Artificial Surfaces
In the last in this series of articles exploring
developments in the world of Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) maintenance,
Technical Surfaces takes a look at the importance not only of maintaining an AGP throughout its life, but also of recording the type and frequency of works taking place.
With the recent unveiling of Saracens Rugby Club’s artificial pitch at Allianz Park, AGPs are taking a greater stride towards acceptance in professional sport and, with that, comes an increased responsibility for ensuring these surfaces achieve consistently high performance levels.
Here, Emma Kealy
examines the research and developments in AGP maintenance that have fostered a greater understanding of its
importance; how AGPs are becoming more widely accepted for use by sports governing bodies; and the ways in which the
maintenance industry has evolved and adapted its services to meet the high demands of professional sport
A 62 PC APRIL/MAY 2013
cademic research into the maintenance requirements of AGPs began in earnest in 2003, with the commencement of a four-year doctorate carried out by Dr Iain James and Dr Andy McLeod of the Centre for Sports Surface Technology, Cranfield University. This ground-breaking investigation found that the average maintenance spend on a natural grass pitch was around £7500 per annum, whilst on an AGP maintenance costs were in the region of £8000. This did much to dispel the myth that ‘artificial’ equated to ‘maintenance free’. Indeed, the study found that, although
AGPs are not cheaper to maintain than their natural grass equivalents, they do allow for substantially greater usage than
could possibly be achieved on natural pitches.
Specifically, the Cranfield investigation
reported that typical weekly use on an AGP totalled around forty-four hours, compared to only 4.1 hours on a natural grass pitch - that’s a tenfold increase in the amount of play afforded by an AGP. It therefore follows that the maintenance costs per hour of use for AGPs are ten times less than for natural grass pitches. The concluding report, published in 2008, recommended that AGPs should be maintained ideally from day one; that a usage/maintenance hourly ratio of 10:1 be the standard for the frequency of maintenance taking place on an AGP; and that a pitch condition and maintenance audit be carried out
For the record…
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 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156