Technicalities of golf architecture

[Derek_L]

Mike,

I am sure that whoever said the weight of water actually meant the volume, and that volume is based on the storm intensity or how much rainfall you get in a 24 hour period, like I said in Minnesota we are required to use the 2.5" storm event.  As far as the pond size, I was thinking of this lastnight after I logged off and realized I was too tired to come back down and clarify myself.  A good rule of thumb to feed a pond naturally is a watershed area 5-10 times the size of the water body.  a 10:1 ratio ensures plenty of water in the pond all year long, unless you are in super sandy conditions.  As far as the sizinf of the pond, yes the overflow or outlet device is what we design for inorder to handle the amount of water entering the pond from the watershed.  But like I said, if you guys wanna have a pond on your course that doesn't get all mucky and skanky looking, have a watershed to watersurface ratio of atleast 10:1.  It is a good idea to have a shelf that starts one foot below water surface that way when the water level goes down, golfers won't see mucky pond edges right away.

[jim__janosik]

Mike,

Drainage into a bunker  can't be  confined to a "style"  issue.
Most of that stuff is caught by the  construction manager  if he is a good one.  1percent slope to divert water is not a big deal.

Most modern  stuff  is so rift with  contrived mounds and  concrete wate features that they will never get  "remodeled"
because it would be too expensive, not because it is good architecture.

Lastly,  big names can make poor recommendations  and get away with it.  Pelican Hill  should have been ryegrass, not
bermuda,  thats why it always looks like  #$%^&.  The  Irvine Co. is  realizing that now.

[jim__janosik]

Derek,  

Do you have  good professionaly liability insurance?  If I  understand you correctly you say that pond  slopes should be  5:1.  Lakes are built with a slope of  no more than 3:1
or else the  soil backfill  over the liner will not  hold up. This results in failure of the lake and a lawsuit.

[ed_getka]

Very interesting and informative posts guys. What is the usual reason for bunkers with standing water after a heavy rain? Assuming its not just sitting in a low area, what is the general solution?
I saw the drainage that was put in below Rustic Canyon's greens and I was wondering how much surface drainage modern greens generally have? In the past when playing courses that have grainy greens I thought about break and speed in terms of where the water would drain off the green, but with modern drainage doesn't the water go straight down off the green surface and thus not contribute to grain? I have no clue about this stuff and would appreciate your answers.

[Derek_L]

Jim,

Sorry for the confusion with the 5:1 side slope.  Slopes have never been clearly stated.  I suppose I should have said 5 ft of run per 1 foot of rise or what you are looking for 1:5.  Things lately have all been geared toward the run:rise and now are just getting into the rise:run.  I did mean 5:1 but also meant run:rise.

Derek

[Mike O'Neill]

ed,


Even USGA greens need to be designed to allow surface water to run off. When the rain is really falling, why not get a lot of that water off the green before it has to go down into the drainage system? Always remember that most golf courses are to some degree saturated even when it is not raining much. The regular irrigation cycles take care of that.

As for standing water in the bunkers, I can think of two possible causes. 1. The water/rain volume is more than the bunker drainage can manage in the short run. If that is true, it should not take long for the water to drain down. 2. The drain tile is contaminated and the water is not flowing freely into it. Or maybe the sand itself is contaminated with soil and there is a bit of a sealed layer sitting over the drain tile. Whenever you see surface water running into a bunker, there is a good chance that the sand will wash down the face of the bunker exposing the soil beneath. That soil can then run down the face of the bunker on top of or into the sand. That is a common way that sand becomes contaminated.

[jim__janosik]

Derek,

No  I  am  the  Moron of the Month!  I misunderstood you!.

[Justin Hanrahan]

I think one thing that many have touched on but not in any detail are the technical confines, golf related and non-golf related, that design and construction must work within. I will list a few from my experience.

Cart paths (already mentioned)
Drainage (already mentioned)
Risk management/safety
Bunker/green visibility

The risk management is a big one now in Australia (and no doubt everywhere else) and what people can see and what they can't has an impact on where everything goes.

We all know blind shots found in Scotland are unlikely to be repeated anywhere, but the general safety issues place great limitations on the design elements as does the promximity of greens to tees and everything to the dreaded housing developments!!!

Unfortunately a good spot for a tee may just be too close to a green for the insurers liking these days and the option is gone.

As an aside, what would happen to the playability of hundreds of new courses if golf carts were found to be carcinogenic and had to be benned from the earth? (we can only dream...) The majority of new developments would be rendered useless because it is simply not practical to walk an additional 2km from green to tee during a round...

The bunker placement and relative visibility is a big issue for me where the course is a members course.

If it is a resort course, so be it. People have paid good money to play there once and they deserve to see all the hazards that await them. SHOW ME THE BUNKERS!

(that said, personally, I loved playing with these hazards in Ireland)

If, however, it is a members course why the need to have flashes of sand everywhere indicating the trouble? What sort of club member can't remember where the bunkers/water hazards are after a single round? Forget about them. Place the bunkers below green level at the back and have the water running behind the first row of trees or behind the deep rough...please!

So many more options are available if the dumb golfer is not treated with such respect. Note, I said "dumb" not "bad" - there is a difference. If we were to treat dumb golfers with this respect all over the course, there would only be flat greens and straight holes...so why give them extra status by laying every possible hazard on the table straight up?

Make it more interesting and add more variety by ignoring these apparent design constraints when it suits.

[Mike_Young]

Here is a spec I use for ponds.  It takes into account a margin for safety with golfcars and the issue of plant growth.   If there is thought to be a large fluctuation with the water level then a retaining wall is built.  Just one of many ways to do it:

Lakes/Ponds - Stake lake outlines as indicated on the Architect's plans.  Excavate lakes to a minimum depth of eight feet (8') to discourage growth of weeds and algae.  Grade slopes below water level to 2:1, and grassed bank slopes above water level to 3:1, unless otherwise indicated on Architect's plans.  If material excavated from lakes/ponds is appropriate, it will be used to build dams and enhance golf course features as shown on Architect's contour plans.  Architect will work with project Engineer to construct dams and other lake level control devices.  

[willhammer (Guest)]

Why don't golf designers include safety benches in their pond/lake designs? A golf course would be prime fodder for a lawsuit for lack of a safety bench with all of the elderly and young kids out on the course and potentially slipping into the lake, not to mention a runaway golf cart. I always add them to protect my butt, but I have yet to see a golf plan with a safety bench while engineers always put them in the plan.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Ed,

In northern climates you can't rely on infiltration to get rid of water sitting on a green. On a day like today (45 and sunny), the sun will melt the snow, but the ground is still frozen. That melted snow needs to move off the green, or else it will freeze tonight (20). If water sitting on a green goes through freeze/thaw cycles it will kill the grass. I've seen a few local courses designed by southern boys that have this problem.

I'm not sure how green covers help or hinder this process. Maybe a superintendent could talk about this?

Willhammer,

I'm with you on the safety bench. I think it's a matter of time before someone falls into a pond looking for their ball, and sues the designer. Safety benches are common features outside the golf industry, and it could easily be seen as careless and dangerous.

My guess for why safety benches aren't common is that many designers like the aesthetics of closely mown turfgrass down to the waters edge (Augusta syndrome IMHO), and from a playability angle it speeds up play. If a golfer sees the water splash they will not look for their ball, but if the ball disappears into an overgrown cattail safety bench, they will take some time to look for their ball.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Your second example explains why I don't use safety benches.  If a golfer falls in the water, and there is no safety shelf, his lawyer will argue he couldn't get out.  If there is a safety shelf, his lawyer argues that, if not for his ball being visible just under the water, or accessible, he wouldn't have gone in in the first place!  Remember that a ball always looks closer to the surface than it really is, as the water maginfies it.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
That is almost exactly what the engineer that helped with my specs said.  
I remember late summer nights as a teenager picking up balls with my toes in the muck and never once did we lose our balance except for the night a flying saucer landed in the fairway between the car and our escape route.  That lake had a pretty steep slope.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Your specs look good (although we probably shouldn't judge from the snapshot provided, any more than we should judge a golf course)  I would add that in no case can a lake bank be over excavated and then built back, as the fill slopes are never as stable as the cut slopes.

I would probably also add "stake to architect's plans, or to his timely field direction" so I can make those last minute changes!

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
You have me confused.  What specs with snapshots are you talking about.  All I posted was an excerpt from my specs a few paragraphs ago.  Or are you talking to Mike O'neil.

Mike Y.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I used the word snapshot in the sense of the word "excerpt".  Not sure exactly what I was driving at, but just poking a little fun at the "sensibilities" of this site about judging anything without seeing it in person and in whole.  Probably not a good analogy, so its back to the coffee pot for me!

[Jeff_McDowell]

Jeff B.

I had never thought or heard of that argument, but it certainly makes sense. Where would we be without lawyers protecting our rights?!

[willhammer (Guest)]

Jeff and Mike,

Couldn't you spec a pond with say a 5:1 slope from top of freeboard to 4' below water level to a safety bench and then a 3:1 from the safety shelf to the bottom of the pond and use an aquatic herbicide once per year to cover all of your bases? The 4' of water above the safety bench would make it tougher for weeds to take hold and for golfers to see their ball. And should someone fall in it would not be over their head and the slope would be easy to walk out of?

[Derek_L]

Will Hammer,

The reason we, engineers, use 5:1 side slopes above the bench and have a 10-15' bench is to satisfy the city engineers and planners.  Also, you have to remember that most "engineered" ponds are near residential developments where small and curious children are playing. The norm is side slopes of either a 4:1 or a 3:1 below the bench.  When we build a pond in the water table, we tend to use 5:1 side slopes because it helps ease the construction of the pond, that also depends on the soil.  The 5:1 side slopes in wet soild is key if the soil tends to breakdown and crumble under a blade!!  Also, it is easier to pull a scraper out of a pond that has 5:1 side slopes!!!

Now on the other hand, 5:1 side slopes below and above the water level are required if you are digging in a wetland, for mitigation or for enhancement.  The local government may have their own set of rules, but the Army Corps of Engineers tend to be the same throughout the USA.  Also, wetland mitigation requires benches that with water levels in the one foot depth or so.  As far as pond depths to keep weeds out, 8 feet may be pretty standard.  However, if you are working in a wetland the depth can't be any greater than 2m or about 6 feet.  I tell you what I do and actually have a project under construction where I do this.  Since I have excavated natural wetlands and must abide by wetland laws, I am using alot of submersible plants and lillies along the edges to keep the cattails and reed canary grass out or down to a minimum height.  In general, any water deeper than three feet will keep plants from growing above the water level.  Cattaills and reed canary grass seem to drown out under three or more feet.  I do dig them atleast four feet to play it say.

Jeff Brauer,

I am interested in the project that you are working on in Tower, MN on the Indian reservation.  Now I know that you filled a substantial amount of wetlands and had really no authority figures to deal with because you were on "private" land so to speak.  Now I heard that the Corps was somehow involved, can you comment?

Derek

[Jeff_McDowell]

Willhammer,

Obviously, there are different ways to handle this, so your idea would work. But like Derek said most safety benches are 10:1 to a depth of one or two feet. Your 5:1 slope would be considerably steeper and not as effective as a safety device.

I have been told by engineers that the 10:1 safety bench only needs to be a maximum of two-feet deep, because at two feet deep water will be up to your knees and cattails will be way over your head, and going any deeper would be unrealistic. Unless you're looking for your shanked Pro V1.

If you ask me this sounds like a death trap.