Mechanical behaviour of natural turf sports pitches is commonly assessed using the Clegg Impact Soil Tester and the studded disc apparatus under benchmark frameworks. Using the studded disc is time consuming and laborious, which restricts the frequency at which data on surfaces can be collected. To address this, the GoingStick® was evaluated for use as a surface assessment tool. The device was originally developed for testing horseracing tracks, and quantifies both the penetration resistance and shear resistance of the turf surface. Data were collected on three sports pitches (rugby union and football) of varying sporting level and soil texture over two seasons of sport. A laboratory experiment was also conducted assessing data from the GoingStick and the Clegg Impact Soil Tester for four soil treatments. The first season data highlighted that the maximum measurable value was too low on the device, owing to sports pitches being harder than race tracks. This issue was also found for the harder soil treatments in the laboratory study. The development of a new sports pitch calibration resolved this issue for the second season, where the entire range of resistance was successfully measured. Linear relationships were evident between penetration resistance measured with the GoingStick and impact hardness measured with the third drop of the 2.25 kg Clegg Impact Soil Tester (r2 = 0.75), and between shear resistance measured with the GoingStick and peak torque resistance measured by the studded disc (r2 = 0.88). The results of the study indicate the potential for the GoingStick to efficiently quantify the mechanical behaviour of natural turf pitches. Further work should aim to determine benchmark ranges for the measured parameters and incorporate the device within decision-support frameworks for surface management.
[1]
I T James,et al.
Testing natural turf sports surfaces: The value of performance quality standards
,
2009
.
[2]
J. Orchard.
The AFL penetrometer study: work in progress.
,
2001,
Journal of science and medicine in sport.
[3]
John N. Rogers,et al.
Effects of Management Practices on Impact Absorption and Shear Resistance in Natural Turf
,
1990
.
[4]
Michael James Domingo Dufour,et al.
GoingStick® technology and electromagnetic induction scanning for naturally‐turfed sports surfaces
,
2008
.
[5]
M.J.D. Dufour C. Mumford.
THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF THE GOINGSTICK
,
2007
.
[6]
Matt C. J. Caple,et al.
Development of a simplified dynamic testing device for turfed sports surfaces
,
2011
.
[7]
Leonie Otago,et al.
Challenges in the development of standards for synthetic turf for Australian football and cricket
,
2011
.
[8]
Michael L. Peterson,et al.
Development of a system for the in-situ characterisation of thoroughbred horse racing track surfaces
,
2008
.
[9]
S. W. Baker,et al.
Performance standards and the interpretation of playing quality for soccer in relation to rootzone composition
,
1988
.
[10]
B Clegg,et al.
An impact testing device for in situ basecourse evaluation
,
1976
.
[11]
Anthony G Schneiders,et al.
Association of ground hardness with injuries in rugby union
,
2007,
British Journal of Sports Medicine.
[12]
I. McClements,et al.
The playing quality of rugby pitches
,
1994
.
[13]
Leonie Otago,et al.
Reliability of equipment for measuring the ground hardness and traction
,
2011
.
[14]
Colin Mumford,et al.
The optimization of going management on UK racecourses using controlled water applications
,
2006
.