Design Rules for Designing on a (Very) Tight Budget: Which Would You Follow?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom- Agronomists I have worked with have always advised against using native soils for greens constructions and having worked in the field I agree with them as it being 'very dangerous.' Certainly in the UK it is very rare that it would be better or as good as importing a tried and tested greens rootzone, even building tees with native soils is a bit of a gamble, that aside I have no knowledge of the soils you have your side of the pond so you may have perfect soils. My one question what if these greens go wrong, who pays? Can you get these projects bonded without them being constructed to USGA guidelines.
Whenever I 'find' a new sand almost 90% of the time it is rejected by the laboratories for one or more reasons, I have conducted experiments also using non conforming sands in some trial areas and the results say the laboratries are right.
First ever seminar I went too this chap stood up and said two ways of building a green "first of all we can go out an mow and keep mowing, add a bit of food inthe spring, keep changing the mowing pattern and when you have done that for 50 years you will probably have a good green" he then quickly moved to method 2 'a USGA green' and explained the benifits of producing a green  that accelerated that 0-50 year process to a single year. Explaining how the regularised particles within the mix compact at the same rate and the water percolation and retention benifits I became totally sold that this is an area not to tamper with.

[Brian Phillips]

Adrian,

I think we as architects have responsibility to create golf courses to highest quality using as little of the client's money as possible.  If this means using native sands correctly instead of always building USGA greens then we should encourage it.

Of course labs are going to reject the native sands if they do not meet USGA recommendations, that is their job.  I ask opinions from the lab in Stirling all the time but the opinions are often very sterile and 'no risk'.  I think the lab is fantastic but they are not sitting on the money sack, they are just giving 'cover my a**' opinions.

What would you do on a links site?  Build USGA greens?  

Kingbarns would never have been built the way it was built if not for none conforming USGA sand.  The greens have a profile of at least 600mm because they used links sand which is a lot finer than a USGA sand.

I am with Tom Doak on this subject and feel that if there is a sand on site with little clay in the profile then I would argue the case to find a solution for using the native soil than importing expensive USGA sand.

If an architect realises that there is good native soil or sand on site then I feel he or she should inform the client the benefits of using it.

In this day and age (2007) we should be able to use native sands even more than they have done in the early days of golf course construction.  

You ask about responsibility.  My job is to inform the client what our personal opinion is.  As long as we lay out the plusses and minuses of each type of build then the final decision can often come down to the client.

I think architects are too quick to use the USGA method and not adapt to local conditions.

I agree that the USGA build is fantastic and that the water retention and air porosity are very important (probably more important than the controversial hydraulic cond.) and we should not ignore them.  However, we can use the USGA studies and experience to build cheaper and just as good greens outside the USGA guidelines using good labs and experienced agronomists.

[Brian Phillips]

Whenever I 'find' a new sand almost 90% of the time it is rejected by the laboratories for one or more reasons

When you say rejected Adrian, do you mean based on USGA guidelines?

Cheers,

Brian

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adrian,
Not too many labs are going to recommend using an on site sand unless it meets USGA specs. But remember it's only sand and based on a lot of other factors like climate, water quality...it may do just fine as a growing medium.
I've believed for years that bermuda greens perform better on sands that don't perc as much as the USGA specs and are higher in organic material. Especially the shallow rooted ultradwarfs, since in the long term it's very, very tough to get those grasses to put down roots of more then 3 inches. Why do I want a sand percolating 20 inches an hour if my grass is shallow rooted? I'd rather have sand that percs about 5 inches and has some water holding capacity. That sand will not meet USGA specs, but IMO it's better for growing bermuda greens.
With proper management I think there are a lot more choices for greens mix then just what the USGA recommends.

[BCrosby]

Am I correct in assuming that there is a quite substantial difference in the cost of builing native soil greens vs. USGA greens?

Bob

[Adrian_Stiff]

Bcrosby- I think I can build 18 USGA greens c $500,000 based on an average 500 sqM. if you break the USGA material aspect down (250mm rootzone/ 50mm grit / 100mm shingle)  id say $350,000 is for materials

Brian- Yes rejected mainly because they do not conform to USGA guidelines, often because of the fines but sometimes because they are not stable, or are the wrong particle shape, high ph. I am not always talking sands native to the site, sometimes sales people say .... we have this sand and when I get it specced, it fails.

Don - I have very little knowledge on Southern turfgrasses so I can't really comment.What you are saying makes sense though. In the UK we are quite restricted what we can grow.

Sands are natural and conforming sands will be native to some land obviously, I only know of three bands in England & Wales where this occurs; Cheshire, c Bounemouth and Leyton Buzzard.

If I was building a links course I probably would use a USGA method. The only complaint I hear about Kingsbarns is the greens, I have not seen them so its second hand info. I am not against using native sands/ soils if they are there ofcourse, I probably would stick a raft in and use the native soil on top.

In the UK we have had quite a lot of litigation situations where new greens have not performed. When these situations go to court the reason is very often 'incorrect materials used'. I know of lots of greens from the 70s that need/ are being rebuilt because of compromising the spec. I have built quite a lot of greens since maybe 1982 and have built them to low specs with nearly right materials and the 1987 USGA spec (which I still largely use) I have no doubt which one is better. Equally I have never found the right sand on site.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

To build USGA greens when there are good native soils is just a waste of money.  The spec was never intended for that ... it's just evolved that way because architects are afraid of litigation, and they think their best defense is "I built it the most expensive way possible".

I have seen a few "USGA greens" fail and I've heard of many others.  Of course, when it happens, the USGA agronomists say "it wasn't built properly".  But now they also say that USGA greens should be REBUILT every 10-15 years, when Oakmont's native-soil greens have survived for 100 years.

Building on native soil is a bit of a crapshoot ... you have to have faith in your agronomist, and faith in the greenkeeper to do the right thing.  But I have built several courses where the native soil would have passed the USGA spec, and to dig it all up and put in gravel and try to perch the water table would have been beyond silly.  I don't lose any sleep over the native soil greens we've built, (knock wood) so far I've never had to dig one of them up.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian:

To build USGA greens when there are good native soils is just a waste of money.  The spec was never intended for that ... it's just evolved that way because architects are afraid of litigation, and they think their best defense is "I built it the most expensive way possible".

I have seen a few "USGA greens" fail and I've heard of many others.  Of course, when it happens, the USGA agronomists say "it wasn't built properly".  But now they also say that USGA greens should be REBUILT every 10-15 years, when Oakmont's native-soil greens have survived for 100 years.

Building on native soil is a bit of a crapshoot ... you have to have faith in your agronomist, and faith in the greenkeeper to do the right thing.  But I have built several courses where the native soil would have passed the USGA spec, and to dig it all up and put in gravel and try to perch the water table would have been beyond silly.  I don't lose any sleep over the native soil greens we've built, (knock wood) so far I've never had to dig one of them up.

Tom I agree with you on many of the points and with Brian Phillips too, we are there to act as the clients honest advisor and just like you both I do not want my client to waste a penny. I work mainly in SouthWest England our soils are pretty poor, twice I have come across native sands but the sands were too fine, they left a residue on my hand so I was almost sure they were never gonna make the grade anyway. If I found sands suitable of course I would not disregard the posibility of using those sands. I like the idea of a raft because it ensures uniformity of each greens performance. USGA greens do need to be built properly and there have been many built in Europe that have not been built properly. The 87 USGA (I think Mike Hurdzman produced a booket) stated that each layer should conform within +/- 10% of its of its depth in order to perform to optimum, if you have a 50mm /2" depth you are talking 0.2" of tolerance on the grit layer.....anyone attempting that with machinery will not be doing the job properly... in time contractors have asked for the specifications to be modified because they cant do the work. The grit layer is now ommitted. The 87 specification (in my opinion the very best method) was important in the relationship of the particle sizes of all three layers, it went on to say that the system could work provided the diameter ratios were equal throughout the layering, ie you could you used diameter values of 5 squarred to 25 (between the rootzone, grit and shingle) through to 10 squarred to 100, but importanly never mix a 5 times rootzone for the grit and then go 10 times with the shingle. As far as I am aware all other USGA methods have evolved to save time time and money and are second rate to the 87 method. I have never had a 87 method fail, I have heard of many 'USGA spec' greens failing but they are of the modified method. I watched a video where a certain tour pro/ designer said he had shaped the rootzone himself after the contractor had placed the rootzone, they were no longer proper functioning USGA greens and doomed to fail... they did. In the South many greens were tried with creeping bents, if the rootzone comprised finer sands in a short time there would not be the space for the roots to penetrate, more indigeneous grasses have a better chance. These greens have to perform in years ahead, Oakmonts 100 year greens survived because the demands on them were much less years ago. I dont know their rounds per year, but when you start approaching 40,000 per annum, the economics of a modern rootzone's behaviour (@ $200,000 more) v. an old fashioned style mix that needs to be intensively managed ..its a no contest. Greens should not need rebuilding after 10-15 years, although USGA greens dont keep you poa immune. Good debate tho. I know in many cases you do use USGA type greens and I guess your lucky to have got some nice natural sandy sites :O)