THE EVOLUTION OF SPORTS SURFACES:
NATURAL MEETS SYNTHETIC
Colin Young – Labosport Ltd
Charles Henderson – Labosport PSD
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
©Labosport Ltd 2016
TERMS OF REFERENCE
•
Natural is defined as “existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.”
•
Artificial is defined as “made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally”
•
Hybrid is defined as “of mixed character; composed of different elements”
•
Reinforced is defined as “strengthen or support (an object or substance), especially with additional
material”
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
DEFINITION
Natural turf is a living organism that has the ability to grow and regenerate; synthetic turf does not. Given
the speed of innovations and merging of natural and synthetic elements the following definition has been
derived for hybrid and reinforced turf systems.
“A surface comprising both natural and synthetic elements that, when combined, produce a
system with improved characteristics. The individual elements remain separate and distinct
within the finished surface with at least one element having the capability to
regenerate/grow.”
Consider the term “Augmented Turf”
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
QUESTION – WHICH IS SYNTHETIC - WHICH IS NATURAL?
2 – 4 % Artificial*
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
5 – 7 % Artificial*
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
CLASSIFICATION
Fully Natural
Traditional
construction for
natural turf using only
natural materials
including sand
1
Natural
Synthetic material
added to the natural
turf
Natural turf grown in
a synthetic turf
product
Natural materials
added to the
synthetic turf
Fully Synthetic
Synthetic elements
added to the
rootzone profile of
the natural turf to
provide
reinforcement
Synthetic fibres
encompassing both
stitched and carpet
based systems
combined with
natural turf grown
within the fibres.
Primarily synthetic
with natural
component parts,
typically infills. Much
higher volume of
synthetic fibres
compared to natural
hybrids
Traditional synthetic
construction. All
elements are
synthetic
2
Reinforced
Natural
Classification
3
Hybrid Natural*
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
4
Hybrid Synthetic
Synthetic
5
Synthetic
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
EVOLUTION OF SURFACES – TYPES OF HYBRID / REINFORCED SURFACE
Reinforced Rootzone
Removed subject to ©
Carpet Hybrid
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
Stitched Hybrid
Removed subject to ©
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
EVOLUTION OF SURFACES
Evolution of Surfaces
Natural
Increased sand ratio mix
become popular
First
reinforced
rootzone
system
Soil-based
Reinforced
First hybrid
(insitu) system
Hybrid
Original
synthetic turf
(Astroturf™)
Synthetic
Year
Pre 1960s
1960s
2G synthetic turf (sand infill)
1970s
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
1980s
3G synthetic
turf
(sand/rubber
infill)
1990s
First carpet
based hybrid
systems
Growth in # of
hybrid and
reinforced
systems
3G synthetic turf (natural infill)
2000s
2010s
+ 2020s
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
MARKET HISTORY
Removed subject to ©
1966
50 years of evolution
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
THE NEED FOR HYBRID / REINFORCED TURF
• Players / clubs / leagues demanding higher standards
• Need to guarantee fixtures and revenue streams
• Increasing stadia sizes and microclimates and low light levels
• Ability to play in most almost ‘all’ conditions
• Stability to allow increased usage whilst maintaining quality of playing surface
• Ability to host non-sporting events and multi-sport events
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
THE NEED FOR HYBRID / REINFORCED TURF
• Increased stability including improved rotational resistance and shear strength
• Reduction of grow-in time required
• Improved infiltration rates – that should enable the use of sandier rootzones
• Improved turf cover through the season including improved appearance pre and post
heavy wear
• Improved uniformity in playability across the playing surface (high use areas, etc.)
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
CONSTRUCTION OF HYBRID SYSTEMS
• Hybrid systems been subject to standard install specifications for a number of
years.
• Stitched based hybrid systems have had to be installed in gravel carpet pitch
constructions.
• New products have brought about varied approaches to pitch installation.
• Minimal research or challenge to minimum construction for hybrid systems.
• New and future hybrid pitch options open up variable pitch construction styles.
• Pitch construction open up variable levels of risk to designers and installers.
• New systems and their associated installation methods create more potential for
their use.
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
HYBRID PITCH CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS
Sandcarpet Installation
(High drainage risk)
(Low cost)
Deep Sandcarpet Installation
(Moderate drainage risk)
(Moderate cost)
Suspended gravel carpet
(Low drainage risk)
(High cost)
- Reinforced rootzones
- Carpet based hybrids
- £100-150K + system
- Reinforced rootzones
- Carpet based hybrids
- £130-200K + system
- Reinforced rootzones
- Carpet & Stitched based hybrids
- £650K > + system
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
MARKETPLACE ASSESSMENT – ESTIMATED PITCHES WORLDWIDE
146,
13%
337,
29%
674,
58%
Reinforced
Hybrid (insitu)
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
Hybrid (carpet)
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
MARKETPLACE ASSESSMENT – ESTIMATED PITCHES WORLDWIDE
700
600
# of pitches built
500
400
300
200
100
0
Before 2,000
2,000 - 2,005
2,005 - 2,010
2,010 - 2,015
2,015 - 2,020 (estimate)
Year
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
SURFACE PLAYABILITY - PERFORMANCE
Sports surfaces are complex structures comprising several layers of construction and
many different materials, all of which contribute to their composite behaviour.
It has been postulated for several years that reinforced and hybrid turf has different
characteristics to natural turf (and full synthetic turf), in particular, in relation to surface
‘hardness’.
Data have been collected by Labosport over several years on thousands of sports
surfaces around the world including natural, hybrid and full synthetic.
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
PERFORMANCE OF THE SURFACE – SHOCK ABSORBENCY
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
PERFORMANCE OF THE SURFACE – BALL ROLL
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
PERFORMANCE OF THE SURFACE – BALL REBOUND
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
PERFORMANCE OF THE SURFACE – CFH (HIC)
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
LABOSPORT SCOREPLAY™
Reproduced with permission – TheFA, Alan Ferguson - Head of Grounds & Estates
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
RESEARCH NEEDS – PLAYER INTERACTIONS
•
Anecdotal evidence from players and coaches suggests many reinforced and hybrid solutions are
significantly different from their 100 % natural counterparts.
•
The occurrence of player injury can be attributed to many factors and it is not commonly a single
cause.
•
Several studies have reviewed the claim that both the type and frequency of sports injury occurrence
are influenced by the introduction of different surface types, most notably that of synthetic turf.
•
There is no consensus and currently there is a lack of good science to demonstrate a clear
relationship between surface characteristics and specific injuries. Most studies have found no
significant difference in epidemiological data between ‘natural’ and ‘synthetic’ however these studies
have failed to benchmark surfaces from an agronomic or performance perspective hence they are
limited in their findings.
•
A more coherent and detailed research study into the impacts different surface types have on players
is essential.
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
COST OF HYBRIDS
• Ultimately choice between the systems is down to cost and environmental factors.
• For hybrid to compete with synthetic reduced upfront costs will be required.
Installation costs (“typical”)
Full Synthetic
Reinforced
Carpet Hybrid
Stitched
Hybrid
Sandcarpet
Initial cost
£ 550 k
£ 250 k
£ 280 k
£ 850 k
£ 75 k
Maintenance /
year
£ 3 k / year
£ 25 k / year
£ 27 k / year
£ 35 k / year
£ 9 k / year
Labour / year
£ 6 k / year
£ 17.5 k / year
£ 17.5 k / year
£ 20 k / year
£ 8.5 k / year
7 year cost
£ 613 k
£ 547.5 k
£ 591.5 k
£ 1,235 k
£ 197.5 k
Hour use
14,000
4,500
5,670
7,560
1,134
£ / hour use
£44
£ 122
£104
£ 163
£ 174
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
MAINTENANCE
• Hybrid turf options open up new and exciting options to the sports industry
• All hybrid turf options still made up of 95-100% natural grass
• Most hybrid systems still require successful establishment & maintenance
• Hybrid turf maintenance generally more complex than natural turf maintenance
• Hybrid systems can reduce negative impact unsuccessful turf maintenance in
some instances
• Where ongoing and persistent poor maintenance occurs, hybrid systems can
become of a similar standard to natural turf pitches
• Many new systems still in the process of proving they can withstand long-term
maintenance, specifically renovations.
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
QUESTIONS FOR HYBRID TURF
•
Ability of some systems to withstand renovations
•
Ability of some systems to withstand aeration and decompaction
•
The effect of some systems of rooting characteristics and plant vigour
•
The validity of claims or indeed actual effective usage increase of these systems
•
The ability to effectively decompact some systems
•
Eventual playing quality one complete loss of natural turf cover or in instances of extreme neglect
•
Increasingly competitive market place - unregulated
•
Huge potential to assist in the delivery of sports clubs and governing bodies objectives
•
Due to youth of the industry many claims are not verifiable
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
THE FUTURE…
• Historically reinforced and hybrid systems have been restricted to professional sports
facilities but gradually it is expected they will become increasingly common at amateur
facilities.
• The importance of developing standards to set minimum quality criteria are essential to
try and mitigate against failures, poor quality installations and opportunistic providers with
a lack of agronomic understanding flooding the marketplace.
• Currently over 20 suppliers and likely to continue increasing in the coming years.
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
THE FUTURE…
• It is anticipated there will be a closer merging of traditional natural and synthetic turf
products. Currently the volume of synthetic materials in the majority of hybrid systems is
below 5 % by mass.
• As demand for increased usage continues it is predicted hybrid and reinforced systems will
start to incorporate a higher percentage of synthetic materials to meet these demands and
hence raise the issue of at what point the surface becomes classified as synthetic.
Removed subject to ©
SAPCA Technical Meeting 2016
11th October 2016
www.labosport.com
[email protected]
©Labosport 2016
QUESTIONS?