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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

I'm aware that the exhibit cites a "course textured layer", not necessarily clay.

But, the following questions remain.

Why would 8" of sand drain quicker, more efficiently than 4" of sand.

Secondly, one of the examples presented portrayed two layers of sand.
It would seem, that based on the exhibit Bryan presented, that the top layer has to become almost totally saturated before it will begin to drain into the lower layer.

This would seem to explain the continued wet conditions in a bunker when the weather has been dry for an extended period of time.
That it's only when the saturation level reaches a threshold point that the upper level of sand will drain or purge itself of water.

This would also seem to lead to the conclusion that the wet bunker conditions are caused by excessive irrigation and/or poorly located irrigation heads.

As such, this returns us to the question, should irrigation systems/heads be an integral part of the architectural design ?

And, shouldn't this condition have been iradicated within 6 months of discovery or opening day ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I may be all wet on this (pun intended), but .............

I think we're trying to simplify a complex process within a complex environment, a bunker. 

But, simplistically speaking, using the chart below (for some unspecified kind of sand), the right end represents how much water is in an air dried column of sand.  As you move left on the curve you come to the field capacity of the sand column - that is the percentage of the column that could be water (9%) before gravitation starts to drain the water out of the profile.  The left end of the scale is an indication of what the percentage of water is in the column at saturation (25%).

So, if you have a bunker with 2" of sand, adding 0.18" of water will make the bunker wet, but it won't be draining.  As you add water, the sand becomes more saturated and starts to drain, up to 0.5" of water when the sand is totally saturated.  After that, I guess puddles form unless the drainage rate is faster than the rate at which water is added.   

If you have a bunker with 10" of sand, you would have to add 0.9" of water to reach the field capacity of the column and get the same level of wetness as only requires 0.18" if the sand was only 2" deep.  Similarly, to reach saturation you would need to add 2.5" of water to saturate 10" of sand vs adding only 0.5" of water to saturate 2" of sand.

How fast the bunker dries out probably depends on lots of factors including weather, drainage structure, and sand composition.  In dry hot conditions water will evaporate rapidly during the day.  Those in the sun faster than those in the shade.  If the profile is approaching saturation, some will drain off.  The water content of the profile will be constantly changing.

What is the ideal water content for a bunker where the sand is not too dry, but not too saturated?  I don't know.  I'd guess it'd depend on the person/player assessing the playability of the sand.  Some probably prefer it drier and fluffier and others, probably wetter and firmer.  I doubt that there are very many courses, if any, that try to manage the bunker wetness/firmness in the same fashion they try to manage watering the rest of the course.

So, if your sample course waters daily and covers the bunkers, and if they apply 0.5" of water a day, and if the bunkers have only 2" of sand in them, then they are likely to be saturated most of the time and not likely much fun to play out of.  And the continued wetness probably leads to moss and other organic growth. 

On the other hand, if they have 10" of sand in the bunkers, and they applied 0.5" of the water the profile would probably be comfortably dry to play out of, as you only be at about half the field capacity of the 10" of sand.

Do courses usually apply 0.5" of water a day to greens?  Seems like a lot to me, but I have no idea.

Of course, the real world would be a lot more complicated than this with ever changing weather and different drain approaches and different shapes and contours of bunkers and different depths of sand.

By the way, the information Dane provided in the orange post, and that you questioned, was from the USGA.  Follow the link to see the article.  You'll note that the article was written by Keith Happ and his phone number and email address are at the bottom of the article.  He invites questions and the article is only 2 months old, so why don't you pursue your questions with him.  I'm sure he's much more knowledgeable than I am.

http://www.usga.org/course_care/regional_updates/regional_reports/northcentral/Hazard-Ahead-%E2%80%93-Sand-Depth-Matters---September-2013%282%29/

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I may be all wet on this (pun intended), but .............

I believe that you are.

I think we're trying to simplify a complex process within a complex environment, a bunker.  

It's not that complex

But, simplistically speaking, using the chart below (for some unspecified kind of sand), the right end represents how much water is in an air dried column of sand.  As you move left on the curve you come to the field capacity of the sand column - that is the percentage of the column that could be water (9%) before gravitation starts to drain the water out of the profile.  The left end of the scale is an indication of what the percentage of water is in the column at saturation (25%).

The problem with your position is that it's in direct conflict with one of the other reports you posted as an exhibit.
The one that states that in order for the sand to drain to the lower level, it has to reach an extreme saturation point.
Perhaps you forgot about that exhibit, so, I've posted it for you below.
Note how the upper level has to become almost totally saturated BEFORE purging and draining to the lower level.
You can't ignore your own exhibits.  Well, maybe you can, but, prudent minds can't.



So, if you have a bunker with 2" of sand, adding 0.18" of water will make the bunker wet, but it won't be draining.  As you add water, the sand becomes more saturated and starts to drain, up to 0.5" of water when the sand is totally saturated.  After that, I guess puddles form unless the drainage rate is faster than the rate at which water is added.

And, if you have ten (10) inches of sand, as you suggest, then the entire ten (10) inches would have to become totally saturated before it would drain.  That means that the bunker would almost always be perpetually wet.

  
If you have a bunker with 10" of sand, you would have to add 0.9" of water to reach the field capacity of the column and get the same level of wetness as only requires 0.18" if the sand was only 2" deep.  Similarly, to reach saturation you would need to add 2.5" of water to saturate 10" of sand vs adding only 0.5" of water to saturate 2" of sand.

Not true.
You just stated that the entire ten (10) inches would have to be "totally saturated" before purging/drainage would begin.

How fast the bunker dries out probably depends on lots of factors including weather, drainage structure, and sand composition.  
In dry hot conditions water will evaporate rapidly during the day.  Those in the sun faster than those in the shade.  If the profile is approaching saturation, some will drain off.  The water content of the profile will be constantly changing.

We know that.

What is the ideal water content for a bunker where the sand is not too dry, but not too saturated?  I don't know.  I'd guess it'd depend on the person/player assessing the playability of the sand.  Some probably prefer it drier and fluffier and others, probably wetter and firmer.  I doubt that there are very many courses, if any, that try to manage the bunker wetness/firmness in the same fashion they try to manage watering the rest of the course.

I'd disagree with that.

First, I don't know of any specs that call for bunker depth to be ten (10) inches of sand on the floor.
That's far too much sand.
Second, wet sand tends to be more compacted, more difficult to play from, especially with significant flange.
Third, when the bunker starts turning green, it comes up on everyone's radar screen.
Fourth, when the bunker sand is spec'd/purchased, in essence, the architect/superintendent is telling you how the bunkers will play.
I think there's a clear intent in terms of playability

So, if your sample course waters daily and covers the bunkers, and if they apply 0.5" of water a day, and if the bunkers have only 2" of sand in them, then they are likely to be saturated most of the time and not likely much fun to play out of.  

Not true.
According to your exhibits, if they're saturated, they'll drain.

As to your built in dimensional bias, I don't think you'll find many bunkers spec'd at two (2) inches on the floor.
I would think that four (4) inches might be more the norm.

And the continued wetness probably leads to moss and other organic growth.  

On that we agree.
But, that raises the question about daily maintenance, in the form of hand raking or the use of a sand pro.
It would seem that daily raking/sandpro use would tend to dry the bunkers out more rapidly in a dry environment.

On the other hand, if they have 10" of sand in the bunkers, and they applied 0.5" of the water the profile would probably be comfortably dry to play out of, as you only be at about half the field capacity of the 10" of sand.

Not according to your exhibits, which indicate that the bunkers would remain wet until they become "totally saturated" and only then would they begin to purge/drain.  Ergo, ten (10) inches of sand in a bunker floor would not seem to be a prudent spec.

Do courses usually apply 0.5" of water a day to greens?  Seems like a lot to me, but I have no idea.

I would imagine that it's geographically oriented.
In Scotsdale or Palm Desert, perhaps, maybe in South Florida,
It would also depend on irrigation head location, throw radius, wind, etc., etc..

Of course, the real world would be a lot more complicated than this with ever changing weather and different drain approaches and different shapes and contours of bunkers and different depths of sand.

That's why you hire a competent superintendent.

By the way, the information Dane provided in the orange post, and that you questioned, was from the USGA.

I was aware of that from the inception  

Follow the link to see the article.  You'll note that the article was written by Keith Happ and his phone number and email address are at the bottom of the article.  

I'm also aware of that

He invites questions and the article is only 2 months old, so why don't you pursue your questions with him.  

I'm sure he's much more knowledgeable than I am.

That was never in doubt.

[Greg Chambers]

As such, this returns us to the question, should irrigation systems/heads be an integral part of the architectural design ?

And, shouldn't this condition have been iradicated within 6 months of discovery or opening day ?

Patrick,

Irrigation design is an integral part of the architectural design...at least it has been on each one of the projects I've been involved with.  The fact of the matter is, some irrigation designers are simply better than others.  And some superintendents are better at managing their irrigation systems than others.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I may be all wet on this (pun intended), but .............

I believe that you are.

I think we're trying to simplify a complex process within a complex environment, a bunker. 

It's not that complex

I guess not for an archetypal renaissance man and polymath such as yourself.   

But, simplistically speaking, using the chart below (for some unspecified kind of sand), the right end represents how much water is in an air dried column of sand.  As you move left on the curve you come to the field capacity of the sand column - that is the percentage of the column that could be water (9%) before gravitation starts to drain the water out of the profile.  The left end of the scale is an indication of what the percentage of water is in the column at saturation (25%).

The problem with your position is that it's in direct conflict with one of the other reports you posted as an exhibit.
The one that states that in order for the sand to drain to the lower level, it has to reach an extreme saturation point.
Perhaps you forgot about that exhibit, so, I've posted it for you below.
Note how the upper level has to become almost totally saturated BEFORE purging and draining to the lower level.
You can't ignore your own exhibits.  Well, maybe you can, but, prudent minds can't.

What does "extreme saturation" mean?  I haven't heard of that term before.  I would point out that the slide below says "near saturation".  How near does that have to be?  How near saturation do you suppose the profile in the slide is?




So, if you have a bunker with 2" of sand, adding 0.18" of water will make the bunker wet, but it won't be draining.  As you add water, the sand becomes more saturated and starts to drain, up to 0.5" of water when the sand is totally saturated.  After that, I guess puddles form unless the drainage rate is faster than the rate at which water is added.

And, if you have ten (10) inches of sand, as you suggest, then the entire ten (10) inches would have to become totally saturated before it would drain.  That means that the bunker would almost always be perpetually wet.

Define what you mean by "wet".  What is your point in talking about 10" here relative to the 2" described in the preceding paragraph?  By the way, there are ways for bunkers to dry out that are independent of draining.

 
If you have a bunker with 10" of sand, you would have to add 0.9" of water to reach the field capacity of the column and get the same level of wetness as only requires 0.18" if the sand was only 2" deep.  Similarly, to reach saturation you would need to add 2.5" of water to saturate 10" of sand vs adding only 0.5" of water to saturate 2" of sand.

Not true.
You just stated that the entire ten (10) inches would have to be "totally saturated" before purging/drainage would begin.

What specifically in the preceding paragraph is "not true"?  Could you describe what you mean by "purging"?  Please reread what I said.  The slide says that drainage begins when the profile is "near saturation".

How fast the bunker dries out probably depends on lots of factors including weather, drainage structure, and sand composition. 
In dry hot conditions water will evaporate rapidly during the day.  Those in the sun faster than those in the shade.  If the profile is approaching saturation, some will drain off.  The water content of the profile will be constantly changing.

We know that.

Glad to know that.   

What is the ideal water content for a bunker where the sand is not too dry, but not too saturated?  I don't know.  I'd guess it'd depend on the person/player assessing the playability of the sand.  Some probably prefer it drier and fluffier and others, probably wetter and firmer.  I doubt that there are very many courses, if any, that try to manage the bunker wetness/firmness in the same fashion they try to manage watering the rest of the course.

I'd disagree with that.

What are you disagreeing with in the preceding paragraph?  I respect your opinions below, but they are not in disagreement with the paragraph above.  What do you think is the ideal water content for a bunker?  Do you know any courses that try to maintain the bunkers to some ideal water content level?

First, I don't know of any specs that call for bunker depth to be ten (10) inches of sand on the floor.
That's far too much sand.

If you search the USGA web site they talk about recommended sand depths in bunkers.  And, it's not 10".

Second, wet sand tends to be more compacted, more difficult to play from, especially with significant flange.

My experience is that wet , firm bunkers are easier to play from in fairway bunkers.  Your experience may be different.  Greenside, I find drier bunkers easier.  On that we agree.

Third, when the bunker starts turning green, it comes up on everyone's radar screen.

I can't recall having seen a green bunker, but then I don't play at the high end privates that you do.

Fourth, when the bunker sand is spec'd/purchased, in essence, the architect/superintendent is telling you how the bunkers will play.
I think there's a clear intent in terms of playability

Sure the sand spec impacts how the bunker will play.  So does the drainage and wetness and depth of sand.

So, if your sample course waters daily and covers the bunkers, and if they apply 0.5" of water a day, and if the bunkers have only 2" of sand in them, then they are likely to be saturated most of the time and not likely much fun to play out of. 

Not true.
According to your exhibits, if they're saturated, they'll drain.

True enough.  How fast do you think they drain and how soon would they be at the "ideal" level of dryness/wetness? 

As to your built in dimensional bias, I don't think you'll find many bunkers spec'd at two (2) inches on the floor.
I would think that four (4) inches might be more the norm.

I have no "dimensional bias", whatever that is.  I'd go with the USGA recommended depth specs.  Using 2" and 10" were just examples.  My home course had many bunkers that were 2" or less, but they are trying to remediate those situations as the (small) budget allows.

And the continued wetness probably leads to moss and other organic growth. 

On that we agree.
But, that raises the question about daily maintenance, in the form of hand raking or the use of a sand pro.
It would seem that daily raking/sandpro use would tend to dry the bunkers out more rapidly in a dry environment.

Sure.

On the other hand, if they have 10" of sand in the bunkers, and they applied 0.5" of the water the profile would probably be comfortably dry to play out of, as you only be at about half the field capacity of the 10" of sand.

Not according to your exhibits, which indicate that the bunkers would remain wet until they become "totally saturated" and only then would they begin to purge/drain.  Ergo, ten (10) inches of sand in a bunker floor would not seem to be a prudent spec.

I don't think that's what the exhibits show relative to this point.  If you put 0.5" of water in 10" of sand and also put 0.5" of water in (your preferred) 4" of sand which would be dryer?  That was the point. 

You are aware that there are more ways for bunkers to dry out other than draining, aren't you?  And, again, what do you mean by "purge"?

Do courses usually apply 0.5" of water a day to greens?  Seems like a lot to me, but I have no idea.

I would imagine that it's geographically oriented.
In Scotsdale or Palm Desert, perhaps, maybe in South Florida,
It would also depend on irrigation head location, throw radius, wind, etc., etc..

Of course, the real world would be a lot more complicated than this with ever changing weather and different drain approaches and different shapes and contours of bunkers and different depths of sand.

That's why you hire a competent superintendent.

And, a competent architect and construction crew.  My course has bunkers that continually wash out, and it's not because of the maintenance practices of the super.

By the way, the information Dane provided in the orange post, and that you questioned, was from the USGA.

I was aware of that from the inception

O.K. Just wondered since you questioned Dane on the article as if the articles was his.

Follow the link to see the article.  You'll note that the article was written by Keith Happ and his phone number and email address are at the bottom of the article. 

I'm also aware of that

He invites questions and the article is only 2 months old, so why don't you pursue your questions with him. 

I'm sure he's much more knowledgeable than I am.

That was never in doubt.

So, I guess you won't be calling him to clarify your understandings.  More fun for you to debate here, I guess.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I may be all wet on this (pun intended), but .............

I believe that you are.

I think we're trying to simplify a complex process within a complex environment, a bunker.  

It's not that complex

I guess not for an archetypal renaissance man and polymath such as yourself.  

But, simplistically speaking, using the chart below (for some unspecified kind of sand), the right end represents how much water is in an air dried column of sand.  As you move left on the curve you come to the field capacity of the sand column - that is the percentage of the column that could be water (9%) before gravitation starts to drain the water out of the profile.  The left end of the scale is an indication of what the percentage of water is in the column at saturation (25%).

The problem with your position is that it's in direct conflict with one of the other reports you posted as an exhibit.
The one that states that in order for the sand to drain to the lower level, it has to reach an extreme saturation point.
Perhaps you forgot about that exhibit, so, I've posted it for you below.
Note how the upper level has to become almost totally saturated BEFORE purging and draining to the lower level.
You can't ignore your own exhibits.  Well, maybe you can, but, prudent minds can't.

What does "extreme saturation" mean?  I haven't heard of that term before.  I would point out that the slide below says "near saturation".  How near does that have to be?  How near saturation do you suppose the profile in the slide is?

Bryan, you should know the answer, after all it was you who posted the slide with the accompanying text.




So, if you have a bunker with 2" of sand, adding 0.18" of water will make the bunker wet, but it won't be draining.  As you add water, the sand becomes more saturated and starts to drain, up to 0.5" of water when the sand is totally saturated.  After that, I guess puddles form unless the drainage rate is faster than the rate at which water is added.

And, if you have ten (10) inches of sand, as you suggest, then the entire ten (10) inches would have to become totally saturated before it would drain.  That means that the bunker would almost always be perpetually wet.

Define what you mean by "wet".  What is your point in talking about 10" here relative to the 2" described in the preceding paragraph?  By the way, there are ways for bunkers to dry out that are independent of draining.

I'll let Meriam Webster answer that question for you.
You were the one who presented 10 inches and 2 inches of sand as examples.
Hence, I merely confined my comments to the depths you provided.
When a bunker with 10 inches of sand is saturated, what are the other ways that it can "quickly" dry out.

  
If you have a bunker with 10" of sand, you would have to add 0.9" of water to reach the field capacity of the column and get the same level of wetness as only requires 0.18" if the sand was only 2" deep.  Similarly, to reach saturation you would need to add 2.5" of water to saturate 10" of sand vs adding only 0.5" of water to saturate 2" of sand.

Not true.
You just stated that the entire ten (10) inches would have to be "totally saturated" before purging/drainage would begin.

What specifically in the preceding paragraph is "not true"?  Could you describe what you mean by "purging"?  Please reread what I said.  The slide says that drainage begins when the profile is "near saturation".

Your statement is not true and the slide you presented demonstrates same.
YOU added the qualifying word, "totally" to "saturated".  
As to the meaning of the word "purging", again, I'll let Miriam Webster define that for you.
That you have to ask the question suggests that you know very little about bunkers and drainage

How fast the bunker dries out probably depends on lots of factors including weather, drainage structure, and sand composition.  
In dry hot conditions water will evaporate rapidly during the day.  Those in the sun faster than those in the shade.  If the profile is approaching saturation, some will drain off.  The water content of the profile will be constantly changing.

We know that.

Glad to know that.  

What is the ideal water content for a bunker where the sand is not too dry, but not too saturated?  I don't know.  I'd guess it'd depend on the person/player assessing the playability of the sand.  Some probably prefer it drier and fluffier and others, probably wetter and firmer.  I doubt that there are very many courses, if any, that try to manage the bunker wetness/firmness in the same fashion they try to manage watering the rest of the course.

I'd disagree with that.

What are you disagreeing with in the preceding paragraph?  


That courses don't try to manage bunker wetness/firmness.


I respect your opinions below, but they are not in disagreement with the paragraph above.  
What do you think is the ideal water content for a bunker?


Close to zero.  

Do you know any courses that try to maintain the bunkers to some ideal water content level?

Yes.  I think there are an inordinate number of courses that strive for dry bunkers

First, I don't know of any specs that call for bunker depth to be ten (10) inches of sand on the floor.
That's far too much sand.

If you search the USGA web site they talk about recommended sand depths in bunkers.  And, it's not 10".

I'm aware of that.
I was the one who pointed that out to you.

Second, wet sand tends to be more compacted, more difficult to play from, especially with significant flange.

My experience is that wet , firm bunkers are easier to play from in fairway bunkers.  Your experience may be different.  Greenside, I find drier bunkers easier.  On that we agree.

Third, when the bunker starts turning green, it comes up on everyone's radar screen.

I can't recall having seen a green bunker, but then I don't play at the high end privates that you do.

It's not a function of high end, it's a function of the climate and water content of the bunker.

Fourth, when the bunker sand is spec'd/purchased, in essence, the architect/superintendent is telling you how the bunkers will play.
I think there's a clear intent in terms of playability[/color]

Sure the sand spec impacts how the bunker will play.  So does the drainage and wetness and depth of sand.


Do you know of ANY club/course that specs their bunker sand based on wet conditions ?
Do you know of ANY club/course that sepcs their bunker sand based on different drainage rates ?
Do you know of ANY club/course that specs their bunker sand based on the depth of the bunker sand ?

So, if your sample course waters daily and covers the bunkers, and if they apply 0.5" of water a day, and if the bunkers have only 2" of sand in them, then they are likely to be saturated most of the time and not likely much fun to play out of.  

Not true.
According to your exhibits, if they're saturated, they'll drain.

True enough.  How fast do you think they drain and how soon would they be at the "ideal" level of dryness/wetness?  

The answer to that question would depend upon many factors, including construction, freedom of drain lines from obstruction, elevation, surrounds, etc., etc..
Typically, greens have established perc rates.
I don't know that I've ever seen similar studies/charts for bunkers.

Again, this is where a talented superintendent is of great value.
it's no fun playing a course a few hours after a heavy rain and having the bunkers look like swimming pools.

In South Florida, where some courses are at or near sea level and the water table is just beneath the surface, that situation presents a far different challenge than a course with significant elevation changes and low water tables.
Local conditions can dictate terms, with Mother Nature having a considerable say.
There is no "one" answer that fits all situations.
But, when you're familiar with the variables, you can begin working on/with them

As to your built in dimensional bias, I don't think you'll find many bunkers spec'd at two (2) inches on the floor.
I would think that four (4) inches might be more the norm.

I have no "dimensional bias", whatever that is.  I'd go with the USGA recommended depth specs.  Using 2" and 10" were just examples.  [/size]

I think one could make the case that they were bad examples.
10 inches is rather extreme in terms of opening day specs.
Ditto 2 inches.

My home course had many bunkers that were 2" or less, but they are trying to remediate those situations as the (small) budget allows.

That would seem to indicate a failure to monitor bunker depth over the years.
Sand can be lost and/or redistributed, significantly altering bunker play.
But, the club should have sufficient resources to add sand on a needs basis.
I can't imagine not having at least a few thousand dollars in the annual maintenance budget for that purpose.

And the continued wetness probably leads to moss and other organic growth.  

On that we agree.
But, that raises the question about daily maintenance, in the form of hand raking or the use of a sand pro.
It would seem that daily raking/sandpro use would tend to dry the bunkers out more rapidly in a dry environment.

Sure.

On the other hand, if they have 10" of sand in the bunkers, and they applied 0.5" of the water the profile would probably be comfortably dry to play out of, as you only be at about half the field capacity of the 10" of sand.

Not according to your exhibits, which indicate that the bunkers would remain wet until they become "totally saturated" and only then would they begin to purge/drain.  Ergo, ten (10) inches of sand in a bunker floor would not seem to be a prudent spec.

I don't think that's what the exhibits show relative to this point.  If you put 0.5" of water in 10" of sand and also put 0.5" of water in (your preferred) 4" of sand which would be dryer?  That was the point.  


Now you're changing the dimensions in order to reorganize and reclaim your argument.
Let's stick with the 10 inches and 2 inches you presented

The point was that the upper layer of sand would ONLY drain when it reached it's saturation point.
With 10 inches of sand, that's almost NEVER going to happen, thus the bunker will remain wet.
Whereas, with your 2 inch example, the addition of .5 inches would bring the bunker closer to reaching it's saturation point, when it would then purge itself.


You are aware that there are more ways for bunkers to dry out other than draining, aren't you?


Yes, but, if you'll remember I stated that conditions had been DRY and that portions of the bunker were still wet.
Hence, those other ways/methods had not dried out the bunker.
 

And, again, what do you mean by "purge"?

Miram Webster would be happy to define the term for you.

Do courses usually apply 0.5" of water a day to greens?  Seems like a lot to me, but I have no idea.

I would imagine that it's geographically oriented.
In Scotsdale or Palm Desert, perhaps, maybe in South Florida,
It would also depend on irrigation head location, throw radius, wind, etc., etc..

Of course, the real world would be a lot more complicated than this with ever changing weather and different drain approaches and different shapes and contours of bunkers and different depths of sand.

That's why you hire a competent superintendent.

And, a competent architect and construction crew.

It goes beyond that.
Hiring a competent architect and construction firm is only part of the project.
OVERSIGHT of both is critical to a successful project.
If you allow complete artistic license, to both the architect and the construction firm, you deserve what you end up with.
Quality control isn't just a manufacturing term. [/size]


My course has bunkers that continually wash out, and it's not because of the maintenance practices of the super.
Then whomever was assigned oversight responsibility for your course failed in the execution of their duties.

By the way, the information Dane provided in the orange post, and that you questioned, was from the USGA.

I was aware of that from the inception

O.K. Just wondered since you questioned Dane on the article as if the articles was his.

Follow the link to see the article.  You'll note that the article was written by Keith Happ and his phone number and email address are at the bottom of the article.  

I'm also aware of that

He invites questions and the article is only 2 months old, so why don't you pursue your questions with him.  

I'm sure he's much more knowledgeable than I am.

That was never in doubt.

So, I guess you won't be calling him to clarify your understandings.  More fun for you to debate here, I guess.  

In one of those rare times when I must concede you are correct, you are correct.

[Bryan Izatt]

Good grief - a point of agreement!    Of course, it's that you only prolong these discourses to satisfy your debating cravings, not to get to any understanding or resolution of any particular point.

Vis-a-vis "purge", here's a dictionary definition.

verb
[with object]

    1  rid (someone) of an unwanted feeling, memory, or condition:Bob had helped purge Martha of the terrible guilt that had haunted her
    free someone from (an unwanted feeling, memory, etc.):his hatred was purged
    remove (a group of people considered undesirable) from an organization or place in an abrupt or violent way:he purged all but 26 of the  central committee members
    remove a group of undesirable people from (an organization or place) in an abrupt or violent way:an opportunity to purge the party of unsatisfactory members
    Law atone for or wipe out (contempt of court): he has a right to apply to the court to purge his contempt

    2  physically remove (something) completely:a substance designed to purge impurities from the body
    [no object] evacuate one’s bowels, especially as a result of taking a laxative: sufferers eat normally in summer but overeat and purge during winter (as noun purging)occasional binges are followed by self-induced purging or vomiting

Were you using it with the laxative meaning?  

None of the others seem to fit in the context of draining of bunkers.



Vis-a-vis bunker depths, here is what the USGA has to say:

Sand Bunker Depth
Posted: 5/27/2009

By
How deep should sand be installed in a bunker? Is there a way to determine an appropriate depth?

It is important to realize that the sand in a bunker is not at a consistent depth throughout the entire bunker area. Sand on the sloped face normally is kept shallow to help avoid plugging or fried-egg lies. The depth gradually increases to the flat portion of the hazard. Generally, the base or floor of a greenside bunker needs 4 to 6 inches of sand, whereas a fairway bunker commonly needs 2 to 4 inches. That said, the exact depth should be determined by the physical attributes of the sand and desired playability.

Laboratory testing can eliminate much of the guesswork. An accredited physical analysis laboratory measures particle size distribution and particle shape, the ability to retain moisture and saturated hydraulic conductivity (water movement). The lab can even run specialized tests to predict the likelihood of fried-egg lies. These tests are helpful in selecting an appropriate sand that plays well for the golfer and is easier to maintain for the golf course superintendent.

That last paragraph seems to suggest a lot of analysis and testing should go into specing the sand to meet the playability and maintenance goals of the club.

[Joe Hancock]

The irony of seeing "Merriam-Webster" misspelled is almost more fun than trying to actually learn something about bunker sands and drainage......

Thanks, guys!

[Patrick_Mucci]

The irony of seeing "Merriam-Webster" misspelled is almost more fun than trying to actually learn something about bunker sands and drainage......

Thanks, guys!

I guess it depends upon where your focus is and the significance of omitting an "r".

Bryan,

There are more than two (2) definitions, but you knew that and disingenuously chose to post only two.
That you don't or are pretending not to understand the use in context speaks to your knowledge base and/or your motives.

 I can understand your preference for citing lab results versus field experience.
It again speaks to your knowledge base..

[Bryan Izatt]

Joe,

Glad you found some fun in this.  I didn't think anyone was following this thread any more.

____________________________________

Patrick,

You were 0 for 3 in spelling Merriam, despite spelling it three different ways.  


Vis-a-vis the definition, I am hurt    that you think I was being disingenuous, when in fact this was the complete definition of the verb form of "purge".  Of course it was from a real English dictionary - the Oxford.  They do claim to be the world's most trusted dictionary of British and World English, so I trusted that this was a reputable source.

Now if you want other definitions, you could use the Free Online Dictionary:

purge  (pûrj)
v. purged, purg·ing, purg·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To free from impurities; purify.
b. To remove (impurities and other elements) by or as if by cleansing.
2. To rid of sin, guilt, or defilement.
3. Law To clear (a person) of a charge or an imputation. Often used with respect to contempt of court.
4.
a. To rid (a nation or political party, for example) of people considered undesirable.
b. To get rid of (people considered undesirable). See Synonyms at eliminate.
5. Medicine
a. To cause evacuation of (the bowels).
b. To induce evacuation of the bowels in (an individual).
v.intr.
1. To become pure or clean.
2. Medicine To undergo or cause an emptying of the bowels.
n.
1. The act or process of purging.
2. Something that purges, especially a medicinal purgative.

Or, your beloved Meriam/Miriam/Miram Webster dictionary:

purge
verb \ˈpərj\

: to remove people from an area, country, organization, etc., often in a violent and sudden way

: to cause something to leave the body

purged purg·ing

Full Definition of PURGE
transitive verb
1
a :  to clear of guilt
b :  to free from moral or ceremonial defilement
2
a :  to cause evacuation from (as the bowels)
b (1) :  to make free of something unwanted <purge a manhole of gas> <purge yourself of fear> (2) :  to free (as a boiler) of sediment or relieve (as a steam pipe) of trapped air by bleeding
c (1) :  to rid (as a nation or party) by a purge (2) :  to get rid of <the leaders had been purged>
intransitive verb
1
:  to become purged
2
:  to have or produce frequent evacuations
3
:  to cause purgation

Take your pick.  Which definition were you thinking of?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I'll leave it to your breathtaking brilliance to select the definition that fits the context.

Hint:  a bunker is intended to have as it's sole occupant......sand

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Don't be so coy.  Which definition is it?  They all suggest cleansing or evacuation.  What is the cleansing/evacuation agent in a bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Don't be so coy.  Which definition is it?  They all suggest cleansing or evacuation.  What is the cleansing/evacuation agent in a bunker?

Bryan,

Is this part of your attempt to divert the focus from the subject of this thread, "wet bunkers" to the definition of a word, after it's been proven that you're all wet on the bunker issue ?

What's ironic is that your own exhibit was your undoing.

Poetic justice if you will  

[Bryan Izatt]

It was you who brought up purging of bunkers.  I thought you may have been on to something expelled water from a bunker.  Wrong again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It was you who brought up purging of bunkers.  

That's correct.
I did, and for a reason.

I thought you may have been on to something expelled water from a bunker.  color=green]

You'll have to explain the above sentence to us[/color]

Wrong again.

No surprise there 

[Bryan Izatt]

Like a laxative expels (purges) sh?!?! from your bowels, I thought you meant that you knew of a "laxative" that expelled (purged) water from a bunker.  Expelled (purged), as in faster and more forceful than just drainage.  Do I have to explain everything to you?  I'm pretty sure anybody else still looking in on this thread would understand the difference between purging and draining.  On the other hand, as you so uniquely know so many things, if you do know of something that "purges" bunkers, you might want to get a patent on it real quick.  

Clearly this thread has gone down the toilet.  Time to move on to more interesting things.  You undoubtedly will have the last word.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forgetting about Bryan's attempt to divert and destroy this thread, when a bunker is consistently wet, why, with the sophisticated systems available, wouldn't the club replace the existing irrigation heads that are causing this condition with heads that have a different throw pattern ?

Why not substitute the culprit heads with heads with a 90, 120 or 180 degree throw pattern ?

[Dane Hawker]

Because the grass surrounding the bunker would be dead. Its better to have a wet bunker than dead grass.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because the grass surrounding the bunker would be dead. Its better to have a wet bunker than dead grass.

Dane,

What brings you to that conclusion ?

How familiar are you with the precision and sophistication of irrigation heads ?

[Dane Hawker]

I know they cost money.