Nuts and Bolts: Creative Surface Drainage Solutions

[Kyle Harris]

Whether with the golf ball or water, gravity always wins.

On the first hole at Huntingdon Valley Country Club, the fairway bunker (now two) had a small ridge along the upper lip to divert water draining across the surface of the fairly severe slope leading into it. Obviously, this also had the effect of preventing balls from rolling into the bunker, instead gathering on the little shelf created just above. The nature of physics also meant a level lie in a fairway that is completely devoid of them.

I see and play dozens of other examples of the above all over the place.

That being said, I can't think of a readily apparent example where shaping served both the purpose of moving sheet draining away from the bunker while allowing balls to roll into said bunker. Obviously, on the surface this seems to be something out of MC Escher Golf Design but I find it hard to believe that there aren't examples where a feature was intentionally built to serve both purposes.

What are they?

[Jon Wiggett]

Kyle,

if it is not possible to stop surface water entering the bunker without such measures then why even try? In fact if you look at it a bunker could be the ideal place to drain water into. It can be made to drain at a rate that is faster than any other standard feature found on courses outside a water hazard. The problem then becomes to design a bunker that copes with lots of surface water runoff without needing much if any remedial maintenance. To my mind, a small grass faced, cupped base bunker with a blanket drainage layer should fit the bill.

Jon

[Jaeger Kovich]

Think leading edge and momentum. The ball and water can be coming from two different directions.


Look for the sand to be low and/or nearly flat where this occurs.

[Joe Hancock]

I have not been there, but Mike DeVries often tells a story of the bunkering at Camargo. Apparently there were places where Raynor would allow the drainage, and balls, to go into the bunkers...but it was such that it would be "sheeted" into the bunkers, not concentrated into a narrow stream of water. So, in my mind, the shaping would have to be big, bold and level in the appropriate plane to accomplish this. Yes, it has influenced how I implement bunkers when constructing them, where appropriate.

I would like to hear Tom Doak's input, as he was the one directing the work at Camargo years ago.

[Thomas Dai]

Kyle,
if it is not possible to stop surface water entering the bunker without such measures then why even try? In fact if you look at it a bunker could be the ideal place to drain water into. It can be made to drain at a rate that is faster than any other standard feature found on courses outside a water hazard. The problem then becomes to design a bunker that copes with lots of surface water runoff without needing much if any remedial maintenance. To my mind, a small grass faced, cupped base bunker with a blanket drainage layer should fit the bill.
Jon

Interesting thought.....and you get to drop ball out of a bunker (under penalty) when it's full of water. Unfortunately bunkers are often only part filled with water and then its hassle time with dropping into soft, wet, squidgy sand and the usual plugged or semi-plugged lie that results. Another reason to play away from bunkers?
 
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

please reread what I wrote and then think about it. The bunker would need a very good drainage system.

[Don Mahaffey]

Contrarian thought of the day:
Bunkers should make great drain basins. Why?
No turf cover to slow percolation
High perc sands are the norm
Ability to beef up drainage yet keep it out of sight
New liners that can keep sand in place even with water flow provided you listen to what Joe said above and don't concentrate the flow
Balls gather in these bunkers meaning they "play" big yet smaller bunkers can be built....saving construction and maintenance resources.


We work so hard preventing any water flow into bunkers that we have become a golf culture of "bunkers in the sky" that are now mostly designed and built for two reasons only.  1) look pretty, this is the place many make their artistic talents known 2) build them maintenance friendly, reducing labor.
Bunkers as a part of the drainage plan have a place. But only for the bold.

[Jon Wiggett]

Well put Don. Pretty much what I was getting at.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Jon, having read it a few times both before and after posting I'm still on the confused side, although I kind of think I kind of agree with you! My concern is really how such a scenario would operate given the present rules, but then again the thread title mentions nuts and bolts and creative drainage solutions rather than the rules.

Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon, having read it a few times both before and after posting I'm still on the confused side, although I kind of think I kind of agree with you! My concern is really how such a scenario would operate given the present rules, but then again the thread title mentions nuts and bolts and creative drainage solutions rather than the rules.

Atb

Thomas,

you are obviously missing the point about the need to ensure the bunker is adequately drained hence the half/full of water situation is not going to happen. Innovation happens outside the box.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Jon, no problem with innovation happening outside the box. Go for it. Aim for the stars, reach the planets and all that. If the bunker has adequate drainage for the amount of water that's being directed into it then that's just fine, terrific, but if not then all I'm saying is that playability and rules etc issues then arise.
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

Mssrs. Wigget, Hancock, and Mahaffey,

I am inclined to agree with your methods of thinking and conclusion, however, I had intended for this thread to be more of a retrospective discussion on places where fates aligned such that bunkers could not adequately drain water shed into them OR the cost of rebuilding bunkers after significant rain was too excessive.

Obviously, this could evolve into a discussion on site-suitability for bunkering, but again, that was not the intent.

Jaeger's idea is a bit more akin to what I was thinking and I am figuring that have to be some examples in modern architecture. I think it's a bit difficult to ascertain the actual construction intent of the ODGs (for example, there are numerous potentially apocryphal stories about such fixes at Huntingdon Valley. It's possible Flynn simply didn't care about sheet drainage into the bunkers that were subsequently altered OR they were altered not for drainage but to prevent balls from rolling into them).

The irony is that many of the ODGs wrote extensively on a manner of construction of bunkers that prevented the very things you all suggest. Thomas and Flynn come to mind.

[archie_struthers]

 




Kyle, many of us here are familiar with the DA , being the infamous bunker on the 10th  hole at Pine Valley. It seems to fit the question. Not for PC but for brevity it is called the DA in this post. For those who don't know it is called the "Devils' asshole"


The DA is a small , conical bunker that is below the front right side of the green. It is not an original part of the design ( take note classicists) but has become an integral part of PVGC lore. I believe it appeared in the early 1930's , but that's strictly from memory. 


Now to the question at hand. We tend to have big, rolling thunderstorms in southern NJ , particularly in high summer. These storms roll right up the Delaware River and tend to have tremendous short downpours, with lots of water. Many bunkers will be seriously impacted , and often need substantial hand raking to pull sand back into the faces . Pine Valley has the manpower, but not the luxury of time to fix the mess. Also, without real high end drainage design , bunkers tend to fill up with water and don't perc fast enough at times.


This was the case with the DA. It became a mess after a major storm event , and required too much handwork to repair. In this case superintendent Dick Bator , who had lots of influence due to his great talent, decided to change the water movement on the tenth green.  This was done to my recollection in 1981. Bator built an eyebrow , fiddled slightly with the green contours leading into the  bunker , and successfully got the water diverted.


This brings to mind multiple questions. Did  the firmer and faster maintenance meld  Bator brought to the Valley increase the speed of the runoff to the  point it did more damage, and does this extend to other courses. Realize that Pine Valley experienced a quantum leap with Bator's  arrival. Also , was he mistaken in putting his desire to minimize labor above the design features of the 10th hole? When a ball could run back into the DA it was infinitely more penal effectively making the whole right quadrant of the green very, very scary . Today it's quite innocuous by comparison.


course

[Mike_Young]

Couple of things...

Cuscowilla has several examples of bunkers where water is allowed to run into them.  A good example is the left greenside bunker on hole #3.  The water from the green drains into the bunker as do balls.  I like it.  However, if I had done it the odds of the supt fighting me and having it diverted would be high.  The odds of a supt going to a turf conferecne and telling another that I had no clue would be high.  So, IMHO to do such things you need to be a signature..I would most likely be fired for such.  .BUT it really is a great feature that makes the shot to to the left side of that green so much more and really makes a guy think about a chip from the right side.  Also the fairway bunker on the second hole receives much water coming across the fairway and is another great strategic feature but not many of us can get away with it. 

When PD was building Old Marsh (Tony might be able to add more)  he would slant fairways away from the wetlands and drain them into waste bunkers being used as filters.  The drains from the waste bunkers would then slope back across the fairways into the wetlands.  I've used this often since learning of it.  The same goes for the large collection bunkers as DM mentions.  They are such a good feature and so efficient.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kyle - not directly on point, but I was looking at some photos from Swinley Forest and the very simple drainage trenches that Colt used there - literally just long, deep, straight cut-outs that he ran along/through low lying areas.  Now, maybe because I like the look of the course so much and because it's Colt and because they've been there 100 years, I found the trenches more appealing than I might have otherwise; but they reminded me of the Eco Bunkers (from a recent thread) that were being used to replace traditional sod-walls. In both cases, the simple functionality and the utility (akin to seeing the dowels and joints in arts and craft furniture) made me like these techniques very much. I think they look great, in fact -- which is all to say that, in trying to find "creative" solutions to drainage, I hope architects don't straight-way discount the "obvious" ones.
Peter

[Jerry Lemons]

One of the cardinal sins of any designer is to allow sheet water or really any water to be directed into the sand. As has been discussed, the loss of the design opportunity of a ball rolling back into a bunker from a green or fairway without water coming along is a result of the desire of the designer to break the rule. Having seen many bunkers completed with Better Billy Bunker in the last 8 years, I can attest that many designers seem to pay no attention to the phenom of the power of water. To say that Tilley at Winged Foot dumped lots of water into the steep faced bunkers is an understatement. Intentional? I am not sure. We do know better now.
Regardless of what is used in a bunker for an underliner, water will move sand. Many folks think grass faced bunkers are better designs but long grass slopes create sheetwater. I've seen properly build steep faced bunker with fast drainage layers perform excellent where a grass faced bunker just eroded the sand. Contamination from erosion is what reduces bunker sand life, period!
 
One of our early projects in Fairfax VA, the design is of many "flat bunkers" resembling catch basins (but with flat areas of  bunker sand). The shaping even drained the parking lot into the 18th bunkers. Before the fast draining BBB layer was installed, the bunkers held water every 1" rain and required pumping.  They now handle any storm event well with very little sand movement.


The fact a golf ball does bounce and roll, (unlike sheet water) provides the sharp eyed & creative designers the opportunity to divert most water away from a bunker but still allowing the ball to roll in.  Jack Kidwell and Dr. Mike Hurdzan taught me many years ago that the three most important things in golf design were drainage, drainage and drainage. Bunkers are no exception.
Mike Young, we'd all be run off if we dump water into bunkers and cause clubs a never ending stupid expense of shoveling sand back to play the game!
An article worth reading is linked below. Jerry
[size=78%]http://gcmdigital.gcsaa.org/i/352181-aug-2014/64[/size][/size][size=78%]  [/size]


     

[Jon Wiggett]

Jerry,

is it not the job of an architect to work out a solution to such problems? The only way for anything including GCA to evolve is to find ways to solve problems that have not been addressed. Remember that Dr. Mac's ideas and designs were derided by many to begin with but are now held in high regard. There is no such thing as 'cardinal rules' that may not be challenged. If everybody had that attitude of not challenging the 'cardinal sins' we'd all still be sitting in caves waiting for the next lightning strike to provide fire.

Kyle,

the most obvious way to do what you want is that which you have described. I do wonder if there might be a possible solution using 'ecobunker' style products and draining the water away through this before it reaches the sand.

Jon

[James Bennett]

Kyle

I'm batting out of my league here, but I have one related observation.

Archie Struthers talks about the drainage at PV on 10 green and how perhaps it increased with firmer/faster greens.

I would add that fairway surface drainage can increase when you switch grasses.  If you go from soft grasses to a bermuda/couch, then surface drainage will go up in winter time.  That can be a good thing, as long as the surface water goes somewhere that you want it to.  It may be that downhill of the newly created surface drainage is a bunker that resided happily with soft grasses upstream, now inundated with surface water running over the top of dormant santa ana or similar.

Nice topic and discussion guys.

James B

[archie_struthers]

 




James, hardly out of your league , your point on differentiation of grasses is spot on.  I was thinking of the sheet drainage and its increase in not only velocity but volume.  It's akin to issues raised in areas where construction is increasing and loss of permeable surface coverage causes major drainage problems. To your point , we agree the surface change impacts absorption and the speed the water flows to its target . Obviously a trickle causes less damage than a flood .

[Jaeger Kovich]

Use a slope leading into bunker.

The momentum and trajectory of the ball struck by a club is different than water. Whether (weather ) from rain or surface runoff, it is only at the very end of a balls roll that they will be the same. You just need to get the ball going at a rate fast enough in the right direction before it goes entirely in the direction of the water.

For instance: Think about how you can make the ball bounce and roll differently via convex shapes versus concave shapes. Where is the ball coming from? What is the angle and the velocity? Rain falls nearly vertical. Water on the ground only has one choice.

[James Bennett]

Archie

I agree re areas of recent construction - the water ponding in these areas for a year or two is very average.

My 'test' for the severity of downpour is to look in the native roughs (in areas absent of tree roots) - if I see water ponding there then I know it has been really wet.  If these native roughs are dry, then I can question the choices being made to present the course and the balance between presentation during drought versus presentation during rain events.  They are always choices.

Further to your comment about sheet drainage and the volume of such water - I recall a winter at my old club a decade ago (weather is very similar to northern California - mild but wet winters).  The practice at the club had been to mini-tyne to assist percolation and drainage, and to ease compaction.  That just lead to blamonge (soft) greens) but little surface water running off.  We then changed (for a couple of years) to rolling/dusting/low inputs which sealed the sub-surface of the green.  This provided an unbelievably good surface which could just last till the end of winter when tyneing was needed to give air.  No ball marks, just great greens.  However, if we had any rain, then the surface water drainage appeared immediately (no percolation) and any cup set in a low point was disaster.  If you waited five minutes till after the downpour, then everything was fine again with firm conditions, albeit with some of the surface drainage not going where it was wanted (eg Pine Valley #10 and the DA bunker).

There are always choices to be made.  And consequences that result.

James B

[Don Mahaffey]

Mssrs. Wigget, Hancock, and Mahaffey,

I am inclined to agree with your methods of thinking and conclusion, however, I had intended for this thread to be more of a retrospective discussion on places where fates aligned such that bunkers could not adequately drain water shed into them OR the cost of rebuilding bunkers after significant rain was too excessive......

The irony is that many of the ODGs wrote extensively on a manner of construction of bunkers that prevented the very things you all suggest. Thomas and Flynn come to mind.

Kyle, there are all sorts of possibilities as loing as you break Jerry's cardinal rule and allow SOME water to drain into a bunkers. And you don't have to build them all like that as some will be more in play from the air anyway.
But keep the watershed draining into the bunker small and broad, and use smallish ridges and bumps above it to steer water away. I don't think we need gathering bunkers as much as we need bunkers that don't repel shots.

The ODG didn't have sand perc 40-60 in/hr, fancy liners and great drainage tools.

[Jerry Lemons]

Jerry,

is it not the job of an architect to work out a solution to such problems? The only way for anything including GCA to evolve is to find ways to solve problems that have not been addressed. Remember that Dr. Mac's ideas and designs were derided by many to begin with but are now held in high regard. There is no such thing as 'cardinal rules' that may not be challenged. If everybody had that attitude of not challenging the 'cardinal sins' we'd all still be sitting in caves waiting for the next lightning strike to provide fire.

Kyle,

the most obvious way to do what you want is that which you have described. I do wonder if there might be a possible solution using 'ecobunker' style products and draining the water away through this before it reaches the sand.

Jon

Jon, YES we have come a long way in a short time with proper bunker construction in the past 30 years. Still certain laws of physics (such as gravity and the power or energy of moving water) have yet to change.
Educating golfers about the limitations on such things as bunker steepness and drainage has save those who might listen, many headaches and dollars from, what I call the biggest waste in golf maintenance, shoveling sand back up slopes. It is those who think there is only one way, "the old way" that continue, as you call to it "live in the cave". The article I posted, if you read it, may educate you on "out of cave" thinking.


It always amazes me how ODG designs are not changed due to them being ODG designs, when some simple engineering solves problems related to bunkers.

[Don Mahaffey]

Jerry
What amazes me is how courses spend exhorbinant amounts of money on products like your liner and still have to make sure not a drop of water drains into the bunker. I get your point, golf should be about maintenance, or better said, presenting a perfect course with as little maintenance required as possible.
Thing is, there is still this small contingent in the golf world who think it should be about the game.
Bunkers can be built that gather some balls AND don't require a lot of extra maintenance every time it rains.   It does require a little more creativity than just sticking them up in the air, but I'm glad there are still a few guys who aren't afraid to build em.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jerry,

is it not the job of an architect to work out a solution to such problems? The only way for anything including GCA to evolve is to find ways to solve problems that have not been addressed. Remember that Dr. Mac's ideas and designs were derided by many to begin with but are now held in high regard. There is no such thing as 'cardinal rules' that may not be challenged. If everybody had that attitude of not challenging the 'cardinal sins' we'd all still be sitting in caves waiting for the next lightning strike to provide fire.

Kyle,

the most obvious way to do what you want is that which you have described. I do wonder if there might be a possible solution using 'ecobunker' style products and draining the water away through this before it reaches the sand.

Jon

Jon, YES we have come a long way in a short time with proper bunker construction in the past 30 years. Still certain laws of physics (such as gravity and the power or energy of moving water) have yet to change.
Educating golfers about the limitations on such things as bunker steepness and drainage has save those who might listen, many headaches and dollars from, what I call the biggest waste in golf maintenance, shoveling sand back up slopes. It is those who think there is only one way, "the old way" that continue, as you call to it "live in the cave". The article I posted, if you read it, may educate you on "out of cave" thinking.


It always amazes me how ODG designs are not changed due to them being ODG designs, when some simple engineering solves problems related to bunkers.

Wow Jerry,

seems to be a case of 'my way or the highway'. Do you mean to come across so arrogantly? Have you not thought to solve the sand being washed out of flashed bunkers faces through building grass faced ones or maybe railway sleepers with the water being drained down the back.

On other matters an interesting article you have written which I enjoyed reading.

Jon