[Tom Doak]

Jeff,

Usually "catch basins next to a pond" are an indication that the community didn't want any surface runoff directly to an existing pond (for water quality reasons).  Unfortunately, sometimes it just means that the golf architect was used to working in those situations, and put in the basins even though the locale wouldn't have required them.

Let me clarify my earlier posts:  we usually do have a local engineer consult on the master drainage plan for our courses after the layout is complete.  But, often there's little for them to do, other than temporary erosion control stuff, because we haven't changed the site all that much.

To whomever asked:  Pete Dye used to drill into us the importance of drainage as an integral part of the design.  But, Pete is also one of the worst offenders of making catch basins in the fairways nowadays:  the thing I hate most about Whistling Straits is how the landforms are interrupted by all the drainage basins.  And Jeff McDowell is right:  I've seen lots of squeegee work around those things after rainstorms.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom and all,

Those catch basins along the lake may have been environmentally motivated, or they may also have been by an architect who has "playability" in mind, and wanted to have a raised lip along the lake to help hold shots from trickling into the water.....

When I started, we also never put basins in the fairway.  One problem with putting them in the rough is that it is easy to get a 'crowned" fairway, which rejects tee shots.  IMHO, When tour pros got in the business, they felt the course should "help" golfers, by directing them back to the middle.  (At least, that's where I first heard the idea, but have also heard it from the pay for play clients I have, who also want the design to speed play)  The only way to have a valley fairway is to have basins in the middle.

Like Tom, I have an engineer do a master drainage study, but sometimes (like right now) we have to figure in the housing detention basins within our design in the first run to see how they affect golf.  Then, we give it to an engineer to confirm our caluclations and make the final submittal.  It can be complicated!  We do all our own golf course drainage plans, but leave anything that may affect upstream or downstream to an engineer.

We use the rational formula to size pipes, and find the typical 4 and 6 inch pipe drainage systems some architects put in laughable.  We never underestimate the power of water!

Like Tom Doak said about Bunker placement on another thread, you have to analyze each hole individually to determine if the architect made the right drainage choices.  And, you really have to consider that there is not a right choice, just ones that favor one design criteria for another.

An example....

We are working on a project right now which has a flat, yet fully wooded site.  The environmental permit restricted the trees we could take out.  We also had compensitory flood storage issues as it is in a floodplain.  Our only option was to put catch basins in the fairways.  We had to lower many fairways to get the necessary comp. storage - as grading around trees would obviously kill them.

another example...

On a Desert Course, we put in a $600K drainage system. It had housing surrounding.  When golf is within housing, drainage is also complicated.  It's not the big storms, it's the little bits of nuisance water coming off every lot that is best picked up in a drainage structure before it ever reaches a cart path, much less the middle of the fairway.  It's also expensive because the housing and street drainage can't - by law - be mixed with golf drainage.  So our drainage had to go the "long way 'round" through the golf course to the one logical exit point.  (OF course, when engineers need to cut drainage costs, they have no qualms about routing right across your golf course, and usually about a year after its open, requiring digging it up)

So, even in a desert climate, mucho drainage was required.  I have said this before, but we treat fairways like an engineer would treat a road - we try to block surface water - especially major swales - from crossing it with a basin.  Otherwise, the amount of water holding in a long swale makes mowing impossible.

I agree with Jeff McDowell in the fact that turf has different drainage needs (usally more) than a forest.  When I started in this business, we tried for 2% surface pitch, and settled for 1%.  That proved unnacceptable for drainage.  Now, we try for 4% and settle for 3% - which I think is the minimum.  If the natural slope is less than 3%, we grade it and add catch basins.  If we happen to be sodding Zoysia, we know from experience that it holds water, and we shoot for 6% slopes, and settle for about 4.5%.  I don't know why it holds water, it just does!

Lou,

After you commented on GSW a few months ago, I paid special attention to greenside areas for wetness while playing.  I found a few, but just par for the course.  I think the cause is an antiquated irrigation system, where the superintendent needs to overwater some areas to get them wet enough, and sometimes causes other areas to get too wet.  We kept the existing paths, and the tie ins aren't as good as they would be if built as one unit.  

Also, its not uncommon for any course to need to add a few drainage tiles and basins.  Most supers expect to put in drainage every year.  If we put in as little as possible to start, mostly to meet budgets, which are always constricted, then it follows that the superintendent must put in the remainder.  

Keith -

Yes, we try to keep water as sheet flow, but it tends to concentrate at about 250-300 feet, no matter what!  At that point, you need a basin, or erosion will delay grow in for months.

[Steve Lang]

Points made seem to reflect that architects can do right by drainage with common sense approaches, they can do wrong by allowing a third party engineering firm to have its way with no appreciation for larger aesthetics (play) and only budget.

There are a variety of analytical means currently available to assist in checking designs for surface and ground water flows and quality impacts.  As in any mass balance, IN-OUT = ACCUMULATION.  I believe the key is defining all the original baseline conditions before changes are made.  

This all leads me to looking at PC-based hydrologic simulation models to address these type problems over the large acreages of a golf course and the larger watersheds in which they lie.  The problem is always input data, but todays numerical models are very powerful and much easier to use in the Windows-World.   Multiple cases just take time to set up. Perhaps architects will avail themselves of these tools before those looking to derail projects comprehend their potential.

[Mike_Cirba]

I have long contended that the major difference between classic architects and modern ones is simply the difference between convex and concave features.  

The classicists used high land forms to locate their features, not only for drainage, but also to put the onus on the properly played or curved shot holding the fairway or the green.

Modernists, on the other hand, as described by Jeff Brauer, tend to look more at issues of "playability", and his description of the "bowled" fairway is clear evidence of that sometimes overriding consideration driving many modern works.  

In fairness to the modernists, I think that part of the driving force is that they are often working on more limited sites in terms of available land usage (i.e. housing, wetlands, sites with sharp elevation changes), so "containment" becomes a much bigger factor than it was to their predecessors, who achieved playability through much wider, if often convex, fairways and green surrounds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Other thoughts on modern drainage while I sip my morning coffee....

On courses where cart paths are present (which is to say virtually every course, at least in America) these alone can require additonal drainage.  On flat ground, they are often laid to high, and block flow, forming water pockets, or on hilly sites, they collect water.  When drainage flow is on asphalt or concrete, it concentrates and accelerates, and should be picked up by a basin before it leaves the path, or it will erode during grow in, and stay wet after grow in.  And since the water and the carts usually follow the valleys, it becomes a mess.

You can see how the modern course, with its extra features, can require more drainage than those of the Golden Age.  Of course, I would also bet that many golden age courses have had drainage added every year by the superintendent as well, as more irrigation, more paths, more houses around, etc. have changed drainage needs dramatically.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Steve,

I couldn't disagree more with your thought that engineers should stay out of the drainage. I believe that architects need to understand drainage, but they also need to know their limits.

I have yet to meet an architect that knows as much about drainage as a civil engineer. I believe that architects need to know enough about drainage to ask the right questions, and monitor drainage design, but let the civil engineer do what they do best.

Think about it this way - a golf course architect will work on maybe a dozen projects a year. Drainage is an important but small part of each project. Therefore, an architect spends very little time designing drainage systems. On the other hand, there are civil engineers in our office that do drainage design everyday. I will trust the person who does drainage everyday.

I'm not saying hand over drainage to the engineers and take what they give you. I'm saying let the engineers do the number crunching and pipe sizing while you manage how the drainage design fits into the concept of the golf course. If an engineer sizes a pipe larger than necessary for proper drainage within a golf course, the architect should question the decision.

It's easy for me to have this opinion, because I have easy access to engineers. I might think differently if we didn't have engineers in the office.

There are a number of software packages that model drainage. We use XPSWM and Hydrocad. Hydrocad is great for calculating runoff volumes, ponding levels, and modeling outlets. XPSWM is more complicated and gets into scenarios that involve equalizer pipes and backflow. I used to do a lot of hydrocad modeling, but haven't used it lately. They keep upgrading the software, so I'm not up to speed.

[Mark_Fine]

Nice to see an "architecture" thread get some attention.  It gives me renewed hope in this website!  

[Keith Williams]

As one of those engineers who does drainage nearly every day I totally agree with Jeff  

In all honesty, though, why not let an engineer run all of the calculations involved and then have the architect work WITH the engineer to determine the best way to handle runoff and other drainage issues for a project.  Or better yet, make sure and use an engineer who is knowledgeable about what is important in BOTH the design of a golf course and the drainage for a site.

I actually say all of this knowing very little about what most golf course architects know about drainage and hydrology.  For all I know, Tom Doak, Jeff Braur and everybody else may know all about the SCS method, pipe sizing, and manning's n and they may not need any engineering assistance at all.

As a matter of fact, how many golf course architects out there have formal educations in civil engineering?  I seem to remember reading somewhere that Jim Engh was a civil engineer.  A degree in civil engineering has to have multiple benefits in golf course architecture, not just in hydrology but also in earth movement, geotechnology and general site development.

Keith.

[TEPaul]

Good subject and I'm sure well thought out and effective drainage is underrated by the ordinary golfer or even the ordinary architectural observer until it becomes a constant problem somewhere on the golf course! Then the ordinary golfer becomes concerned and critical!

How does the ordinary golfer or architectural observer view drainage problems?

Probably in two distinctly different ways.

1. When ground used for golf drains poorly and becomes soggy which affects playability and probably turf health too.

2. When even proper and effecient drainage effects playability such as catch drains at low points in fairways and chipping areas and such as cited a number of times on this thread by some clearly astute architects and observers. Drainage heads where balls come to rest are a pain in the ass for almost all golfers, I would think!

Most golfers (obviously the vast, vast, majority of golfers) have no idea at all about hydraulics, natural water movements, rates of water movement and how that's tied in sensibly and aesthetically with the architecture of a golf course but those that are clients and those responsible for hiring architects (and supporting engineers and water management people) probably have heard of the concept or the importance of proper drainage to both the aesthetics and playability of a golf course and have certainly heard the cliche "drainage, drainage, drainage" (or should have heard of it).

I don't know much about the mechanics and the detailed nuts and bolts of drainage but I was talking to Geoff Shackelford the other night about the drainage efficiency of Riviera! I've talked to him a number of times in the past about this subject at Riviera and we've only talked about how well the drainage on Geo. Thomas's course worked when he built it!

But the other night Geoff was mentioning that not only did the drainage work efficiently but it also worked efficiently for the "playbality" of golf! Obviously this must mean that soggy areas have always been kept to a minimum somehow.

He went beyond even that the other night and also mentioned that the team of Thomas/Bell were also able to roll efficient drainage (in the courses they did) into golf contours that work both efficiently for drainage and efficiently and interestingly for GOLF!! Obviously that means "playability"! But he also mentioned they melded that drainage efficiency into the "architectural aesthetics" of the golf course really well!

While drainage may be little noticed and certainly underrated by the vast majority of golfers and members in the history of Riviera, one could logically ask now; "How did all that happen"?

Like any other aspect of design, a client should probably do his necessary research by checking on golf courses that any architect has done to determine (among numerous other things) that drainage considerations were well done in areas of both "playablity" AND architectural "aesthetics" (as that relates to drainage necessities)!

A client or any golfer really doesn't have to concern himself with all that concerns an architect, engineer or hydrologist, he just needs to be sure that they know what the hell they're doing by checking to see what they've all done before!

And Jeesus, from some of these posts on here it appears that some architects may not know much about drainage or even concern themselves with it!

Well, if I was a client I would see to it that that architect, at least, concerned himself enough with it by finding someone who did know about drainage extremely well and then the entire design process (and I do mean entire--every playable area of the course basically) should be a matter of that architect and that engineer and that hydrologist going through the course and the architectural plan and considering SIMULTANEOUSLY every element of "drainage", "playbability" AND architectural "aesthetics" EVERYWHERE.

If that's what it takes to solve, for the rest of time, drainage problems and how they may relate to "playbalitiy" and "aesthetics"  then that's what it takes. In that case it should be a constant checklist with all three through the golf course and its design of, "can do/no can do"!

Somehow Thomas and Bell figured it all out really well and any client should be aware enough of drainage problems and solutions to expect the same!

Again, I don't really understand the problems and solutions of drainage and how it all relates to drainage efficiency, playability and architectural aesthetics all at the same time but I will tell you a time I did notice a difference in the playability and aesthetics of it between two golf courses!

And the two courses were not in different towns or different states either! They happen to be right next to each other although built by different companies!

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes!

Being right next to each other I suppose it's logical to conclude that natural drainage problems and solutions must have been quite similar.

I could not help but notice in the bases of so many of the interesting fairway contours at Bandon Dunes there were drainage heads! And it occured to me I never saw a single one in any of the also interesting fairway contours at Pacific Dunes!

But I probably never would have even thought of the fact that I never saw one in the fairway contours of Pacific Dunes (maybe there were some there but I don't remember ever seeing one)  if it wasn't for the fact that I did see something that really suprised me! It surprised me enough to stop walking and look at it and think about what it all meant!

It was a drainage head under some bushes way out of play and on the walk between two holes.

That kind of thing is really all that a golfer should concern himself with when it comes to whether drainage is overrated or not and if it's efficient drainage and how it relates to both "playbality" and architectural "aesthetics"!

I should also add, if someone thinks otherwise, that it's also extremely hard for even an interested architectural observer to tell where the man-made architecture at Pacific Dunes stops and starts and to this observer that's extremely important!

And clearly I mean by that how "playbabilty" and architectural "aesthetics" on both courses compare in the context of drainage problems and solutions!

It seemed to me that one course did it really well and the other really didn't!

[Rickster]

"I have three rules which I live by: Never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city, and never go near a lady with a tattoo of a dagger on her hand. Now you stick with that, and everything else is cream cheese."

[Stephen Lang]

Jeff,

 

Steve,

I couldn't disagree more with your thought that engineers should stay out of the drainage. I believe that architects need to understand drainage, but they also need to know their limits.

I have yet to meet an architect that knows as much about drainage as a civil engineer. I believe that architects need to know enough about drainage to ask the right questions, and monitor drainage design, but let the civil engineer do what they do best.

Whoa!!!!  You caught me wrong, we're in violent agreement.

There should definitely be a synergy of thought, not just architect handing over plans to engineer to simply check... or the reverse, an engineer giving architect plans that work within budget.  But will the architects give up ultimate control? I think not, it is a design art!  And unfortunately the water sprinkler settings, of all things, can ruin the product on any given day.  

In details...Does the engineer consider a range of n coefficients in the piping or differential settlement or reality of field construction versus plans?  Likely not unless he's tasked to do so in his scope of work or has ever had the experience of cleaning a sewer of debris or installing same to 0.1' or less tolerance that he modeled and advising his client that his checks should be more extensive!  Do the civil engineers do very much in the way of sensitivity checks?  If so, BRAVO!

Piping is easy, surface flows are  more problematic... While it can be modeled, does pure sheet flow really occur in nature or on golf courses with various types of grasses, with grass clippings that get washed out, with leaves, branches, cart wheel impressions and divots and cart paths all around to alter drainage variables from design conditions?  Do courses get surveyed to reflect as-built and the drainage improvements redefined?

Seems like more folks should be out in the rain looking at golf course drainage to appreaciate it.

[Keith Williams]

Stephen,

As a quick note, I do design my pipe inverts to the nearest tenth, and often hundredth, of a foot.  I also will design house pad elevations to the nearest tenth of a foot, and I will report my grading balance for a 100 acre development down to the nearest cubic yard of soil, but I will NEVER let the success and performance of my design hinge on the necessity of my plans to be constructed exactly as I calculated.  Any civil engineer's designs are always extremely conservative and have factors of safety applied throughout.  That is the difference in precision and accuracy.  I am very precise in my calculations and the manner in which I report them, but I design to the level of accuracy expected in the field construction.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Steve, I didn't mean to misinterpret your thread. I agree with the idea of engineers and architects working together.

There was an engineer in the office who helped me with a lot of stuff, so when he asked if he could take a try at routing a course I let him. He found the task extremely difficult and frustrating. As far as his routing - let's just say we agreed that he should stick to engineering.

[TEPaul]

"Whoa!! You caught me wrong. We're in violent disagreement."
Stephen Lang

I love this website!!

If I ever do a golf course I'm gonna get that Stephen Lang to come and consult on drainage--there's no doubt about that!!

There will be me, the architect and Stephen Lang! The only other guy I'll need is a translator because I have no idea what Stephen is talking about and I doubt someone like Bill Coore will either but it sure sounds good enough to bring a translator along to find out!

[W.H. Cosgrove]

For the experts out there.  Is there a major difference in how the drainage is constructed depending on the type of rainfall you are experiencing?  

I live in the Pacific NW.  We get rain in the form of drizzle.  Admittedly it lasts about 7 months but it comes little by little.  Now Texas or the midwest gets its rain in cloudbursts.  A lot all at once.  

Is there a difference in how you plan for that?  Do these differences cause maintenance problems?

[Stephen Lang]

"Whoa!! You caught me wrong. We're in violent agreement."

I love this website!!

If I ever do a golf course...to consult on drainage..bring a translator along...!

GEEESSH TEPaul.... You really need to investigate and learn about Bernoulli's Law and especially the use of the Manning equation to compute velocity and thus flow in open channels, be they pipes or swales or channels or rivers to discuss the technical details of drainage.  This is not unlike reading the works of the old masters, so to speak, eh?

You don't need SL.  

I can't imagine you or anyone else not being able to understand the underpinnings of these logical constructs basic to hydraulics unless you're math and physics challenged.  If so, maybe you do need SL and a translator.

I'm not trying to obfuscate or raise the fog factor, I work along side of several thousand engineers, day-in-day-out, when I'm not playing golf, and I enjoy it when I get to do drainage stuff among all the other Chem/Enviro things.

These former details are all directed at one generic issue...if you model within a domain, choose your inputs wisely, and check them often.  Otherwise its GIGO.

Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.    

Seems like there should be a meld between the practical and theoretical on this topic under the laws of gravity.

[TEPaul]

Stephen:

No thanks--the translator will do just fine, thank you very much!

Even if I did understand that stuff I've never trusted a "Law" developed by an actual Italian Italian!

[Stephen Lang]

TEPaul
Hate to bust the Italian connection, but the guy's ancestry was Belgium and he as Swiss... better get out the calculator!

Interesting reading at:
www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/ Bernoulli_Jacob.html

[Science Man]

Really TP your attempt at humor only shows your appallng lack of scientific literacy.  Laws by Italians, how about Avogadro, Fermi, Galileo, Torricelli, Volta, Marconi, and Vesalius.

[TEPaul]

Aw Jeesus science man why don't you get your head out of your test tube!

But you're right I'm completely illiterate in those types of things! I have seen the list of names you produced there but I thought they were a vegetable, a race driver, a defrocked US Senator, a Scandanavian car, a piece of pasta, and a volcano!

I sure have heard of Galileo though! He was one impressive dude but I always thought he was from Portugal or Spain like Christopher Columbus or Amerigo Vespucci!

[TEPaul]

Stephen Lang:

Belgium, Swiss, Italian! What's the difference? To me there all furiners and they're all dangerous! Every time I shake hands with one I make sure to check I still have all my fingers!

I heard those furiners over there needed a little home grown knowledge in drainage this year!

As far as I'm concerned it was them that swiped all that rain we needed over here this summer! Can't trust any of them, I tell you--they're all a bunch of thieves!

[JmHaley]

TE Paul,
In an earlier post you mentioned the differences in drainage between Pac Dunes and Bandon Dunes both have drainage systems however Tom Doak and Company didn't use standard catch basins instead opting for a cross of drain pipe beneath the ground which they are now having to retro fit with catch basins because water doesn't move through the grass and thatch thus causing a soggy playing surface

[Steve Lang]

 

COS's ?

Is there a major difference in how the drainage is constructed depending on the type of rainfall you are experiencing?  

I live in the Pacific NW.  We get rain in the form of drizzle.  Admittedly it lasts about 7 months but it comes little by little.  Now Texas or the midwest gets its rain in cloudbursts.  A lot all at once.  

Is there a difference in how you plan for that?  Do these differences cause maintenance problems?

My two cents... Construction differences in sizing, not major, but this drives sewers and basins to different depths.  When I lived in Ohio, we had many quarter to half inch rains unless a front was coming by and then we might get half inch to 1.5 inch rains.  Multiply that by 2-3 for Texas gulf Coast storms and you simply end up with larger pipes to handle larger instantaneous flowrates.

FYI.. In refineries we specify drainage systems and components per reference design storms, like the 24 hour, ten year  return frequency storm for sumps and retention basins, while perhaps using the 1 hr, 25 year return frequency storm for determining sewer flows.  These storm definitions are available from NOAA and other regional sources.  

In addition we check against fire water flows, which are often controlling in certain reaches of a sewer system.  We design with a conservative friction factor for the pipes, and minimum slopes per size and the pipe is sized for design flows at 3/4 full.  By specs there are maximum run lengths between manholes and from open catch basins to manholes as well as angles allowed and number of cleanouts provided.  In essence a design that can be maintained is one that is accessible.  remember you clean a sewer from its downstream end!

[TEPaul]

JmHaley:

I wouldn't know about what you said about drainage problems in the way the Doak Co. did Pacific Dunes. The answers to that are better left to someone like Tom Doak.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Cos,

Great question!! Steve did a good job answering it, but it brings up a bone of contention I have with engineers.

As Steve mentioned, engineers design for certain storm events, ie 5-year, 10-year, etc. But these storm events are usually based on a 24-hour precipitation amount. For instance, a 100-year event in Minneapolis is about 6.2 inches of rain in 24 hours. IMO, the problem with this type of analysis as related to golf course design is that if it rained 6 inches in 24 hours most golfers would accept soggy conditions and some standing water.

On the other hand, those intense summer storms that drop 2 inches in an hour get a different reaction from golfers. They expect to get back on the course, and play some golf. This requires a different design.

What I have done in the past is created scenarios (just like Steve mentioned) that allow the owner to decide what they want. For example, I will run a scenario with a 4" pipe that creates 2 feet of ponding for two hours, a second secnario with 8" pipe that creates one foot of ponding for one hour, and a final scenario with 12" pipe that has no ponding. Obviously, the bigger pipe is more expensive, so the owner has to balance cost versus playability and maintenance.

While I'm on the subject, the size of the pipe is usually not the limiting factor controlling flow rates. The catchbasin is. A 12" pipe has a capacity of about 5 cubic feet per second, while a 12" catchbasin has a capacity of about 3 cubic feet per second.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()