You'd think the club would figure it out, or that the complaints wouldn't fall

[Patrick_Mucci]

So it has rained lightly across part of the course meaning that the top 1 inch of sand bunkers on some holes is wet but the sand is dry underneath.
That's systemic and clearly understood by the golfer.

That is except those bunkers where a tree is overhanging meaning certain areas of them have been sheltered and so it is a half/half in the same bunker.

If the branches of the tree hang over the bunker, that means that the drip line and roots are into the bunker.
Would you cite five examples of where tree branches are overhanging half of the bunker and the roots are invading half of the bunkers ?

It addition, it means that the leaves on the trees are falling into the bunker, hiding/covering up the ball so that the golfer can't find or see it when he wants to execute his shot.  Would you cite five courses where this condition exists

Patrick, there are dozens of courses which have bunkers with overhanging trees over parts of them

If that's the case, wet sand is the least of their problems.
Bunkers with tree branches hanging over them have a bigger problem than shade.
With most trees, the roots extend to the drip line, ergo, the roots can block the drainage lines in the bunker and from a golf perspective, create a dangerous situation to golfers who play from beneath those overhanging branches.
Additionally, leaves falling from the overhanging branches create additional playing issues.
Since you're aware of dozens of courses with bunkers with overhanging trees, you should inform them of the issues.

What should the greenstaff do. Hair dryer the wet bunkers or damp down the dry bunkers? If damp down then just the half inch or all bunkers making sure the entire sand is wet? and what happens when the top bit of sand is dry but it is wet underneath?

One can't always offset the impact of Mother Nature, but, one can offset the impact of improperly located or improperly used irrigation heads.
Surely, even you understand the difference.

I agree but the irrigation should be designed to avoid this as much as possible and not the course designed around the irrigation.
There is off course windblow and no I am not going to cite 5 courses which have their irrigation water affected by windblow

Anyone designing an irrigation system, who doesn't factor the prevailing winds into the system can't be considered a consumate professional.
Today's sophisticated systems have specialty heads that accomodate wind conditions on site.
When combined with an understanding of the site specifics, It's hard to imagine that the designer of the system wouldn't design it to incorporate the variables associated with the wind.  If they neglected that aspect of the project, one would hope that their malpractice insurance is paid up.

Why should bunker sand be consistent when the bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes? They are a hazard after all

Is it your contention that architects create different depths to the sand when they construct a bunker ?

No, you have brought this up. I never mentioned it


You mentioned it in a paragraph above.
Here's what you said:

"Why should bunker sand be consistent when the bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes?


That one bunker will have but one inch of sand and another will have ten inches of sand.
I've been around alot of architects and course construction and have never seen the situation you allude to.
Would you identify the course and holes where the architect and contractor built the bunkers to these specifications ?

You are the one going on about sand depth so you answer your own question

Again, I believe you mentioned depth.

Why would an architect or contractor design and construct bunkers with different sand depths in them ?


Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I have some 900 post and have avoided contributing to any of your post, what I am trying to say is I am a Virgin, fresh meat..so go easy on me!

In relation to why the natural sand and the imported sand don´t homogenize is because when you have two different sands that come together you créate a pearched wáter table which is the fundamental component of a USGA Green.

Except that the choker layers are stabilized, both above and beneath the choker layer.

Exposed sand has no such stabilization and is more prone to the influences of wind, rain and gravity.

A two inch coarse sand layer is installed beneath the 12 médium sand layer. This interface causes the wáter to be trapped in the twelve inch sand layer until it reaches 100% saturation, when it reaches this point its like a magical door is opened and the wáter can now begin to drain and make it way down through the coarse sand layers and into and through the gravel and eventually into the drain pipes installed in the base of the Green.

You're confusing and equating green construction with bunker construction and the two have little in common.

So two different sands layered in a bunker will do the same thing, keeping moisture in the top layer until reaching 100% saturation, then and only then will the wáter work it way down to the next sand layer and eventually into the drain pipes.

That's also not true.

The layers of sand in the choker levels of the green aren't raked every day, they're not subject to wind and rain and irrigation doesn't have a direct impact on them.

They are two seperate situations

I agree with you, bunkers should be consistent as posible. Many times I find early in the round wet compacted sand which is difficult and by the eighteenth hole I am finding fried eggs and sugar sand, I don´t like it and feel inconsistency is directly proportional to tricking up the course or making it over diffcult for the majority.

I don't find consistency to be a negative aspect of course design/play

However, I also agree its a freaking hazard, so its something I can live with, we have to choose our battles with owners and this a battle not worth fighting in my opinión.

I think you have to seperate design from maintenance.
Bunkers are hazards, but, they are specially prepared hazards.
The rules even permit removing elements within a hazard prior to play.

I think a golfer is entitled to a "margin" within a hazard.
A minimum layer of sand if you will.
I've played from bunkers that either had no sand or had become ladden with mud/dirt.
Those conditions might affect my choice of wedges prior to my play of the course.
So, while I'm not seeking perfection, I do think there should be an element of systemic consistency..

I don´t think its the responsibility of the architect directly, indirectly yes, we should recommend to the owner that two speed heads be involved or two seperate sprinklers be added, one next to the other that allows for partial coverage with one sprinkler and partial coverage with another or one of the two being different speeds and different nozzles that throw less distance or less wáter, ect.


I think the topic you bring up, above, is more of a budget item.
You know what you need, but, is it feasible based upon the budget you're presented with.
This topic is crafted with an understanding that there were no budget constraints.
And, the course/bunkers that triggered this thread did not have budget constraints.

When a developer starts drilling down to the individual head level, one has to question their motives, expertise and budget.

There are solution but there costly and the owners cut the cake and when presented with the cost differce most will go back to...its a freaking hazard, so what if its inconsistent.

I think at one point, the question has to be asked of the developer, "what's the quality of the product you wish to produce ?"

There are a few exceptions where they say, yes I want it perfect and my clients(future members) want it perfect so I will pass the cost onto them and they will pay a higher initiation fee and they deserve perfection.

On the other hand, a failure to spend the dollars required to provide a quality product might come back to haunt the developer.
How stupid would he look, if he spent $ 6,000,000 and chintzed on $ 100,000 and his bunkers were all soaking wet ?

It would probably costs him a multiple to fix what should have been implicit in the original design

I have not found one yet willing to do so and doubt that I ever will, irrigation cost have gone through the roof, something like 700% in 20 years.

If you look at the number of lines and heads today, versus 50 years ago, you can understand why.
The evolving desire to irrigate, macro and micro, wall to wall and in isolated areas, has caused costs to explode.

Normally the scenario is when the irrigation plans arrive there is a big meeting with all those involved and the owner wants to know where can he reduce and what are the consequences of the reduction and when it is explained its, bye-bye sophisticated designs around the greens.

I think that's an interesting dynamic.
I would be hard pressed to see sophisticated golfer/developers, like Ken Bakst or Roger Hansen, skimping on elements that they know will compromise their final product, the one that golfers will play.

So,, I have to ask you, are these client/developer golfers or people who are interested in a golf project ?

There, I have lost my virginity! Let it rip!

Randy,  unlike many of the morons on this site, you have raised valid points and I hope that I've addressed them properly.

oh and before somebody rips me a new one, let me clarify these sophisticated costly designs, lessen the problem but 100% elimination of the problem is close to imposible.

Agreed, but, you can get it down to acceptable levels.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I think you need to reread my post. I say 'bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes' not depth of sand. About dangerous bunkers with tree roots and all that. I guess you need to talk to Pine Valley about that as they have plenty of bunkers with trees in them as do many other courses who seem to have no problem.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I think you need to reread my post. I say 'bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes' not depth of sand.

About dangerous bunkers with tree roots and all that.

I guess you need to talk to Pine Valley about that as they have plenty of bunkers with trees in them as do many other courses who seem to have no problem.

I did discuss this with PV many years ago.
My discussion was prompted by a number of bunkers with this problem, but especially the greenside bunker to the right of the 13th green.
Since that time, there's been an ongoing and successful effort to eliminate the situation.
Most were non-deciduous trees.

What other courses were you referencing where the condition exists without it being a problem ?



Jon

[Randy Thompson]

Patrick,

I have some 900 post and have avoided contributing to any of your post, what I am trying to say is I am a Virgin, fresh meat..so go easy on me!

In relation to why the natural sand and the imported sand don´t homogenize is because when you have two different sands that come together you créate a pearched wáter table which is the fundamental component of a USGA Green.

Except that the choker layers are stabilized, both above and beneath the choker layer.

Exposed sand has no such stabilization and is more prone to the influences of wind, rain and gravity.

A two inch coarse sand layer is installed beneath the 12 médium sand layer. This interface causes the wáter to be trapped in the twelve inch sand layer until it reaches 100% saturation, when it reaches this point its like a magical door is opened and the wáter can now begin to drain and make it way down through the coarse sand layers and into and through the gravel and eventually into the drain pipes installed in the base of the Green.

You're confusing and equating green construction with bunker construction and the two have little in common.

So two different sands layered in a bunker will do the same thing, keeping moisture in the top layer until reaching 100% saturation, then and only then will the wáter work it way down to the next sand layer and eventually into the drain pipes.

That's also not true.

The layers of sand in the choker levels of the green aren't raked every day, they're not subject to wind and rain and irrigation doesn't have a direct impact on them.

They are two seperate situations
Maybe I don´t understand your original scenario in relation to the whole natural sand and imported sand scenario but I do have a pretty good understanding of green construction and bunker construction. My comments were based on a hypothical situation where the base of the bunker is a native sand or high percentage of sand and then a four inch layer of imported sand in brought in placed on top of the native sand base. If this is the case you will créate a perched wáter table similar to what is found in green construction using the choker layer and the imported sand will stay wet and not drain as quickly or dry out as quickly. The interface will occur where the two sands meet which is four inches from the surface and should not be effected by raking or wind.
I agree with you, bunkers should be consistent as posible. Many times I find early in the round wet compacted sand which is difficult and by the eighteenth hole I am finding fried eggs and sugar sand, I don´t like it and feel inconsistency is directly proportional to tricking up the course or making it over diffcult for the majority.

I don't find consistency to be a negative aspect of course design/play

However, I also agree its a freaking hazard, so its something I can live with, we have to choose our battles with owners and this a battle not worth fighting in my opinión.

I think you have to seperate design from maintenance.
Bunkers are hazards, but, they are specially prepared hazards.
The rules even permit removing elements within a hazard prior to play.

I think a golfer is entitled to a "margin" within a hazard.
A minimum layer of sand if you will.
I've played from bunkers that either had no sand or had become ladden with mud/dirt.
Those conditions might affect my choice of wedges prior to my play of the course.
So, while I'm not seeking perfection, I do think there should be an element of systemic consistency..
Many times bunkers are constructed with a certain slope with the surfaces shaped to catch wáter in one área in order to avoid additional cost of expensive herringbone drainage systems. When this is the case heavy rains produce erosion and a accumulation of additional sand in the lowest part of the bunker occur. The high parts have less sand as a result and it is the maintenance crews responsibility to return the sand to original depths. That doesn´t always happen, so a high área that once had four inches of sand now has one inch of sand and I asume it has four inches. I hit my shot and in the middle of the execution my club hits the clay base, almost break my wrist and bounces off the clay and my playing partners take shelter becasue that ball could go anywhere. If I know there is one inch of sand only then I play a shot similar to if I was hitting out of grass, so thats why I want consistent depths, no surprizes. So were in agreement here, just sharing another scenario!
I don´t think its the responsibility of the architect directly, indirectly yes, we should recommend to the owner that two speed heads be involved or two seperate sprinklers be added, one next to the other that allows for partial coverage with one sprinkler and partial coverage with another or one of the two being different speeds and different nozzles that throw less distance or less wáter, ect.


I think the topic you bring up, above, is more of a budget item.
You know what you need, but, is it feasible based upon the budget you're presented with.
This topic is crafted with an understanding that there were no budget constraints.
And, the course/bunkers that triggered this thread did not have budget constraints.

I can´t comment on specific situation without more knowledge but I can say it tough to seek and deliver perfection. I can share with you what I have found a large percentage of the time in my travels. White sands are usualy silica based sand and manufactured and therefore angular in their composition. This helps in creating a firm base and produces to a lesser degree fried eggs because they compact better. The other side of the sword is they don´t infiltrate and perculate like more rounder type sands, thus they will be slower to dry out and therefore more prone to algae formation or even eventually puddling. The formation of the algae slows even more the infiltration of the wáter through a sealing effect produce by the formation of the algae. The ideal sand for greens construction is a larger percentage of rounded particle size in order to resist compaction. So if we follow the recomendations were going to have a more angular sand in the bunkers and and a rounded sand in the Green construction. Then after years of blasting out of Green side bunkers you accumulate a layer of angular sand on top of the rounded sand and you know what you get..a perched wáter table in those áreas with surfaces that don´t dry out and you start developing moss, mold, fungus and growing grass becomes extremley difficult. I try to use the same sand for Green construction and bunkers to avoid this potential problem but I have to live with fried egg complaints for the first six months to a year. But some clubs exsist on the White color..there are pro and cons to everything we do..if the perfect formula exsist, I have not come across it as of yet and for that matter, I don´t think the USGA has either!
When a developer starts drilling down to the individual head level, one has to question their motives, expertise and budget.

There are solution but there costly and the owners cut the cake and when presented with the cost differce most will go back to...its a freaking hazard, so what if its inconsistent.

I think at one point, the question has to be asked of the developer, "what's the quality of the product you wish to produce ?"

There are a few exceptions where they say, yes I want it perfect and my clients(future members) want it perfect so I will pass the cost onto them and they will pay a higher initiation fee and they deserve perfection.

On the other hand, a failure to spend the dollars required to provide a quality product might come back to haunt the developer.
How stupid would he look, if he spent $ 6,000,000 and chintzed on $ 100,000 and his bunkers were all soaking wet ?

It would probably costs him a multiple to fix what should have been implicit in the original design

I have not found one yet willing to do so and doubt that I ever will, irrigation cost have gone through the roof, something like 700% in 20 years.

If you look at the number of lines and heads today, versus 50 years ago, you can understand why.
The evolving desire to irrigate, macro and micro, wall to wall and in isolated areas, has caused costs to explode.

Copper cost have also trippled and as a result wire cost are through the roof. One of the major components of PVC is petrolium and I think we can safely add on another raw material that has trippled.

Normally the scenario is when the irrigation plans arrive there is a big meeting with all those involved and the owner wants to know where can he reduce and what are the consequences of the reduction and when it is explained its, bye-bye sophisticated designs around the greens.

I think that's an interesting dynamic.
I would be hard pressed to see sophisticated golfer/developers, like Ken Bakst or Roger Hansen, skimping on elements that they know will compromise their final product, the one that golfers will play.

So,, I have to ask you, are these client/developer golfers or people who are interested in a golf project ?

I guess it depends on your clients and level of sophistication of your golf market. My company has done some 20 designs and constructions and I have had one golfing client out of 20 and his knowledge was also very limited. The South American market is still being fueled by housing developments for added security and the golf is an attractive amenity and nothing more.

There, I have lost my virginity! Let it rip!

Randy,  unlike many of the morons on this site, you have raised valid points and I hope that I've addressed them properly.

oh and before somebody rips me a new one, let me clarify these sophisticated costly designs, lessen the problem but 100% elimination of the problem is close to imposible.

Agreed, but, you can get it down to acceptable levels.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I think you need to reread my post. I say 'bunkers themselves are different depths, angle, sizes' not depth of sand.

About dangerous bunkers with tree roots and all that.

I guess you need to talk to Pine Valley about that as they have plenty of bunkers with trees in them as do many other courses who seem to have no problem.

I did discuss this with PV many years ago.
My discussion was prompted by a number of bunkers with this problem, but especially the greenside bunker to the right of the 13th green.
Since that time, there's been an ongoing and successful effort to eliminate the situation.
Most were non-deciduous trees.

What other courses were you referencing where the condition exists without it being a problem ?



Jon

Patrick,

I am glad you raised this with PV, how did they go about remedying the situation?

Other courses with such situations include Dewsbury, Howley Hall, Shipley Beckfoot and Moortown to name just a few  in a small geographical location. I do not recall there being a problem with tree roots in the bunkers however. I know that Fulford near York had big problems with some trees but these were all with poplars which have very aggressive rooting.

Jon

[Dane Hawker]

Regular irrigation has been required to maintain healthy turf while portions of the North-Central Region have been in the grip of recent dry weather. When greens and fairways are irrigated, bunkers will also receive irrigation. During Turf Advisory Service visits, golfers have asked why bunker sand is wet and firm. If the sand is not installed to the proper depth, it will not drain rapidly, and this will affect how bunkers perform.

A bunker is a hazard and there is no rule that mandates a hazard must be consistent. However, the depth of sand affects how bunkers perform under various weather conditions. If sand is installed too shallow, with the intent of producing firm playing conditions (or possibly saving money), it will not drain uniformly. Bunker slopes may be dry, but low-lying areas of the bunker will collect water and not release it into drains. Thus, when irrigation is used for many days in a row, golfers experience wet and dry conditions within bunkers. Shallow sand depth is also why some bunkers remain too wet and become contaminated with algae at the sand surface.

There are many factors to consider when selecting bunker sand. Testing the sand is important and one measurement – particle size distribution – can be used to determine the ideal depth of sand for a bunker. A few inches of less-than-ideal sand depth can have a significant impact on playability and drainage

Source - http://www.usga.org/course_care/regional_updates/regional_reports/northcentral/Hazard-Ahead-%E2%80%93-Sand-Depth-Matters---September-2013(2)/

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I am glad you raised this with PV, how did they go about remedying the situation?

Jon,

They did it in stages.

First stage:

Cut/prune the limbs of the trees where the branches were invasive, where the branches inhibited the golfer's ability to swing his club in an attempt to extricate him from the bunker.

At one time getting out of some bunkers required a Black & Decker

Then, the trees in immediate proximity to the bunker were removed.

Other courses with such situations include Dewsbury, Howley Hall, Shipley Beckfoot and Moortown to name just a few  in a small geographical location. I do not recall there being a problem with tree roots in the bunkers however. I know that Fulford near York had big problems with some trees but these were all with poplars which have very aggressive rooting.

If the drip line extends over the bunker, I can't imagine that they don't have a root problem, unless, they engaged in a root pruning process.

Years ago, a club inserted a metal/lead sheet into the subsurface to prevent roots from entering into areas of play.
That practice has since been stopped/banned

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regular irrigation has been required to maintain healthy turf while portions of the North-Central Region have been in the grip of recent dry weather. When greens and fairways are irrigated, bunkers will also receive irrigation.

During Turf Advisory Service visits, golfers have asked why bunker sand is wet and firm. If the sand is not installed to the proper depth, it will not drain rapidly, and this will affect how bunkers perform.

Sorry, I don't buy that theory.
What physical or scientific properties would cause bunkers with a foot of sand to drain faster/better than a bunker with 4 inches of sand or 2 inches of sand ?


A bunker is a hazard and there is no rule that mandates a hazard must be consistent.

That's not quite the case.
The rules allow for removing inconsistencies, in the form of stones in bunkers, which can be deemed as movable obstructions under (24-1)

Do you adhere to the proposition that one bunker should have bunker sand depth of 12 inches and another 6 inches, and others 8 and 4 inches ?

OR, do you think that there should be a consistent bunker sand depth ?


However, the depth of sand affects how bunkers perform under various weather conditions. If sand is installed too shallow, with the intent of producing firm playing conditions (or possibly saving money), it will not drain uniformly.

Again, I don't buy that premise.

Bunker slopes may be dry, but low-lying areas of the bunker will collect water and not release it into drains.


Why not ?
What prevents a bunker, with shallow sand depth, from draining properly ?


Thus, when irrigation is used for many days in a row, golfers experience wet and dry conditions within bunkers.

Wouldn't a competent superintendent notice that condition and dial back on the irrigation ?


 Shallow sand depth is also why some bunkers remain too wet and become contaminated with algae at the sand surface.

WHY does shallow sand depth result in poor drainage ?



There are many factors to consider when selecting bunker sand. Testing the sand is important and one measurement – particle size distribution – can be used to determine the ideal depth of sand for a bunker.

A few inches of less-than-ideal sand depth can have a significant impact on playability and drainage

How so ?

Source - http://www.usga.org/course_care/regional_updates/regional_reports/northcentral/Hazard-Ahead-%E2%80%93-Sand-Depth-Matters---September-2013(2)/[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I have some 900 post and have avoided contributing to any of your post, what I am trying to say is I am a Virgin, fresh meat..so go easy on me!

In relation to why the natural sand and the imported sand don´t homogenize is because when you have two different sands that come together you créate a pearched wáter table which is the fundamental component of a USGA Green.

Except that the choker layers are stabilized, both above and beneath the choker layer.

Exposed sand has no such stabilization and is more prone to the influences of wind, rain and gravity.

A two inch coarse sand layer is installed beneath the 12 médium sand layer. This interface causes the wáter to be trapped in the twelve inch sand layer until it reaches 100% saturation, when it reaches this point its like a magical door is opened and the wáter can now begin to drain and make it way down through the coarse sand layers and into and through the gravel and eventually into the drain pipes installed in the base of the Green.

You're confusing and equating green construction with bunker construction and the two have little in common.

So two different sands layered in a bunker will do the same thing, keeping moisture in the top layer until reaching 100% saturation, then and only then will the wáter work it way down to the next sand layer and eventually into the drain pipes.

That's also not true.

The layers of sand in the choker levels of the green aren't raked every day, they're not subject to wind and rain and irrigation doesn't have a direct impact on them.

They are two seperate situations

Maybe I don´t understand your original scenario in relation to the whole natural sand and imported sand scenario but I do have a pretty good understanding of green construction and bunker construction. My comments were based on a hypothical situation where the base of the bunker is a native sand or high percentage of sand and then a four inch layer of imported sand in brought in placed on top of the native sand base. If this is the case you will créate a perched wáter table similar to what is found in green construction using the choker layer and the imported sand will stay wet and not drain as quickly or dry out as quickly. The interface will occur where the two sands meet which is four inches from the surface and should not be effected by raking or wind.

Randy, maybe the wind won't affect the homogenization of the sands, but surely, play and raking will, espeicially if you're using a Sand-Pro to maintain your bunkers.

I agree with you, bunkers should be consistent as posible. Many times I find early in the round wet compacted sand which is difficult and by the eighteenth hole I am finding fried eggs and sugar sand, I don´t like it and feel inconsistency is directly proportional to tricking up the course or making it over diffcult for the majority.

I don't find consistency to be a negative aspect of course design/play

However, I also agree its a freaking hazard, so its something I can live with, we have to choose our battles with owners and this a battle not worth fighting in my opinión.

I think you have to seperate design from maintenance.
Bunkers are hazards, but, they are specially prepared hazards.
The rules even permit removing elements within a hazard prior to play.

I think a golfer is entitled to a "margin" within a hazard.
A minimum layer of sand if you will.
I've played from bunkers that either had no sand or had become ladden with mud/dirt.
Those conditions might affect my choice of wedges prior to my play of the course.
So, while I'm not seeking perfection, I do think there should be an element of systemic consistency..

Many times bunkers are constructed with a certain slope with the surfaces shaped to catch wáter in one área in order to avoid additional cost of expensive herringbone drainage systems. When this is the case heavy rains produce erosion and a accumulation of additional sand in the lowest part of the bunker occur. The high parts have less sand as a result and it is the maintenance crews responsibility to return the sand to original depths. That doesn´t always happen, so a high área that once had four inches of sand now has one inch of sand and I asume it has four inches. I hit my shot and in the middle of the execution my club hits the clay base, almost break my wrist and bounces off the clay and my playing partners take shelter becasue that ball could go anywhere. If I know there is one inch of sand only then I play a shot similar to if I was hitting out of grass, so thats why I want consistent depths, no surprizes. So were in agreement here, just sharing another scenario!


Randy, I've played a little golf in my life and it's been my experience that balls hit into upslopes on bunkers, with one inch or less of sand, don't stay where they impact, they roll back down to the lower spots of the bunker, so I'm afraid that I can't accept your hypothetical example.

I don´t think its the responsibility of the architect directly, indirectly yes, we should recommend to the owner that two speed heads be involved or two seperate sprinklers be added, one next to the other that allows for partial coverage with one sprinkler and partial coverage with another or one of the two being different speeds and different nozzles that throw less distance or less wáter, ect.


I think the topic you bring up, above, is more of a budget item.
You know what you need, but, is it feasible based upon the budget you're presented with.
This topic is crafted with an understanding that there were no budget constraints.
And, the course/bunkers that triggered this thread did not have budget constraints.

I can´t comment on specific situation without more knowledge but I can say it tough to seek and deliver perfection. I can share with you what I have found a large percentage of the time in my travels. White sands are usualy silica based sand and manufactured and therefore angular in their composition. This helps in creating a firm base and produces to a lesser degree fried eggs because they compact better. The other side of the sword is they don´t infiltrate and perculate like more rounder type sands, thus they will be slower to dry out and therefore more prone to algae formation or even eventually puddling.

The formation of the algae slows even more the infiltration of the wáter through a sealing effect produce by the formation of the algae. The ideal sand for greens construction is a larger percentage of rounded particle size in order to resist compaction.

It's a balance between popcorn and marbles and the tendency has been to move away from the round sand (marbles) to the angular sand (popcorn)


So if we follow the recomendations were going to have a more angular sand in the bunkers and and a rounded sand in the Green construction. Then after years of blasting out of Green side bunkers you accumulate a layer of angular sand on top of the rounded sand and you know what you get..a perched wáter table in those áreas with surfaces that don´t dry out and you start developing moss, mold, fungus and growing grass becomes extremley difficult.

I try to use the same sand for Green construction and bunkers to avoid this potential problem but I have to live with fried egg complaints for the first six months to a year.

I had recommended this arrangement as early as 1990 and still think it makes sense.
Others disagreed.


But some clubs exsist on the White color..there are pro and cons to everything we do..if the perfect formula exsist, I have not come across it as of yet and for that matter, I don´t think the USGA has either!

When a developer starts drilling down to the individual head level, one has to question their motives, expertise and budget.

There are solution but there costly and the owners cut the cake and when presented with the cost differce most will go back to...its a freaking hazard, so what if its inconsistent.

I think at one point, the question has to be asked of the developer, "what's the quality of the product you wish to produce ?"

There are a few exceptions where they say, yes I want it perfect and my clients(future members) want it perfect so I will pass the cost onto them and they will pay a higher initiation fee and they deserve perfection.

On the other hand, a failure to spend the dollars required to provide a quality product might come back to haunt the developer.
How stupid would he look, if he spent $ 6,000,000 and chintzed on $ 100,000 and his bunkers were all soaking wet ?

It would probably costs him a multiple to fix what should have been implicit in the original design

I have not found one yet willing to do so and doubt that I ever will, irrigation cost have gone through the roof, something like 700% in 20 years.

If you look at the number of lines and heads today, versus 50 years ago, you can understand why.
The evolving desire to irrigate, macro and micro, wall to wall and in isolated areas, has caused costs to explode.

Copper cost have also trippled and as a result wire cost are through the roof. One of the major components of PVC is petrolium and I think we can safely add on another raw material that has trippled.

You can throw in labor costs as well.
There's no question that the more elaborate irrigation systems are more costly, but, the current culture, mostly perpetuated by what golfers see on TV every week, want wall to wall, state of the art irrigation systems.

It won't be until brown becomes beautiful that that trend will change.

Normally the scenario is when the irrigation plans arrive there is a big meeting with all those involved and the owner wants to know where can he reduce and what are the consequences of the reduction and when it is explained its, bye-bye sophisticated designs around the greens.

I think that's an interesting dynamic.
I would be hard pressed to see sophisticated golfer/developers, like Ken Bakst or Roger Hansen, skimping on elements that they know will compromise their final product, the one that golfers will play.

So,, I have to ask you, are these client/developer golfers or people who are interested in a golf project ?

I guess it depends on your clients and level of sophistication of your golf market. My company has done some 20 designs and constructions and I have had one golfing client out of 20 and his knowledge was also very limited. The South American market is still being fueled by housing developments for added security and the golf is an attractive amenity and nothing more.

I think so, unfortunately, when you take the King's Schilling, you have to do the King's bidding, so it's a balancing act.

There, I have lost my virginity! Let it rip!

Randy,  unlike many of the morons on this site, you have raised valid points and I hope that I've addressed them properly.

oh and before somebody rips me a new one, let me clarify these sophisticated costly designs, lessen the problem but 100% elimination of the problem is close to imposible.

Agreed, but, you can get it down to acceptable levels.

[Randy Thompson]

Randy, I've played a little golf in my life and it's been my experience that balls hit into upslopes on bunkers, with one inch or less of sand, don't stay where they impact, they roll back down to the lower spots of the bunker, so I'm afraid that I can't accept your hypothetical example.

Patrick,
You have played a lot of golf in your life and I have played a little. Anyways, what I was refering to is the bunker floors (2-3% slope to one eventual low spot where a drain is installed) and I think what you are refering to is what I consider the bunker faces (up to +20% slope). South America likes these bunker faces just like your describing with the one inch of sand and the ball rolls back down like you are saying. I don´t agree with that form of construction because you end up having a pretty much standard stance and one standard shot. I don´t like to trick up anything but I do think I have a responsibility to créate different stances within the bunker to test the players ability to recover from different stances. So I like at least six inches in these faces and not heavily compacted so the ball has a chance of staying on the slope and creating a more challenging recovery shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Randy,

Doesn't a 6 inch depth on the slope cause maintenance issues when subjected to heavy rains, especially with round sand particles ?

How do you hold it on the slope ?

[Randy Thompson]

Randy,

Doesn't a 6 inch depth on the slope cause maintenance issues when subjected to heavy rains, especially with round sand particles ?

How do you hold it on the slope ?

If the sand is roundish in nature it will infiltrate and perculate quite good as we previously discussed(up to 40 inches an hour). Erosion occurs when the wáter picks up velocity, the idea is to catch it quick by installing a smile drainage at the upper part of the slope and then typical herringbone drainage. Water enters into the corresponding drain quickly and doesn´t allow it to pick up velocity on the surface or on the base and cause erosion. The photo is from a course outside of Sao Paublo, Brazil where eight inches of rain can occur in a couple of hours and they are holding quite well. This also extends the life of the sand. What shortens the life of the sand many times is in the situation you describe is that once it erodes your clay base becomes exposed and continued rains causes the base to erode and the fines mix with the sand and further decrease the perculation rates and then the erosion becomes more and more common and the problems compund through the years.  You no longer have pure sand but sand and clay. We also redid all the bunkers with this system at Buenos Aires Golf in 2009 prior to the World cup amerature event with some really steep faces and downpours are common and they have had almost no erosion since and the sand quality remain the same to date as when we first installed the new sand almost five years ago. Turfgrass management is a lot of science as is golf construction but I have had good results by adding a little common sence, especially if its economical because golf down here is mainly played on two days a week, so we don´t have budgets for sportscrete, Billy whatever and other sophiscated costly methods.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Randy,

The upper perimeter drain is interesting.
I don't recall seeing many of these.

Do you ever use liners ?

[Randy Thompson]

Patrick in the 80´s yes with disasterous results, the typical geotextile. I am in this momento in a course in Caracas, Ven. consulting on a Dick Wilson design and last year we removed all geotexiles in the bunker bases. I have not used any of the newest liners sand mat ect ect. In the course where the picture was taken, is a very tropical climate and really can produce some turd floaters as we call them. So as an added insurance we sprayed a liguid asphalt to make the base impermiable in case some sand did erode and left the base exposed. Brazil likes to protect their industires and tax the crap out of anything imported. So if a product cost X in Usa it getting close to 3X in Brazil and 2X in Argentina, so have not had the chance to experiment with some of the newer products and I am satisfied with current results of the programed I previously outlined.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick,
Somewhere above you wrote that you are not buying the fact that too little sand can stay wetter then the "right" amount of sand. It can and this is not opinion, it is scientific fact. All soils retain water against gravitational forces, some more then others. Sand, because of it's particle size retains less water, but based on particle size distribution, different sands have different properties. We use a water release curve to determine at what depth the sand will release the water. Basically it is the weight of the water that breaks free from the sand and then drains. If we don't have enough sand depth, we don't build up enough water weight, and the water holding capacity of the sand is stronger then the gravitational forces. The sand will still dry out in time just due to atmospheric conditions, but probably not fast enough to keep up with irrigation water applied. Thus, whether you buy into it or not, the depth of sand in the bunker does matter, just as it does in a green or fairway capping. Sometimes too little sand is worse then none at all.
If you want more details I can send you real world test results that show how much water is held, and released at different sand depths.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
Somewhere above you wrote that you are not buying the fact that too little sand can stay wetter then the "right" amount of sand.


That's not what I wrote.
I'd suggest that you reread my post.

It can and this is not opinion, it is scientific fact. All soils retain water against gravitational forces, some more then others. Sand, because of it's particle size retains less water, but based on particle size distribution, different sands have different properties. We use a water release curve to determine at what depth the sand will release the water. Basically it is the weight of the water that breaks free from the sand and then drains. If we don't have enough sand depth, we don't build up enough water weight, and the water holding capacity of the sand is stronger then the gravitational forces.

So it's you contention that six inches of water on the surface doesn't provide adequate weight to counter the adhesive forces of the sand ?

The sand will still dry out in time just due to atmospheric conditions, but probably not fast enough to keep up with irrigation water applied.

Thus, whether you buy into it or not, the depth of sand in the bunker does matter, just as it does in a green or fairway capping. Sometimes too little sand is worse then none at all.

I don't buy into 8 inches of sand draining faster than 4 inches of sand.
But, I do buy into particle shape having an impact.

If you want more details I can send you real world test results that show how much water is held, and released at different sand depths.

I would appreciate your sending that too me

[Dane Hawker]

Patrick,
Somewhere above you wrote that you are not buying the fact that too little sand can stay wetter then the "right" amount of sand.


That's not what I wrote.
I'd suggest that you reread my post.

It can and this is not opinion, it is scientific fact. All soils retain water against gravitational forces, some more then others. Sand, because of it's particle size retains less water, but based on particle size distribution, different sands have different properties. We use a water release curve to determine at what depth the sand will release the water. Basically it is the weight of the water that breaks free from the sand and then drains. If we don't have enough sand depth, we don't build up enough water weight, and the water holding capacity of the sand is stronger then the gravitational forces.

So it's you contention that six inches of water on the surface doesn't provide adequate weight to counter the adhesive forces of the sand ?

The sand will still dry out in time just due to atmospheric conditions, but probably not fast enough to keep up with irrigation water applied.

Thus, whether you buy into it or not, the depth of sand in the bunker does matter, just as it does in a green or fairway capping. Sometimes too little sand is worse then none at all.

I don't buy into 8 inches of sand draining faster than 4 inches of sand.
But, I do buy into particle shape having an impact.

If you want more details I can send you real world test results that show how much water is held, and released at different sand depths.

I would appreciate your sending that too me

Pat, originally we were talking about sand being wet and hard, not covered in 8 inches of water. That could be many things like a sprinkler not turning , blocked drains or some serious over watering.
If there is a small puddle from irrigation the first thing I would check is sand depth. If sand depth is ok then there may be a blocked drain or the sand is silted up and needs replacing.

I have definatly seen puddles in a bunker because there is not enough sand. Add sand to the correct depth for sand specs and it will be fine.

The original question was "Is this an indication of improper irrigation heads, poor locations or ill conceived architecture ?"
Sand depth can be added to that question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dane,

I'm certainly interested in any relationship between sand depth and drainage rates.

Remember, the initial thread had to do with wet sand when there had been dry weather conditions.

In terms of hard sand, one would think that daily raking would ameliorate that situation.

The original post also dealt with some of the bunker being wet and some of it being dry.

I would imagine that the half and half situation has less to do with drainage and more to do with application

[Bryan Izatt]

Some slides from a slide show by jbgruver at http://www.slideshare.net/jbgruver/understanding-soil-water that might help explain the concepts here.  What I take from it is that as you increase the depth of the sand you increase the amount of water the sand can hold before reaching field capacity, saturation and drainage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I think the last two exhibits are most interesting.

They seem to contradict some replies relative to drainage when two layers of sand comprise the floor of a bunker.

Unless I'm intrepreting them incorrectly, they seem to state that the water won't drain/disperse down unto the second level until the first level becomes saturated.

This would seem to promote the retention of wet conditions, not abate them.

This would seem to indicate that the water won't drain to the lower level of sand until the upper level is saturated.

If the upper level is 6-8 inches, that would require more water within the upper layer before it would drain to the lower level.

Thus, shouldn't the upper level be shallower, permiting saturation quicker and with less water ?

Thanks for the exhibits.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I think the last two exhibits are most interesting.

They seem to contradict some replies relative to drainage when two layers of sand comprise the floor of a bunker.

Unless I'm intrepreting them incorrectly, they seem to state that the water won't drain/disperse down unto the second level until the first level becomes saturated.

This would seem to promote the retention of wet conditions, not abate them.

This would seem to indicate that the water won't drain to the lower level of sand until the upper level is saturated.

If the upper level is 6-8 inches, that would require more water within the upper layer before it would drain to the lower level.

Thus, shouldn't the upper level be shallower, permiting saturation quicker and with less water ?

Thanks for the exhibits.

[Dane Hawker]

Bryan,

I think the last two exhibits are most interesting.

They seem to contradict some replies relative to drainage when two layers of sand comprise the floor of a bunker.

Unless I'm intrepreting them incorrectly, they seem to state that the water won't drain/disperse down unto the second level until the first level becomes saturated.

This would seem to promote the retention of wet conditions, not abate them.

This would seem to indicate that the water won't drain to the lower level of sand until the upper level is saturated.

If the upper level is 6-8 inches, that would require more water within the upper layer before it would drain to the lower level.

Thus, shouldn't the upper level be shallower, permiting saturation quicker and with less water ?

Thanks for the exhibits.

I think having two different layers of sand is just asking for trouble. Bunker sand should just be one type throughout

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dane,

Between golfers, animals, wind, rain, frost and raking, I don't know how you'd keep the two layers seperate.

I'd agree, it seems like a premise that would come apart with time, wear and tear.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dane,
those images depict a clay type layer over a sand type layer. That is not what happens in a bunker.
The reason the water in the clay fights gravity so much is because the pores are small and more water is in contact with soil particles creating the tension that "holds" water.

This debate can go on forever, but the bottom line is, put sand in your bunkers that drains well (high porosity) and limit the amount of water that you put on the sand. While I don't think Patrick ever really tried to understand my post, what he does have in spades is common sense.

When a well drained sand exposed to the elements is wet all the time, you can bet that the surrounding soil supporting grass is wet as well. Dry courses have dry bunkers.

If you just have to irrigate your bunker edges with supplemental irrigation, please consider using sub surface drip that only puts water into the rootzone instead of mist heads that water as much sand as grass.