The three-hour session included reports from two university field managers who recently installed infill systems: Amy J. Fouty, CSFM, athletic turf manager for Michigan State University; and Gilbert Pulley and Dr. Frank Williams of Brigham Young University (BYU). In addition, Dr. Andrew McNitt of Penn State University reported interim results of a study comparing natural turf to infill turf. In the last presentation, Patrick Maguire, a landscape architect with Boston-based Geller Sport, reported on that company's experience financing, designing and installing infill system fields.

It was Pulley's and Williams' presentation that sparked a lively debate with the audience during the question and answer period. So this month we will focus in on that presentation. We will report on the other three synthetic turf presentations in upcoming issues of AT News.

Gilbert Pulley (left) and Dr. Frank Williams of Brigham Young University at the STMA's Synthetic Turf Management workshop.

Williams is a professor of soil science in the Plant and Animal Sciences Department. Pulley is botany foreman the Physical Facilities Division's Grounds Department.

In spring 2002, BYU's athletic department installed a synthetic surface on half of it's football practice field. The other half is sand-based natural turf. Pulley and Williams reported that as soon as practice started, students and coaches began complaining about the heat on the synthetic turf. They reported that one of the coaches actually got blisters on the bottom of his feet from the heat transmitted through his tennis shoes.

Pulley and Williams began taking temperature measurements in June of 2002. They used an infrared thermometer to record temperature both at the surface and 5 feet 6 inches above the field surface on the synthetic turf, natural turf, bare soil, asphalt and concrete. They used a soil thermometer to measure temperature 2 inches below the synthetic turf surface. The pair also measured how fast it took the synthetic turf to heat up after it had been cooled by irrigation.

Pulley and Williams called their preliminary results "shocking."

"The surface temperature of the synthetic turf was 37°F higher than asphalt and 86.5°F hotter than natural turf," the authors reported. "Two inches below the synthetic turf surface was 28.5°F hotter than natural turf at the surface."

The authors admitted that irrigation quickly cooled the synthetic turf surface from 174°F to 85°F. However, in the Utah summer, the authors said the surface temperature rebounded to 120°F in only five minutes. They also said the synthetic turf system did not drain well.

The authors reported that the hottest surface temperature recorded on the synthetic turf field was 200°F on a day when air temperature was 98°F. BYU's Safety Office decided that the synthetic turf surface would have to be monitored and cooled with irrigation as soon as it hit 120°F. They stated that this added considerable cost to the maintenance budget for the synthetic turf field.

The most controversial assertion made by the authors was that for every $1 spent to construct the natural surface, the university spent $11.77 to construct the synthetic turf surface. On the other hand, the authors estimated that for every $1 spent maintaining the synthetic turf surface, the university spent $1.30 to maintain the natural turf surface, a 33% savings.

During the Q&A period, a representative of an infill system manufacturer (but not the manufacturer that installed the BYU practice field) contested the authors' conclusions.

"This was not our installation. That was actually one of our competitor's installations," he said, "So I don't know any of the specifics of this project. I am in the uncomfortable position of defending my competitor. But I have to say that at my company we do not see these kind of drainage problems or an 11X difference in construction costs on the infill systems that we are installing."

Williams' and Pulley's negative attitude towards the BYU synthetic turf practice field was evident throughout their presentation. Pulley also mentioned that the athletic department had refused to accept input from the engineering department during construction and installation of the field.

The authors urged attendees to carefully consider issues of climate and surface temperature, as well as construction and maintenance costs when considering installing infill system synthetic turf surfaces.