[Ville Nurmi]

In an other topic somebody said that they had only moved around 85000 cubic yards of dirt. To me it sounds a lot.

So the question is:

How do you calculate how much dirt is moved during construction. With todays methods ie. USGA greens etc. You will always have to move at least some amount of dirt. Do you normally refer moving dirt as bringing in extra dirt or do you also take account the internal movement of dirt?


Best,

Ville

[paul cowley]

..vanurmi....

  moving dirt is generally accomplished and quantified by three methods [ and this varies ] ;

   'push' dirt ,generally small cuts and fills made during rough and final shaping,usually with a dozer.

    'panned' dirt, cuts made with pans and scrapers and moved in short and long hauls ,generally ,but not always ,on site.

    'top loaded' dirt,excavated by trackhoe or other method,and loaded on dump truck or pan for transport.

....costs ,from low to high, generally follows the above ,with calculations being based on cubic yards moved [cuts].

....most projects try to balance thier cuts and fills on site,to aviod the higher costs associated with importing materials.
....hope this helps ...[but what keeps you up at three in the morning posting about dirt ?][or are you just an early riser]

[Brian Phillips]

Ville,

Hope all is well in Finland.

85 000 m3 in Europe is a lot of dirt to move but in the US that is not that much at all.  The way we have measured dirt moved is to measure areas with GPS first and then measure afterwards.

When I worked in 'real' construction where I was involved in projects that moved millions of cubic we used surveyors all day to measure everything from topsoil removal down to measuring bare rock before blasting.

A 500m2 USGA green will need approximately 170m3 (240 tons) of rootzone and around 60 m3 of drainage gravel.  These figures include some waste.  

There are 1000 litres in one m3 so you can start to work out how much dirt you need to dig if you want a decent clean irrigation pond.

Whenever dirt is moved the area would be surveyed first and then we worked the area.  Afterwards the area would be surveyed again.  The computer would then work out the amount moved.We would then work out the quantities from that.

There are many ways of calculating and sometimes dirt is moved twice.  Does that get used in the equation?  It all depends on the contract.  Some contracts are lump sum with no limit on m3.  Others are based on the amount being moved.  

Brian

[Ville Nurmi]

Thank you Paul and Brian!

My father is a fysics teacher so I am OK with numbers.

18 greens will be then 4500 cubic meters then maybe twice that for tees that is 15.000 cubic meters in all. That is 20.000 cubic yards. That is the a natural golfcourse with no movement of dirt.

But if you say that you use 100.000 cubic yards of dirt, how can you still say that the course follows the flow of land and is natural?

All is well in Finland Brian! When do you move back to Scandinavia. I am going back to Ireland for couple of times during autumn. Maybe we still could meet!

[Brian Phillips]

Vanurmi,

Just let me know and will be on the plane to Dublin..

I might be working in Estonia from the 10th of September until November.  It might be easier for us to meet up in Helsinki as this is only a ferry from Tallin.  I will be working in Parnu.

You cannot call a course natural if you do move that amount of earth in my opinion.  You can make a course look natural, however, what is natural looking to you and I may not be natural looking to someone else.

Brian.

[Forrest Richardson]

Golf courses are not natural. When you clear away natural land and venegation for recreation you dispose of the natural and replace it with mankind's playground. Although it may play through natural areas, it is not "natural".

I feel it matters not (to the definition of "natural") whether you move 20,000 c.y. or 1,500,000 c.y. — you just end up with a different course. One may "look" more natural, but that is all. The better course may well be the 1,500,000 c.y. effort.

Just returned from Ireland and had a great time.

[B. Mogg]

Don't obsess with the numbers - move whatever you have to to create a great golf course - there are no prizes for least dirt moved!

You may have a great "natural" site requiring very little earthmoving but only good for 17 holes - to make it work you might have to move 1-200,000 m3 to make one hole work. You can do that and have the best course for the given site.

Or you can stick to the "moving least dirt principle is best" and end up with 18 forced holes (with little earthmoving) on a site which would have been great for 17. End result - a course which isnt nearly as good as it could have been.

In the end it's the result that matters, not how you achieved that result. I would say if there is one thing wrong with courses in Europe/UK (recently built) is that they didn't move enough earth when they should have and too much when they shouldn't have! (a completely gerneral, unresearched and unsubstantiated claim by the way). A claim probably applicable to courses almost anywhere.

[paul cowley]

....bmogg , good post....

[Paul_Turner]

I had to laugh when the owner of Atlantic implied in his book that the course was natural because only 275,000 was moved, which he  revises to 400,000+ later on!

[Ville Nurmi]

I think you have to have an american budget for construction if you do what bmogg suggests.
I think that is one of the reasons why cost of golf in the old soil is still reasonable compared to US.
I would guess that a mediocre course in US is better then in Europe and that is because your budgets allow you to do just that ie. move 1 M CY for one hole to achieve 18 good ones.
I agree that the goal is to make courses look like natural and act like natural.
This summer is a good example for acting natural at least in FInland. Three weeks +30 celsius. Irrigation systems don´t have the capacity to throw out "enough" water. Courses look beautiful!

Ville

[Bye]

There have been plenty of courses built outside of "America" the have had major budgets. There have been plenty of course built inside "America" for small budgets.

Don't lump an entire country into one basket.

 

[B. Mogg]

Varnumi,

See now I am confused - from reading your initial posts you were saying that 20,000m3 was a natural course and 100,00m3 was not.

Now you are saying that budgetry issues limit the amount of earthworks you can do there.

Of course you must do your works within the budget you are given - but there are many ways to skin a cat and if you move more dirt during earthworks you may be able to save money somewhere else to get the superior result you are looking for. Don't be scared of moving dirt because of some fixed idea of what consitiutes a "natural" course.

What I am saying is that there is no fixed quantity to what consitituted a "natural" course and that it depends more upon how the dirt is moved - hence my example of moving 100,000,3 on one hole to make a great natural course.

I hardly think that Kingsbarns is an example of a minimalist golf course or a low earthworks golf course - even though it appears to be a very "natural" golf course and results in the end are all that matter. That and getting in done within budget of course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()