News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2007, 10:20:52 AM »
Jeff,
I avoid TI work like the plague simply because it's "blow and go" type work. For example, I avoided going to the Staples Center when they were building it for this entire reason. It's not what I would call the most intelligent of installations, most of it plastic tubing tied to steel sub structure, wires pulled through it and then cemented over and it was designed exactly that way, to be cheap and easy to install throughout. You can walk up to the walls there and literally push on them because they used 1/2" dry wall because it was cheaper, easier and faster to work with.

I've seen jobs, work where an electrician(s) didn't properly ground conduits or use ground wires. Would you want your wife or kid to go plug-in something like that outside, barefooted not knowing that if the circuit isn't on a ground fault and isn't grounded and the guy calling himself an electrician who installed it didn't care?

I come across this stuff everyday, some of it pretty scary stuff. All's it takes is one mistake.

Instead most of my work is mostly industrial--I tend to lean that way simply because everything from instrumentation, PLC's, motor control, grounding, conduit bending and threading--both big and small, all of it requires some thinking and experience. I'll take it over throwing flex or romex any day.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2007, 04:26:25 PM »
But TommyN does seem to be presenting one caveat in the context of this thread's subject, and that is that modern golf architects perhaps need to take more care in assuming impunity (from drainage problems) on the types of sites they pick to build courses, and if they don't do that it seems like they create architecture (for obvious reasons) that looks pretty odd on many of its natural landforms and sites.

It seems to me the old guys probably passed on many sites because they could intuit the potential drainage problems involved but they also understood they didn't have the earth-moving and water moving tools available today and therefore had to look more carefully at the land so as to be sure the land could do drainage-wise what land does.

(On the other hand, the supreme irony is that the old guy architect (Max Behr) who seemed to want to look most deeply into this subject in his presentation of what he referred to as "Permanent Architecture"----eg architecture that was designed to totally respect the forces of Nature (wind but primarily water) had some of his significant designs decimated by the forces of Nature (water)).

But there does seem to be an over-riding poetic justice in this over-all subject that goes beyond even the best drainage designs and engineering schemes and that is:

"It never pays in the end to F... with Mother Nature."

But it sure is a subject that separates the amateur architectural dreamers and architecture idealists (like me) from the guys who can't avoid dealing with it in what they design and construct.

However, in a short while this is a subject that I know I'm going to be confronting much more directly and to be honest it's very daunting to me to try to understand it, but I'm looking forward to the learning process. I have a feeling in the back of my mind will constantly be 3-4 points which are---convex vs concave, accumulation, and speed of flow.
TE,
I to have been watching this thread and not said much.....waiting to see JB reply tonite......
But here goes....
I would never tell TN what is what in regards to Tamales or electricity nor would I tell question your knowledge of cheap wine.  BUT...I do understand where you are coming from and IMHO the basic difference is not what TN says or JB says....it is a study of Idealism vs. Reality...
So let me comment on parts of your above post...
1.  REALITY  Most of us don't have the luxury of picking our sites...if we wish to work we have to work on the site the client gives us.....
2. REALITY Old Guys could pass on sites becuase sites were more plentiful and most all of the courses used for comparison are a select few that were on good sites with no  housing...they certainly did not review their sites as carefully as most do today nor did they spend as much time..nor did they know as much about drainage....
3.REALITY I think most today definitely respect the forces of nature and plan for it much more than in the past....
4.REALITY for many of us such as myself and JB we end up going up against as many "AMATEUR architectural dreamers"(as you call them) as we do SIGNATURES when we compete for jobs today.....seems
most owners don't know the difference and like the history part of it....I compare it to hiring a guy that can fly one of the Microsoft computer games vs. the jet.....they both know the control panel and everything about the cockpit  BUT.....do you mind flying with the computer guy on his first flight......not saying he will not be a good pilot but EXPERIENCE might help......especially on those first few flights......
REALITY  many of the old dead guys could not find work in the market today....
IDEAL....sites that are 1000 ft deep sand in a cool season grass climate and require no drainage.....
CONCERN....the barrier for entry into GCA is the cost of business.....
CONCERN......I HOPE THIS DOESN'T SOUND WHINY.....the lack of respect for GCA's that are not on the "list" .....most of us are not stupid and do have the ability to understand drainage and do things for a reason......
Anyway......
I need to take a drink from my flask....
Mike


"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2007, 05:28:25 PM »
MikeY;

Good direct answers to a good portion of the fundamental subject here.  Thanks.

For me---I think I'll keep my mouth shut for the time being and look to see what other info and opinions come in from the professional side.

Ultimately, I hope some really good comparative photos will get posted to keep this discussion on point and focused. Again, I think this thread's subject is so important and I hope the discussion on here deserves it.

This kind of subject really is sort of where the rubber hits the road between just talking and doing.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2007, 05:30:45 PM »
Mike,

I have rethought whether I want to post a drainage primer.  A lot of typing for a few who would enjoy.

I will offer up this as a real world example of how little drainage it takes to mess up turf conditions.....

I thought that Brad Klein had posted (and he is an independent observer for this civil war ;)) that green fronts are often very soggy.  Looking back through, I don't see it in this thread, so maybe I am going loco, or maybe he posted it somewhere else or deleted it.  In any rain event, think about that for a second - about 6000 sf of sand based green which drains about 2/3 of the water that hits it, together with perhaps equal amounts of support mounds draining on a green and of the frontal opening between the bunkers itself is enough to cause wetness that kills firm and fast!  That is less than a half an acre of drainage zone.

So, when I talk of breaking up drainage into small zones, its that kind of experience that drives it.  Having 20-200 acres drain across a fw is the equivalent of a stewardess backing into the propeller - disaster!  (think that one over phonetically a bit) It would sure kill firm and fast in the fw.

Its not unlike the counterintuitive notion that we put out more and more sprinklers in order to water less.

In technical terms (and I am saying this from memory) water concentrates flow in less than 300 feet.  Concentrated flow (over about 3.5Feet/Second) erodes soil.  In terms of grow in, limiting flow is a big help to quicker results.  That said, I have also had good luck using those turf nets in swales to reduce erosion with fewer catch basins, so the theory of drainage keeps getting tweaked with new technologies.  But, there is little question in anyones mind other than Tommy (and maybe Tony R) that we are under more pressure to open in great conditions, and that drives some of the over drainage.

As you allude,  in the real world, we have to think about those kind of things to make the design work as we envison.  In Tommy's world, the magic drain fairy does it for him...... ;D

I still have a few more questions about TN's world view on drainage.

First, I retract my concessions about Top 100 courses not having as much drainage.  I doubt there are many top courses that aren't well drained.  Conditions play a part in the ranking, and drainage plays a part in conditions.  (A huge part) If they weren't well drained at first, as I suspect, its been corrected over time.

Second, I really do question TN's strong dogma.  If avoiding catch basins around greens in grass bunkers is an absolute (as he implies) then a Tommy N course would have no grass bunkers.  Are catch basins so despicable that this feature can never be used?  Would a course with all sand bunkers, or simple slopes away from the green for drainage have the variety necessary to be great?  

Possibly, but I don't think I would want to eliminate green side grass bunkers completely as a design possibility just because of a black, 12" (or so) plastic catch basin grate might be visible to those 5-10% of golfers who find it.  (If you are on the green, you would have to go over and look in the depression to see it, no?)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 05:45:46 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2007, 07:14:38 PM »
I'd love to comment but I still figure I'm way too dense on the subject to do it.

But I'll tell you what I am going to do when the weather permits----I'm going to go back over to Huntingdon Valley and look at all the greens Flynn built halfway down some pretty big natural hillsides (HVGC definitely is a long and relatively narrow valley) just to analyze how he incorporated his architecture and the look of it with what must be some pretty serious drainage exigencies coming down from the high side of his green sites.

I don't recall seeing any catch basins on the high (or the low side) of his greens so I'm looking forward to trying to figure out how in the hell he pulled it off.

I must say I never really looked at the course with this particular question or subject in mind.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 07:17:12 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2007, 07:36:40 PM »
I'm also trying to figure out exactly what points TommyN is trying to make here. It seems like a few of the things he's maintaining are;

1. Some of this modern architecture is using catch-basin drainage unnecessarily when they could be using more natural looking sheet flow drainage, and using it effectively.

2. Catch basin drainage (whether or not it's necessary is beyond me at the moment ;) ) makes architecture and architectural lines look butt-ugly!

3. Some of this modern architecture looks butt-ugly and is butt ugly anyway and they're using the necessity of catch basin drainage as an excuse for its butt-ugliness.  ;)

4. Clients are just handing modern architects sites that are fifth class citizens in the spectrum of workable sites for golf and attractive architecture and there's no way Jeff Brauer or Jim Engh or Bill Coore or Donald Ross or Alister Mackenzie could make golf and drainage work on them without some serious architectural butt-ugliness.




My philosophy, on the other hand, or even on this hand, is that its a great big world out there in golf and golf course architecture and there's room in for everyone---certainly including those that think butt-ugliness is some kind of cool "Wow" factor in golf and architecture.

Look fellas, people with really bad taste who love the look and playability of butt-ugly golf architecture have to eat and drink and sleep and play golf too and all of us really should admit they have feelings too and they should have what they like---even if it is undeniably atrocious butt ugliness that drains far too well!    ;)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 07:38:42 PM by TEPaul »

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2007, 07:55:16 PM »
Tom Paul

I look forward in particular to some comments on how Huntingdon Valley A-7 (the par 5) drains near the green.

I'd love to see a picture of the area during/after one of those Philadelphia summer downpours of that green.  I expect we would need  to have someone on site to take that photo at that time.  I hope Kyle is returning north for the summer.  We might see the 'sheet drainage' direction of flow.

It would also be interesting to see how long after the downpour finished that reasonable playing conditions returned.  An hour, perhaps two, perhaps more.  I'll bet that the HVCC maintenance meld (firm and fast) will result in a shorter delay before reasonable playing conditions return compared to some other, lusher Philly courses.

To Jeff Brauer and others - I have no experience in dealing with drainage water leaving the property during a downpour, nor EPA type concerns.  We don't get as much rain here in south OZ (especially in the last year!).  I can only try to comprehend the issues that you face, especially if you are not in control of the longer-term 'maintenance meld'.

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2007, 08:05:41 PM »
James,

You're one of the first on here I've ever heard that correctly relates drainage issues to maintenance issues.

Thank you!

Keep it dry, fella's....the architect can do ya a better job if you'll dial the water back.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2007, 08:12:45 PM »
TePaul,

As to HV, I suspect (haven't been there since you and I had breakfast) that Flynn used one foot deep swales above the green.  If he had bunkers above the green he probably used the same swale above that.  As TN notes, that's all that's necessary on most hillsides.  My only comment was that I would consider adding basins to prevent water from crossing the paths, since they are so important a circulation route now.

I think you have Tommy's basic points covered pretty well in the second post! ;)

Here's the funny thing - we agree that they are necessary in spots.....we agree that they are best where they aren't visible, whenever at all possible.  I also agree with Tommy that basins poorly designed or undersized probably cause more problems than if there were none at all.

So, we are arguing the value judgements in between of when its "necessary" to put them in more visible locations, like near greens and in fw.  As is probably evident in my posts, I take drainage engineering probably a bit more seriously than some gca's, and there are different legitimate competing philosphies.  Basically the three concepts are:

Use minimal catch basins, maintain sheet flow, trap only where necessary idea.  Useful on core, gently rolling sites.

The build critical areas like fw like an engineer would build a road idea, so that only the rainfall that falls on a critical area needs to be drained.  We use roughs as the drainage swales on each side of the road to keep the main "roadway" dry(er).  Very useful in housing projects to control off site water.

Zone drainage, whereby we establish a certain maximum flow length (usually under 300 feet) to control water from building up steam and erosive power.  This is the concept that adds catch basins galore every 250-500 feet in the fw.  Its useful on flat sites where we must create pitch and its not possible to add as much fill as it would take to run the water w/o catch basins to out of the way areas.

Its not unusual for me to combine all three on one project, as the situation dictates.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2007, 08:36:56 PM »
"As to HV, I suspect (haven't been there since you and I had breakfast) that Flynn used one foot deep swales above the green.  If he had bunkers above the green he probably used the same swale above that."

I think you're exactly right Jeff. Apparently Flynn utilized some unobtrusive and visually site-compatible swales to direct sheet flow off the hillsides above some of his HVGC greens and consequently pretty much avoided any semblence of architectural butt-ugliness.

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2007, 08:47:31 PM »
I'll tell you something else JeffB---

Did you catch that post #28 of Steve Lang's?

I mean I don't doubt for a minute everything he said in that post about water, its awesome volume and drainage patterns on sites is true. I'm certain it is totally true. But I guarantee you if Alister MacKenzie realized the details SteveL explained about water in that post he would've remained a military doctor, and if Donald Ross realized the detailed truth about water in that post he would've forewent his original trip to the US of A and a career in golf course architecture and just stayed back in the old country and sold cow chips as an alternative home heating commodity.

Again, although I have no doubt everything SteveL said in post #28 is completely true, it is nevertheless some dauntingly scary shit!

I mean, really, I had no idea that a puny little 3 1/2 inches of rain in a measly few hours produces 5+ million gallons of water across my innocent little golf course.

It seems to me the only one of the old guys who was remotely onto this kind of thing was Noah.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 08:55:21 PM by TEPaul »

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2007, 09:15:10 PM »
James,

You're one of the first on here I've ever heard that correctly relates drainage issues to maintenance issues.

Thank you!

Keep it dry, fella's....the architect can do ya a better job if you'll dial the water back.

Joe

Joe

I could have (and have intended to) write more, but I haven't.

I thank John Sloan (one of the Mike Clayton group partners) for my improved understanding of the interaction between our irrigation practices and the resulting drainage when the natural rain does come.

However, I also understand the dilemma a modern-day GCA might face, especially if he is nieve enough to assume that all future maintenance of the facility will be with a 'dialled-back water' maintenance meld.  New people in charge, and changes in irrigation/presentation can occur.  End of drainage solution, start of increased drainage problem.  "Damn GCA got it wrong - not our fault for watering to new presentation standards.  :P"

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2007, 09:15:54 PM »
TePaul,

Yes I read it, and it is right. My "currency" for drainage volume is cu ft per second rather than gallons, but the principal is the same.

Steve made another point for me - in this day and age when we are required to detain water to its predevelopment rate, and when the golf course actully has to detain water for surrounding development, its easier in many cases to pond it around many catch basins rather than transport it to a major pond, esp. on a small site.  Detention is another technical requirement that the old guys didn't have to deal with.

And you are right - drainage water is nothing to trifle with.  
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2007, 10:15:49 PM »
 8)

Man , you guys really got into it.. last day..

TEP, you should now seriously consider integrating rainfall amounts with soil conditions.. here's a start .. 10yr frequency 1 hour rainfall amounts from the ol' NOAA Tech Paper 40



or 1 yr frequency 1 hr rainfall event


or 1 yr frequency 24 hr event

« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 10:32:30 PM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2007, 04:46:18 AM »
Grass hollows are of good value if they drain easily, or can be made to do so; but those which do not drain are an annoyance. On irrigated land they cause more trouble then elsewhere, unless on sandy soil, because much sprinkling water runs into them and are generally soggy.

Where there is perfect drainage supplied for grass hollows, and they are watered with care, this soggy condition will not obtain; but usually with, with artificial drainage, grass hollows which do not drain naturally will nearly always cause trouble, and are to be avoided--George Thomas 1928



Jeff,
While I think you are correct in ascertaining that these times are different given the ecological concerns of the day, but I do find this quote to be the point I'm trying to make. Ultimately, and it's my point mind you that it starts with the routing of the golf course itself.

Realizing architects like yourself, who are given certain corridors which to produce golf holes my critique is simple and definite--it starts with the person planning the land. I think in most cases your dealing with one arm behind you back before you even approach the table and it's amazing how the eco-warriors will surely look at the golf course first, before they even look at where the homes are going, or the commercial buildings or whatever or wherever the development is planned. It is here I also think that long before you were an architect, someone sold their soul and created the air which you have to build in. Still, there is no excuse in my book for mediocre golf design, and I'm not naming names.

However, I do think that much golf course design itself is harmed just as much by over-building and over-engineering. It all adds to the cost, but mostly affects the architecture itself; however good it could have been and on the given piece of land are also completely compromised.

In this world today, what golf needs is cheaper golf courses, not more expensive ones. It's here I think the advantages, as much as you claim them to be a plus--as much as you claim the owners and bankers think they are sound--many architects of today are overbuilding them to the point that it's set the air of risk of building golf courses today, right now.

You and I have talked on the phone about the expense to maintain a Fazio course and you abhor it. Yet most of you are envious of his success. I think it's a throwback to the RTJ-era where most architects of the 50's and 60's were all trying to emulate him. Especially his success. But why add to it by designing courses that require this elaborate draining, when something can be built that is just as decent drainage wise, and probably just as sound?

I feel that in many situations that can be accomplished with surface drainage and less viewable catch basins and/or catch basins out of play being fed by all sorts of methods that can be included in the strategy.  Just my opinion. Nothing about drainage as a whole being bad. Just misused.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 04:46:52 AM by Tommy Naccarato »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2007, 08:43:34 AM »
Sean,

That first photo might be in some views, too steep a green site with the drain basins added necessarily.   Or, it might be a cool green site that requires a catch basin to preserve the natives up above.  Or it might be a cool green site with a cool grass bunker above it.  I guess its all perspective.  And I respect the persectives that certain types of design are favored by some, and others by others.

Its funny, but I had thought to post about courses like Tobacco Road as well.  I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that if Tommy was truly the Emporer of Golf, and the late Mike Strantz had come in with his preliminary plans, that Tommy would have told him no go and we would have never had the pleasure of seeing that kind of work.  

I am not aware that its a poor drainer from my one playing, but was also going to agree with Tommy (and George Thomas) that if catch basins are poorly done - either not located in the exact low spot or undersized - they can cause more problems than they are worth.  However, I think GT was thinking of tile drains which are inneffective at surface drainage.  In the case of modern gca's I get the impression that they sometimes spend a limited budget on earthmoving for effect and reputation (as tommy suggests) and then use 4" pipe and 12" basins for drainage which are either too small for everyday rains for what they are trying to drain, or just not engineered at all.  I use the charts that Steve posted to assure that each basin drains the same rate, with obviously larger ones in larger drainage basins.  As I said to TePaul, the volume of water generated in even every day rains is suprsing.

While I am sure you enjoy the drainage you put in, its a shame that the govt. scares you by taking over your rights even a bit more to do what you think is best with your land.

Tommy,

There are a couple of different kinds of maintenance costs.  Fazio courses often have high bunker maintenance costs by choice and club culture.  The combination of steep banks which look fabulous and wealthy club members wanting bunker sand perfection makes the two acres of sand on a typical Faz course as expensive to maintain as the other 200 acres!  Fazio rarely misses on drainage however.  His courses are usually technically excellent.

I still believe that the long term (not initial cost) of proper drainage is lowest if done correctly the first time.  Golf courses aren't getting financed these days, its true.  But thats as much a result of the pro formas saying they can't get enough revenue in a stagnant market as the slight additional cost of drainage.

Even then, knowing that eventually, a poor draining course will cost revenue loss with every rain.  So, if I put in $200K in pipe drainage, the interest cost on that is perhaps $18K per year with today's rates.  I presume that to put it in the course in chunks over the next ten years will cost $25K per year rather than $18K. Throw in the cost of re-sodding areas that don't drain well, roping off, etc. and the cost is more every year to run a poorly drained course than one that is well drained.  Add in perhaps 20 days of lost revenue at $10K a day and the cost of not draining is astronomical - the cost of properly installed drain pipes is paid for in one year of lost revenue.  Add in the costs of players that never come back on account of poor course image and poor drainage is a real loser financially, and in many cases, the lost revenues on housing sales that pay for the course in the first place for a course that isn't as visually stunning (fewer shadow patterns, etc.) and the course might not achieve its goals, which are many fold.

The people I see in the golf biz realize that spending a bit more up front results in lower costs long term, as well as increased visual interest for golfers and surrounding homebuyers in many cases.

That has been my point all along.  I can agree that some sites and designs do raise costs over perfect, pristine sites, but in most cases, we have to build the courses where the golfers are, such as in suburban Atlanta where the topo is steep and the developer wants the course in the valleys for views.  

And, I agree certain types of design do raise costs and produce certain types of holes that are different than what you might like, but I say vive la differance.  I would hate to have missed RTJ, Strantz, Fazio and others ideas on designs by being forced into some narrow prism of an idea of design excellence.  And, I think we would have had fewer golfers and even less revenue per course if every new course fit some cookie cutter mold dictated by "the Emperor" regardless of whether we like every course we play or not, because we all like to play DIFFERENT courses.

Now, I realize that this last comment isn't really related to drainage, but then my contention all along was that you and Geoff get fluxommed about drainage as another sign of the terrible state of modern architecture, with the exception of the few gca's you favor.  On that, I naturally disagree.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 08:50:03 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2007, 09:29:29 AM »
Here are my two installments on Cybergolf regarding a drainage primer.....


You have probably heard the old engineering saying, “Toot the horn at all crossings.” No, wait, wrong kind of engineering. The one that says there are three rules to civil engineering: “If you can’t say something nice . . .” No, wait, wrong meaning of civil . . . “Drainage, Drainage, and Drainage!”

“They” also say that a golf course has either too much water (poor drainage) or too little (drought or poor irrigation) most of the time. Perhaps once a day the turf has “just the right amount” of porridge . . . I mean, moisture! So, it’s hard to give a “simplified” answer to that question about golf-course drainage design other than YES! However, I’ll share some simplified drainage concepts I use.

First, you take care of surface drainage problems with surface drainage, and subsurface problems with subsurface drainage.

Subsurface springs require correction with 4-inch (or larger) perforated, gravel-embedded tile drains at and just above the seepage location, to catch flowing subsurface water just before it exits the ground. These do occur regularly, but are not usually the typical drainage problems you face, and yet, many use these tile drains too often.

They are not efficient at correcting flat gradient problems, which are far more common. All turf areas need surface pitch of at least 2 percent, and preferably 3 percent, to natural or installed drainage outlets. Where fairways are flatter than that, we strip the topsoil and re-grade the area to achieve suitable slopes. On renovations, it’s even possible, but difficult, to grade around an existing irrigation system to achieve proper drainage, but I’ve done it!

I use more catch basins than some architects to assist grow-in. Surface drainage concentrates to gully-washing speed in about 300 feet of flow, so I place catch basins every 275 feet to prevent those long ruts often found on even mature fairways. Even after establishment, long swales tend to stay wet, even if ruts are fixed. I prefer more elaborate drainage systems, rather than relying on Mother Nature to “do her thing.” No one wants to wait for perfect conditions to play golf any more. Under-drained golf courses don’t add drainage every year, just the ones whose digits end in 0 through 9.

Golf drainage systems don’t need the large pipes used in residential subdivisions, where engineers’ size drains for the protection of property, health, safety and welfare, typically adding a safety factor of a bazillion. However, any dam or structural fill should be protected against larger storms. For most of the course, it isn’t necessary to immediately drain in large storms on golf courses. In fact, using small pipes and inlets to create temporary ponding helps filter chemical inputs, so smaller pipes and inlets are environmentally sound and cost-effective.

Turf usually suffers more from the constant moisture-associated nuisance drainage and small storms, which should be disposed of quickly. Nuisance drainage often comes from surrounding housing, regardless of actual rain. On subdivision golf courses, we “cut off” drainage from surrounding housing before it hits critical fairways, greens, or tee areas, treating key areas like an engineer raises a road to prevent water from crossing it. We accept that the far roughs may be at less than their best.

However, submerged turf suffers from oxygen depletion after only a few hours, and faces death in as little as two days if submerged during a hot summer. Golf-course drainage systems should handle the storm expected once every two years in a few hours and drain larger, 50- or 100-year storms in about two days. Obviously, some courses are situated on flood plains where there is nowhere for those flood waters to go and this may not always be possible.

Whenever we can afford it, we use bigger pipe sizes for faster drainage. It’s a bargain, because drainage capacity increases with the square of the pipe radius, so doubling the pipe diameter increases cross-sectional areas four times. Pipes on steep grades flow more than those laid flat. We design systems for the steepest possible grades, or use larger pipe if it must be flatter. For example, a 12-inch pipe at 1.0-percent grade carries the same amount of water as a 10-inch pipe at 3-percent grade.

Similarly, every size pipe has a minimum and maximum pitch, with the minimum being that which allows water to flow at 3 feet per second, which carries the sediment through the pipe and keeps it clean. Providing too much pitch may cause the water to exit the pipe so fast that it causes erosion problems, and this should also be avoided.

We do allow unusually heavy rains to pond around catch basins and delay play temporarily, figuring that at least half the large rains occur at night or last all day, and that smaller drains actually have marginal impact on revenues. Consistent drainage, allowing the entire course to open back up for play concurrently, is desirable, because golfers may wait out a storm anywhere on a course.

Most architects prefer to concentrate on the more artistic aspects of design. But without proper drainage, those designs just don’t look as good in real life as they do on paper!

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2007, 09:31:11 AM »
And here is the second (installment 96) I also did a similar article in Golf Course News, slightly more serious.  If I had the time, I would expand this to flesh out when I might use natural surface flow, a road type system, or a zone system as described in a post above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Ima, for you and the two other readers interested in this subject, I will be glad to. Putting the general golf-drainage plan into effect does require some engineering skills. However, take heart, because if I can design a drainage system, it’s a sure bet that almost anyone can.

There are many sophisticated drainage engineering formulas that I steer well clear of! After laying out a piping scheme, I use the Rational Method to size drainage pipes. Engineers use it on watersheds of less than 200 acres, and most golf course drainage areas fall in that category. On larger watersheds, it tends to underestimate actual runoff, and engineers use other formulas, sometimes as required by law. The Rational formula can fail when actual rains aren’t “average.” A 2-inch rain may occur the day after a 1-inch rain, when soil is saturated, greatly increasing the runoff. Also, a design may anticipate only existing conditions, which might be farmland, and in a decade, it is high-density suburbia.

Short version: For best results, don’t skimp on the percent of runoff estimates, no matter how amazed you are at how large pipes become. The formula is Q=CIA where,

Q = Run-off (in cubic feet per second);

C = Co-efficient (percent of run-off expressed as a decimal);

I = Intensity rate of rainfall (in inches per hour); and

A = Acres of watershed draining to a particular inlet.

The mathematically astute reader will recognize that this formula really estimates acre-inches of flow per hour. However, by coincidence, that is exactly the same value as cubic feet per second, which is the unit used to size pipe.

The Rational Method estimates the percentage of runoff based on site use. “C” is an estimated input. Typical co-efficient values are Urban/Industrial – 70-90 percent, Residential – 50-70 percent, Golf Course – 30-50 percent, and Rural – 10-30 percent.

Generally, we use higher percentages where there are clay soils, steep slopes, and light turf cover, average values for loam soils, moderate slopes and vegetative cover, and minimum values, if you have sandy soils, flat slopes and heavy tree cover. Where a watershed will be partly urbanized, we blend co-efficient values. A watershed that is equally split between golf and housing might rate a C value of 50-60 percent.

“I” is the storm intensity we want to drain, which is usually a two-year storm in 90 minutes. In Houston, that’s 2.0 inches/hour. In Kansas City, its 1.5 inches /hour, and in St. Paul, it’s about 1.0 inch/hour.

These areas are in the “I-35” Corridor, which tends to have intense storms. Thus, you could use these values if you are at similar latitude and have a safety factor. Assuming 50-percent runoff, the typical Houston drainage acre produces 1.0 CFS, Kansas City acres produce 0.75 CFS, and St. Paul acres produce 0.5 CFS of runoff.

To size catch basins, we measure the acreage draining into each inlet, and consult the chart below, which is based on typical light-duty golf course basins, with a safety factor. (Grass clippings reduce capacity.) So, while smaller inlets may have “better aesthetics,” oversize your basins!


Design Intensity in
CFS per acre CFS Actual Acres Drained by
    0.25
CFS
ACRE 0.375
CFS
ACRE 0.5
CFS
ACRE 0.75
CFS
ACRE 1.0
CFS ACRE
8 in. round grate 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3
10 inch round grate 0.6 2.4 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.6
12 inch round grate 1.2 4.8 3.2 2.4 1.6 1.2
15 inch round grate 1.7 6.8 4.5 3.4 2.25 1.7
18 inch round grate 1.8 7.2 4.8 3.6 2.4 1.8
24 inch round grate 2.8 11.2 7.4 5.6 3.7 2.8



We size pipes starting at the top of a line, where the pipe needs the same capacity as the first basin. At subsequent basins, the outlet section of pipe must accommodate both that inlet and the water already flowing through the pipe.

Pipe Size Min. Slope CFS Mid Slope CFS Max CFS Slope
4 inch pipe 1.25% 0.2 4.5% 0.4 10% 0.8
6 inch pipe 0.7% 0.6 3.0% 1.33 6% 1.8
8 inch pipe 0.5% 1.0 2.0% 2 4% 3.2
10 inch pipe 0.33% 1.75 1.5% 3.3 3% 5.0
12 inch pipe 0.25% 2.5 1.0% 5 2.5% 7.0
15 inch pipe 0.20% 3.7 0.8% 6 1.75% 11.0
18 inch pipe 0.15% 5.25 0.6% 10 1.5% 16.0
24 inch pipe 0.12% 9.5 0.4% 20 1.0% 30.0


Pipe capacity increases with grade. For example, for 1.0 CFS flow, we can use a 10-inch basin and either a 6-inch pipe at about 3.0 percent, or an 8-inch pipe at 0.5 percent. Many situations require larger pipe at flatter grade.

The minimum slopes shown are those required for “self-cleansing velocity.” (Sanitary sewer engineers use a minimum “self-cleansing” velocity of 2 feet per second, while drain-pipe manufacturers recommend 3 feet per second. I have trouble envisioning storm water flowing less freely than sewage but, nonetheless, use 3 FPS.) The maximum slope is that which limits scoured pipes and exit-area erosion problems from high-flow velocity. The mid range allows you to do some mental gymnastics to arrive at correct pipe size for “in-between” situations.

Ima, I hope this helps you design better surface drainage for your golf course!



Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #68 on: March 09, 2007, 09:54:40 AM »
Jeff,
 I was following you all the way until yo once again make it personal at the end. Since when did I ever advent cookie cutter in any of my posts? Stop putting words from my keys! ;)

After closing my eyes early this morning into Wethered & Simpson, I have further come to believe that over shaping is the cause or the need for the drainage I abhor. While your correct that Fazio is a master of drainage, he is also the master of over-spending and it's precisely why the state of the golf course business is in such harrowing times and that's just not because of drainage either, but it's a good portion of it. Ask courses like Shady Canyon where memberships are down simply because of the costs to maintain--at least that's what I'm told.

Funny, the Sport seemed to thrive in the 20's when all of the many course we loved had the lack of drainage you abhor when it rained, but somehow it just barely managed to survive! ;)

Gotta go....

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2007, 10:13:37 AM »
Tommy,

Golf is a popular game, going strong since the 1500's.  Yes they survived, but they added drainage every single year to make their courses better.  Standards are simply higher today than they were back then, based on earlier generations basic dissatisfaction with (or longing for better) maintenance conditions.  Better and rising maintenance standards are the one golf constant over the centuries.  I submit that had they done nothing to improve drainage of those early courses, golf would not have prospered as much.

Today, fewer members will join a course that "will have good turf someday" because they want it perfect now and because its possible.  And public courses just can't stand the lost revenue as much as they did because costs everywhere keep getting squeezed, there are investors to please, etc.

All of that factors into how we approach design.

As to Fazio singlehandedly killing the golf biz, he has designed just a few % of the courses out there today.  I doubt its happened and also wonder if CBMac faced the same critiques 100 years ago with his outrageous spending?  High and Low end courses have always been with us, and the low and moderate end are a higher % of courses now than they were in the Golden Age, so holding them up as an exemplar of affordable golf is not quite accurate.

And once again, golf is not in distress because there is too much drainage, golf is in distress because there are too many golf courses for the players that use them.

My point is that your swale drainage might have worked better back then than it does now.  It still works in the majority of golf course areas.  But, the needs of golf courses have just changed over time.  I do believe gca's of all eras were smart and good enough to generally do the best possible designs technically and otherwise, given the conditions handed to them.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2007, 10:14:57 AM »
Jeff
as always, thanks for sharing so generously your knowledge and experience.

Your last few posts remind me of something that playwright David Mamet once said: that every would-be writer can't wait to write the dialogue, and thinks that great dialogue is what will make the play great - when in fact it's the slow, tedious, unglamorous work of building the play's structure that is, by far, most important. I've heard that some of Mamet's famous rat-tat-tat dialogue is only written/finalized at the very end of the process, sometimes during the last stages of rehersals.

Peter
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 10:16:06 AM by Peter Pallotta »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2007, 11:44:51 AM »
I know Huntingdon Valley was brought up earlier, but I have not yet had the time to read all of this thread yet.

Unfortunately I do not have any pictures, and the ones in Ran's review are not targeted at the specific areas that would be of value to this conversation.

If there are any questions I can answer I'd be happy to, as I feel HVCC is a great study of surface drainage...it also is on a great piece of ground for successful surface drainage.

One "metric" I like to use when talking about a courses irrigation practice is...how long after a rain is the course firm again? Not playable, but firm to the point that the ball is bouncing down the fairway and releasing on the greens.

We hosted the PA Amateur a couple years ago, and TEP can relate very well how this dynamic played out from the day before the first round through to the third and final round.

Peter Pallotta

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2007, 01:26:33 PM »
JES
I'm not sure if this question makes sense in the context of what you describe, but: how would you divide-up the credit for HV's good drainage?

How much of it is Flynn's original design (edit: and the way he utilized the well-draining soil), how much of it is the drainage infrastructure (e.g. pipes, catch basins) that either Flynn put there or was added later, and how much of it is the current maintenance practices?

Thanks
Peter  
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 01:36:42 PM by Peter Pallotta »

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2007, 02:05:59 PM »
"We hosted the PA Amateur a couple years ago, and TEP can relate very well how this dynamic played out from the day before the first round through to the third and final round."

Sully:

I forgot about that. You're right that is perhaps the best example of which I'm aware of the effectiveness of a really good and long term Firm and Fast maintenance program and what it means vis-a-vis a course getting back to it rapidly after rain.

Basically, I couldn't believe how fast the course got firm and fast again after that fairly heavy Monday rain. Obviously it didn't get all the way back to the way it was on Sunday but that would have been impossible anywhere.

TEPaul

Re:Modern Golf Course Drainage Is Bad
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2007, 02:19:14 PM »
Peter:

I guess the reason I mentioned HVGC on this thread is because the course has a lot of greens that have a lot of water coming down some big hillsides above them and Flynn designed it all to get all that water around and passed them without anything too obvious that I can see. If there're some catch basins out there I've never noticed one.

On the other hand, it would be worthwhile to know if any of the greens or architecture that Flynn built there ever had any real trouble with water or too much sheet flow drainage.

It very well may have over the years. It looks like that old original 14th green may've been too close to that creek but maybe it was moved for some other reason----eg the club did think they were about to loose some land at one point.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back