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15 & 20 years approximately.
When you consider that most facilities only expect their pitch to last for a 10 year cycle, these figures show how the work that Technical Surfaces do has no impact on the shortening of a pitches life. Indeed the oldest pitch that they maintain is now nearly twenty-five years old!
The following table shows the summary of testing carried out, with the specific details of the test set-up for each system and brush.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138