Cite this article Research Article

Yeasin M, Zoynul M, Islam N et al. Paper 2100008a

Performance of geotextile roofing felts and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch. Received 12/03/2021;
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering, Accepted 29/03/2022
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.21.00008a
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Geotechnical Engineering

Performance of geotextile roofing felts and

natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Md Yeasin Mostafiz Md Kausar Alam
Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University Graduate student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
Md Zoynul Abedin Rajib Dey
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Senior Engineer, Peter Kiewit Sons ULC, Oakville, ON, Canada
Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh; Formerly Professor, Department of Arun Valsangkar
Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick,
(BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh Fredericton, NB, Canada
Naveel Islam
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of
Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh (corresponding author:
naveel1@ualberta.ca)

The bounce and penetrometer resistance (PR) of a cricket pitch for three different crack-control conditions was
investigated. In total, 15 miniature cricket pitches were prepared using the conventional procedure, natural grass roots
and geotextile roofing felts combined with varying proportions of fine sand and bentonite clay. The rebound ball
height and ground PRs were measured with a designed bounce meter and pocket penetrometer, respectively. The
properties of the pitch soils (e.g. crack width, moisture content and field densities) were also measured. The results of
the test programme indicated that the pitch with the geotextile crack-control system provided a higher coefficient of
restitution (CoR) and PR than the other two systems. The test results also suggested that, in order to reduce
significant growth of crack widths to provide a good cricket pitch, the clay content under geotextile roofing felt
should be kept at 50–65%. Several equations relating the CoR and PR with crack width and the physical properties of
the pitch soil were developed for use in pitch characterisation.
Keywords: coefficient of restitution/crack width/geotextile roofing felt/natural grass roots/pitch/strength

Notation New Zealand and South Africa in the mid-nineteenth century

b0 horizontal scale reading (Swanton et al., 1980). In the game of cricket, there is a
Cc coefficient of curvature of soil particles definite target structure (the wicket or stumps) that the batter
CR coefficient of restitution needs to defend from the bowler. There is also the prior
Cu coefficient of uniformity of soil particles requirement of a finished and well-maintained ground (the
Cw crack width cricket pitch) in order for the ball to attain a proper bounce
D′ diameter of piston before reaching the batter.
D10 diameter of soil particles corresponding to 10% finer
D30 diameter of soil particles corresponding to 30% finer Figure 1 shows a typical cross-section of a cricket pitch.
D60 diameter of soil particles corresponding to 60% finer The area between the two sets of stumps at the centre
Gs specific gravity of soil solids of a cricket ground is the cricket pitch. The pitch, in
H falling height of ball general, is 20 m long and 3.1 m wide (Eudoxie and Nagassar,
H0 vertical scale reading 2012). Cricket pitches should be hard and flat to produce a
h rebound height of ball good playing surface (Shannon, 2010) and pitch surface
h0 height of camera quality is a prime concern for players (McAuliffe and
L′ length of piston Hannan, 2001). According to Tainton et al., (1998), construc-
P pressure of penetrometer tion of a pitch is complex and excellent skills are required for
R2 coefficient of correlation pitch preparation and maintenance. As a general rule of
Sp penetrometer resistance thumb, when a cricket ball reaches a height of more than
w moisture content 710 mm above the pitch at the batter’s end, the pitch is
δ penetration of penetrometer considered bouncy.

1. Introduction Favourable conditions for fast, bouncy and consistent pitches

Cricket is a popular game in the Commonwealth of Nations. can vary considerably from country to country, venue to venue
The earliest reference to cricket can be traced back to the and even from match to match, depending upon the prevailing
mid-sixteenth century. The game became immensely wide- weather and soil conditions. These factors significantly impact
spread with the British Empire’s expansion to Australia, India, the nature of produced pitches (Singh, 2014). For example, in

1
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
3048 mm
610 mm
1520 mm
Figure 1. Typical cross-section of a cricket pitch (not to scale)
the Indian subcontinent, pitches are slow and with low bounce
(Islam et al., 2020; Nawagamuwa et al., 2009; Perera et al.,
2016), whereas pitches in Australia and South Africa are fast
and substantially bouncy. Pace, bounce and consistency are
used to define the properties of cricket pitches, with pace
generally defined as fast bowling as related to the ball’s move-
ment from the pitch (James et al., 2004; Nawagamuwa et al.,
2009).
The topmost layer of 200 mm, known as the pitch clay or
Bulli soil (Figure 1), contributes most to a bouncy pitch.
This layer comprises selected soil, predominantly with high-
plasticity clay, that varies from country to country. For
example, in Australia and South Africa, pitches have a
significant volume of clay (>50% to 80%) with high swelling
properties (Harwood et al., 2017; Tainton and Klug, 2002;
Usman et al., 2016); in the Indian subcontinent, pitches
comprise clay with low swelling clay properties (Usman et al.,
2016).
Various researchers (e.g. Alam et al., 2020; Baker et al., 1998a;
Ekwue et al., 2006; Perera et al., 2016) have reported that
the pace and bounce of cricket balls depend on the clay mineral-
ogy, soil content and quantity of the grass at the topmost
surface of the cricket pitch. In England and the Indian sub-
continent, pitches are quite similar in their soil grading and
2
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.
Bowler
Pitch width
Protected area
Protected area marking
Wicket /stumps
Popping crease
Pitch clay/ Bulli soil (200 mm)
Base layer (300 mm)
Compacted bed soil (150 mm)
Natural earth base
mineralogy (Nawagamuwa et al., 2009). As a result, both
pitches are prepared with less than 33% clay in order to obtain
a bouncy pitch (Carré et al., 1999; Nawagamuwa et al., 2009).
However, despite the similar composition of the pitch soil,
the pace and bounce on pitches in these two places vary signifi-
cantly in most matches. In general, the change in behaviour is
due to differences in the climatic conditions of the two regions.
The compaction of pitch soil also plays a vital role in the
bounce of a pitch (Perera et al., 2016; Singh, 2014).
Ekwue et al. (2017) reported that an optimal clay content
(CC) of 62.3% with water content equal to the plastic limit
compacted at the highest compaction effort resulted in the
highest bounce and pace for cricket pitches in Trinidad. Deep-
rooted uniform grass covering the full pitch also ensures a
good pitch (Baker et al., 1998b; Tainton and Klug, 2002).
However, the accumulation of grass roots can increase the
organic content in a pitch, resulting in low bouncing capacity
(Baker et al., 1998b; Perera et al., 2016; Tainton and Klug,
2002). The science behind the art of preparation of a sound
cricket pitch is ignored in most instances. Traditionally, pitches
are prepared based on the experience of groundskeepers (Baker
et al., 2003; Ekwue et al., 2006; James et al., 2004, 2005;
Tainton and Klug, 2002). However, to obtain sound cricket
pitches, an engineering approach might be desirable (Patel,
2019; Shipton and James, 2009; Singh, 2014).
 Geotechnical Engineering
The objective of the research described in this paper was to
examine the bounce and penetrometer resistance (PR) charac-
teristics of a cricket pitch with three different crack-control
systems in Bulli soil. The investigation was undertaken to
monitor miniature cricket pitch performance with no crack
control, natural crack control and crack control incorporating
a layer of geotextile. Equations correlating the coefficient of
restitution (CoR) and pitch PR with the physical properties of
Bulli soil for the three different crack-control conditions were
developed.
2. Components of a cricket pitch
Depending on the prevailing weather and soil conditions, the
number of layers of a cricket pitch varies in different places.
They are primarily constructed in five to seven layers in the
Indian subcontinent (Singh, 2014; Tainton and Klug, 2002),
but Singh (2014) suggests two to three layers for an economic
pitch. As shown in Figure 1, in a three-layer pitch system, the
essential components are Bulli soil or pitch clay at the top, an
intermediate base layer and, lastly, a compacted bed followed
overlying the natural earth base layer. The number, thickness
and position of the layers vary for different matches (e.g. high
school matches, one-day matches and test matches), location
and weather conditions (Tainton and Klug, 2002). In the
Indian subcontinent, an additional layer of red bush soil
(sometimes replaced by plastic sheeting) is provided beneath
the Bulli to prevent particle loss through gravity drainage.
3. Composition of experimental
miniature pitches
Figure 2 shows the experimental layout plan for the three
different crack-control systems studied for five different combi-
nations of fine sand bentonite and fine sand (CB1–CB5). The
pitch bed layers were constructed following previous research
(Singh, 2014; Tainton and Klug, 2002; Usman et al., 2016).
3.1 Bulli
Bulli is the topmost 200 mm layer of a cricket pitch. It
provides a relatively smooth surface for balls to bounce per-
fectly during a game (Tainton and Klug, 2002). The Bulli used
in this work was a mixture of river-dredged sand and commer-
cially available bentonite clay (supplied by Mala Chemicals,
Midford, Dhaka). The physical properties of the sand and
bentonite are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 3 shows the
particle size distributions of the sand and bentonite. Non-
woven geotextile roofing felts were also used to reinforce some
of the pitches; these were placed in the middle of the Bulli
layer. The basic test results for the non-woven geotextile are
shown in Table 3.
The five different combinations of the sand–bentonite mixture
(CB1 to CB5) used in this research are detailed in Table 4. The
relationship between maximum dry density and bentonite
content is shown in Figure 4. As expected, the dry density
decreased with an increase in the proportion of bentonite in
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.
the mixture. Therefore, 1 mm thick plastic sheeting was
applied at the sides and bottom of the Bulli to protect it from
lateral water infiltration, efflorescence from the bottom and
particle loss towards the bottom layers. With the use of the
plastic sheeting, the compacted bed layer beneath the Bulli
consisted of drained material (stone chips and coarse sand).
Otherwise, particles from the Bulli would be lost through the
compacted bed during watering. The 450 mm square mini
pitches adopted for the three crack-control systems on the
Bulli soil are labelled 1–15 in Figure 2.
& No crack control system (mini pitches 1–5). No additional
measures were considered other than the variation of the
proportions of bentonite and sand.
& Natural control system (mini pitches 6–10). Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon) was planted at a spacing of 75 mm in
each direction along with the variation of the proportions
of bentonite and sand.
& Geotextile control system (mini pitches 11–15). Non-woven
geotextile roofing felts, placed in the middle of the Bulli
layer, were used to reinforce five of the sand–bentonite
mini pitches. The basic properties of the geotextile are
summarised in Table 3. Although geotextile roofing felts
have been successfully implemented for drainage, lining
systems, filtration, reinforcement, slope stabilisation and
erosion control (Arsyad et al., 2020; Ghosh et al., 2009;
Kamaluddin et al., 1998; Koerner, 2016; Sabiri et al., 2020;
Sen Gupta, 1991; Wu et al., 2020), they have not yet been
studied as a successful control for cricket pitches.
3.2 Base soil
As shown in Figure 1, a 300 mm base layer below the Bulli
supports the top layer. This layer is also known as the foun-
dation of the pitch. In this work, a mixture of 19 mm (3/4th
downgrade) stone chip and coarse sand (collected from the
Sylhet region of Bangladesh) was used for the base layer. The
particle size distributions of the Sylhet sand and stone chips
are shown in Figure 3 and the properties of both are summar-
ised in Tables 1 and 2. Five different proportions of stone
chips and coarse sand (C1 to C5) were used in the experimental
programme (Table 5). Soaked California bearing ratio (CBR)
tests were performed in the laboratory as per ASTM D
1883-14 (ASTM, 2014). As shown in Table 5 and Figure 5, the
soaked CBR increased with an increase in the stone percen-
tage, with the maximum CBR obtained for C5 with 90% stone
chips and 10% coarse sand. Mix C5 was thus selected for
construction of the base.
3.3 Compacted bed soil
The 150 mm compacted bed provides a level surface in which
to construct the base layer and ensures proper pitch drainage.
The compacted bed was prepared using coarse sand similar to
that used in the base layer preparation.
3
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5

150 450 450 450 450 450 150

Geotextile crack control

Natural crack control

1 6 11

No crack control
2 7 12

3 8 13 Extended Bulli soil

base

Miniature pitch
4 9 14

5 10 15

450 mm square

1 mm plastic sheet

Bulli soil (200 mm)

Geotextile roofing felt

Base soil (300 mm)

Compacted bed (150 mm)

Not to scale

Figure 2. Layout plan of mini pitches (dimensions in mm; not to scale)

Table 1. Physical properties of materials

Grain size analysis

Gs D10: mm D30: mm D60: mm Cu Cc Proportion finer than 0.002 mm: %

Bentonite 2.55 — 0.00012 0.0005 — — 87.4

Dredged sand 2.68 0.0734 0.12980 0.2034 2.77 1.128 0.2
Sylhet sand 2.81 0.3000 0.50000 0.9000 3.00 0.926 —
Stone chips — 3.8000 10.00000 14.0000 3.68 1.879 —

4
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

Table 2. Properties of bentonite and Sylhet sand 4. Preparation of miniature pitches

Bentonite Sylhet sand The pitches comprised 200 mm of Bulli soil, a base layer of
300 mm depth and a compacted bed of 150 mm depth, giving
Liquid Plasticity Minimum unit Maximum unit a total pitch depth of 650 mm (typical of an actual pitch).
limit: % index: % weight: kN/m3 weight: kN/m3 Ground excavation was conducted up to 600 mm so that the
106 87 14.7 17.1 top layer of the pitch was 50 mm higher than the finished
ground, as suggested by Tainton and Klug (2002). As shown
in Figure 2, the width and length of the layout plan for the
mini pitches were both 2250 mm. However, an additional
150 mm was excavated around the edges to accommodate
Silt and clay Sand Gravel
100 0 ground rollers for the pitch surfaces. The final dimensions of
the excavated trench were thus 2400  2400  600 mm (length
 width  depth). The various stages for the preparation of the
80 20 mini pitches are shown in Figure 6 and detailed as follows.

& Compacted bed. The reduced levels of the ground surfaces

Amount retained: %
Amount passing: %

60 40 were measured to ensure that the desired excavation depth

40
20
0 100
0.00001 0.0001
Figure 3. Particle size distribution curves
Table 3. Geotextile test results
Thickness: mm
Mass per unit area: gm/m2
Breaking load in longitudinal direction:
N/50 mm
Breaking load in x-longitudinal
direction: N/50 mm
Elongation at breaking load in
longitudinal direction: %
Elongation at breaking load in
x-longitudinal direction: %
of 600 mm was consistent at all points throughout the
pitch trench. Excavation was performed up to the
60 compacted bed level (Figure 6(a)). The trench was then
filled with the selected bed materials in two stages, each
75 mm thick. An adequate amount of water for an
80
Bentonite optimum moisture content (OMC) of 15% was added to
Dredged sand
Sylhet sand the sand in the compacted bed. (Figure 6(b)). Field density
Stone chips
tests were conducted as per ASTM D 1556-15 (ASTM,
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 2015) and the relative density of the compacted bed was
Equivalent grain diameter: mm estimated to be 76%.
& Base layer. For the base layer, the trench was filled with the
selected base materials in four layers, each 75 mm thick.
An adequate amount of water (10%) was added to the
mixture (Figure 6(c)). Each layer was compacted with
25 kg tampers and 1 t light rollers (Figures 6(d) and 6(e)).
Finally, plastic sheets were placed above the base layer
ASTM (Figure 6(f)).
Value standard & Bulli soil. The top layer, Bulli soil, was subdivided into 15
1.2 ASTM D 5199 segments of 450 mm squares to accommodate the three
160 ASTM D 5261 crack-control conditions, namely no crack control, natural
345 ASTM D 4632 crack control using grass and crack control with a
geotextile (Figure 2). Figures 6(g)–6(o) show the
286 ASTM D 4595
various stages of the Bulli soil construction. First, Bulli
30 ASTM D 4632 soil was placed in four layers of 50 mm thickness over
the plastic sheet. A steel framework was used to
26 ASTM D 4595 ensure uniformity of the pitch dimensions
(450  450 mm) and the Bulli soil was placed inside the

Table 4. Physical properties of bentonite and fine sand combinations

Fine Liquid Plastic Plasticity Maximum dry density:
Soil Bentonite: % sand: % limit: % limit: % index: % OMC: % kg/m3

CB1 60 40 62 15 47 16.7 1723

CB2 70 30 73 14 59 17.2 1672
CB3 80 20 82 18 64 21.0 1540
CB4 90 10 95 20 75 21.4 1519
CB5 100 0 106 19 87 24.3 1519

5
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

18 steel framework. After placing the final layer, the steel

framework was removed and the soil was compacted. The
materials were initially mixed dry (at their proportionated
17 CB1 weights) to obtain a uniform composition of pitch
Maximum dry density: kg/m3

CB2 materials over the surface. An adequate quantity of water

was then added to the desired OMC (see Table 4). Next,
16 an infiltration-proof 1 mm thick celluloid plastic sheet was
placed beneath and around the Bulli soil to avoid any
possible undulation in the pitch surfaces in the long run
CB4 CB5
15 CB3 due to loss of particles through the drainage layer (base
layer). Finally, working zones of 450 mm width were
prepared for the various crack controls. Like the
14
underlying beds, the Bulli soil was also compacted by a
tamper and manually operated concrete rollers (2 t weight).
After compaction, the crack-control systems within the
13
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Bulli were implemented.
Bentonite content: %
No crack control was used in the first section of the mini
Figure 4. Variation of maximum dry density with bentonite pitch layout plan (Figure 2). For the middle row, the natural
content crack-control system of grass was selected. Bermuda grass was
planted at spacings of 75 mm in each direction (Figure 6(k)).
Depending on the weather conditions, spraying 1/3 l of water
Table 5. CBR values of stone chips and Sylhet sand combinations per mini pitch over 24 h was required for grass growing. When
there was sufficient growth and the root systems were strong
Combination Stone chips: % Sylhet sand: % CBR: %a
enough, the grass was cut to 10 mm height, as suggested by
C1 50 50 37.3 Tainton and Klug (2002). In the third section of mini pitches,
C2 60 40 38.1 crack control was achieved by placing a thin (1.2 mm thick-
C3 70 30 39.3
ness) geotextile roofing felt membrane in the middle of the
C4 80 20 40.7
C5 90 10 68.0 Bulli along the length of the section. The geotextile sheet was
extended by 150 mm on all sides to grip nearby soils at the
a
In the first trial, the 0.2 inch (5.08 mm) PRs were higher than the 0.1 inch sides.
(2.54 mm) PRs, so data from the second trial were used to calculate the CBR
Cricket pitches are generally exposed to the weather and thus
evapotranspiration occurs. Evapotranspiration induces cracks
80 in the pitch, whereas water reduces pitch cracks (Tainton and
Klug, 2002). For this reason, frequent wetting was applied to
70 C5 keep the cracks within a tolerable limit.

60 Due to rolling and subsequent drying, some sharp crack edges

led to soil powder on the pitch. Moreover, thatches or weeds
Soaked CBR: %

50 also accumulated on the pitch, which reducing pace and

bounce properties (Tainton and Klug, 2002). The powders and
C3
40 C4
thatches were thus removed before each test (Figure 6(n)).
C1 C2 Before the bounce experiment, separation marks were provided
30 between the pitches and the working zones (Figure 6(o)). As
per the recommendations of New Zealand Cricket, Inc. (NZC,
20 2010a, 2010b), white-coloured marking (25 mm wide) was
used throughout.
10
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 5. Experimental programme
Stone content: % The test scheme comprised both laboratory and field investi-
gations. Initially, laboratory tests were conducted to investigate
Figure 5. Soaked CBR as a function of stone content. the wetting–drying behaviour of the Bulli. Then, field tests
C1–C5 represent the different combinations of stone chips and
sand (detailed in Table 5) were carried out to determine ball rebound heights, the PR of
the pitch, moisture content and crack widths.

6
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

(a) (b) (c)

(f) (e) (d)

(g) (h) (i)

(l) (k) ( j)

(m) (n) (o)

Figure 6. Steps in preparation of the mini pitches. (a) excavation work; (b) compacted bed; (c) mixing materials with water; (d) hand
compaction of base; (e) base compaction by manual roller; ( f ) placement of plastic sheet above base; (g) Bulli preparation; (h) casting of
Bulli in steel casing; (i) Bulli after first stage of construction; ( j) rolling using concrete roller; (k) planting grass in rows; (l ) cutting grass;
(m) adding geotextile; (n) swiping pitches; (o) pitch miniatures

7
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

5.1 Laboratory investigations

For compressive strength tests, samples of the five different 300 300 Ball hanger
combinations of soils (as per the Bulli combinations shown in 75
Movable stand
Table 4) were mixed to OMC. Three cubes (50 mm sides) were 100 (height 1500–
prepared for each combination of materials (CB1–CB5), to give 3000 mm)
a total of 15 cubes. Before casting, the inside of the cubic
moulds was lubricated to avoid adhesion between the soil and
mould. The soil samples in the moulds were compacted in two Vertical scale
layers using 32 blows in each layer of a 150 mm plunger of size
12.5  25 mm (similar to cement cube tests). The moulds con-
Control key
taining compacted soil and water added to the OMC were

1500
then kept in sunlight for drying. Compressive strength was

1200
900 Horizontal scale
tested using an unconfined compressive strength testing

1200
machine with the aim of determining which bentonite–fine
Side camera stand
sand combination provided the highest compressive strength.
Figure 7 shows the effect of three cycles of watering and 0
45 Front camera stand
drying (wetting and subsequent natural air drying for 7 days)

0
90
on the compressive strength of the soils. The test results show 900
that CB2 (approximately 70% bentonite content) had the Base
highest compressive strength after each of the three cycles.

Figure 8. Detailed configuration of the bounce meter

5.2 Field investigations (dimensions in mm)
Field investigations were undertaken to measure the pitch PR,
ball bounce height, crack width, field density and moisture
contents.
be dropped to the centre of each pitch base. Two movable
cameras were focused on recording the ball’s movement during its
5.2.1 Measurement of rebound height drop from a height, one for the front view and the other for the
A steel frame bounce meter with a base dimension of side view. Scales were mounted in front of each camera to
900  900 mm was designed and fabricated to determine the measure the ball’s relative distance compared with the scale.
cricket ball’s rebound height dropped from the differential vertical
height (Figure 8). A release key ensured the free fall of the ball A 156.7 g white cricket ball was dropped freely on every pitch
from the hanger. The ball hanger was placed where the ball could from a specific height. The tests were repeated ten times to
determine the average rebound height. The drop height was
1500–3000 mm with incremental intervals of 300 mm between
140
First watering the extreme heights. For every ten increments, video outputs
Second watering
from both cameras were captured and later processed by con-
Average compressive strength: kN/m2

120 Third watering

CB2 verting each of the videos to still pictures of 60 frames per
second. The horizontal and vertical coordinates of the dropped
100 ball were estimated using from the frames using ImageJ 1.51g
CB1 CB2
CB3 software.
80 CB1
CB4
CB5
Figure 9 shows a sample calculation for the measurement of
60 CB3 rebound height for each successive increment concerning mini
CB4
CB5 pitch conditions and the ball’s drop height. Horizontal and
40 vertical scales were placed in front of each camera at spacings
CB1 CB2
CB3 CB4 of 900 mm. With the ball hanger centred in the middle of the
CB5
20 bounce meter, the ball was expected to fall on the centre of the
pitch. However, due to some unavoidable reasons (e.g. wind,
0 ground irregularity, position of the ball stitch in the ball
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 holder, etc.), the falling trajectory of the ball was not constant
Bentonite content: % at all times. Several trials were thus made to for the most exact
possible measurement. When the cameras were focused on the
Figure 7. Effect of cyclic watering on the compressive strength of
Bulli soil ball, the scale was 450 mm behind the ball’s actual position.
As a result, the reading was slightly overestimated, requiring

8
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

X Scale X

Ball point
Z Z
Cricket ball C

Base point

Frame time
(h: min:
s: Frame
B no.)

Image from first frame Image from second frame

Coordinates of base and ball point for camera 1

A
First frame* Second frame*
C
Point X: mm Z: mm Points X: mm Z: mm

1 1020.3 380.7 1 1021.5 379.5 H

h
2 576.0 389.0 2 578.2 387.5 B
3 574.5 44.0 3 576.0 40.5
Schematic view of ball
4 520.0 470.0 4 416.0 58.0 position from each camera

Sample calculation for rebound height of ball

Drop height, H = 1828.8 mm; rebound height, h = ? mm; no. of frames, F = 60/s; control = natural
Time second frame – Time first frame (2 + 22) – (2 + 17)
Time difference, TD = = = 0.083 s;
F 60
Calculations from camera 1 (front camera):
(1020.3 + 1021.5) – (546.0 + 578.2)
Difference in X of base point = | P1AVGX – P2AVGX | = | 2
| = 443.8 mm;
(389.0 + 387.5) – (44.0 + 44.5)
Difference in Z of base point = | P2AVGZ – P3AVGZ | = | 2
| = 344 mm;
Actual X (Y in side camera) in scale = 450 mm; actual Z in scale =300 mm
Difference in X of ball point = | P4F1X – P4F2X | = |520.0 − 416.0 | = 104 mm
Difference in Z of ball point = | P4F1Z – P4F2Z | = |470.0 − 58.0 | = 412 mm
Actual X in scale × Difference in X of ball point 450 × 104
LX(C1) 2 × Difference in X of base points 2 × 443.8
Horizontal velocity, VX(C1) = = = 635.26 mm/s
TD TD 0.083
Actual Z in scale × Difference in Z of ball point 300 × 412
LZ(C1) 2 × 344
Vertical velocity, VZ(C1) = = 2 × Difference in Z of base points
= = 2164.47 mm/s
TD TD 0.083

With similar calculations from camera 2 (side camera):

Actual Y in scale × Difference in Y of ball point 450 × 600
Ly(C2) 2 × Difference in Y of base points 2 × 624
Horizontal velocity, VY(C2) = = = = 2606.58 mm/s
TD TD 0.083
Actual Z in scale × Difference in Z of ball point 300 × 406
LZ(C2) 2 × Difference in Z of base points 2 × 345 = 2118.26 mm/s
Vertical velocity, VZ(C2) = = =
TD TD 0.083

VZ(C1) + VZ(C2) VZ(C1) + VZ(C2) 2

1
Total velocity, V = V 2X(C1) + V 2Y(C2) +
2
VZ (C1) – + VZ(C2) – = 2682.97 mm/s = 2.68 mm/s
2 2
V2 (2.68)2
Rebound height, h = = = 0.366 m = 366 mm
2g 2 × 9.81

*Point coordinates obtained using Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015 and Image J 1.51 g software

Figure 9. Sample calculation for ball rebound height

9
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

Table 6. Rebound heights for each crack-control system, soil combination and falling height (FH)
Average rebound height: mm

Soil CC: % FH = 1500 mm FH = 1800 mm FH = 2100 mm FH = 2400 mm FH = 2700 mm FH = 3000 mm

No crack control
CB1 48 223 238 256 272 289 306
CB2 56 247 263 284 301 319 337
CB3 63 279 301 311 329 347 366
CB4 71 350 372 391 414 438 462
CB5 79 405 417 453 477 499 528
Natural crack control
CB1 48 214 231 249 265 284 303
CB2 56 240 258 277 296 316 334
CB3 63 267 286 306 324 345 363
CB4 71 339 361 380 400 423 444
CB5 79 383 405 426 450 471 496
Geotextile control
CB1 48 397 420 441 462 487 512
CB2 56 244 263 279 298 316 334
CB3 63 221 238 253 270 286 306
CB4 71 372 391 411 432 453 477
CB5 79 552 575 603 628 653 683

corrections for parallax error on both the vertical and horizon-
tal scales. For example, for camera height h0 and vertical
scale reading H 0 , the actual vertical reading was corrected as
ðH 0  h0 Þ=2; likewise, for horizontal scale reading b0 , the
deflection was adjusted by b0 =2. The corrected rebound heights
for each crack-control system, soil combination and falling
height are listed in Table 6.
the constant spring measurement of the conventional nominal
penetrometer. The required penetrations were estimated using
the measured spring constant value for both the 2 mm and
3 mm diam. pistons. The measured deflections are listed in
Table 7. The calibration chart for the modified pocket penet-
rometers is shown in Figure 11. The modified pocket penet-
rometer penetrations were converted to estimate the actual

5.2.2 Measurement of pitch PR

A commercially available pocket penetrometer (Figure 10) of
6.25 mm diameter was modified and recalibrated to estimate
the pitch PR of the Bulli soil. The pitch soil was relatively stiff Cylinder
and the use of the conventional penetrometer exceeded the
Inch Milimeter
limit (i.e. between 0 and 4.5) of the measurements. Extended 5
130

load piston diameters were thus designed and fabricated to 120

reduced diameters of 2 mm and 3 mm and the reduced- 110

Stainless steel pin
4
diameter penetrometers were used to measure the PR. 100 0

90
0.5 Piston (compresses
into cylinder, D = 19 mm
1.0

80 1.5
By changing the pocket penetrometer’s piston diameter, cali- 3 2.0 L = 162 mm)
70
bration for the new piston diameters was necessary. Two issues 2.5

60 3.0

had to be solved: (a) calibration of the labelled load on the 2 50

3.5
4.0 Indicating ring
piston against new piston diameters of 2 mm and 3 mm and 40
4.5

(b) calibration of the standard penetration depth piston the 30 Load piston (D = 6.25 mm)
1
penetration depth of the new pistons for measuring the pitch 20

soil’s PR. A test programme was undertaken to resolve these 10 Calibration mark
issues. Five small buckets were filled with five different combi- 0 0
Adaptor foot
nations of arbitrarily mixed Bulli materials. The samples were
then left to dry for seven consecutive days at room tempera-
ture. Average penetrometer readings were taken for all the Extended load piston
samples in the small buckets using the conventional nominal (D = 2 or 3 mm, L = 60 mm)
penetrometer with the 6.25 mm dia. piston. Thereby, the PR
against the deflection provided the spring constant of the Figure 10. Modified pocket penetrometer
penetrometer. The modified penetrometer was designed using

10
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

Table 7. Measured deflections from the 2 mm and 3 mm dia. piston of the modified pocket penetrometer
2 mm dia. piston 3 mm dia. piston

Soil Spring constant: Average actual PR: Required Required Required Required
sample N/mm N/m2 force: N deflection: mm force: N deflection: mm

1 0.343 72003 0.23 0.66 0.51 1.48

2 0.343 72003 0.23 0.66 0.51 1.48
3 0.343 96004 0.30 0.88 0.68 1.98
4 0.343 96004 0.30 0.88 0.68 1.98
5 0.343 264 011 0.83 2.42 1.87 5.44

300 rod, the entire length of 50 mm of its extended portion was

P = 109.21δ penetrated and it still did not reach the required deflection. If
the length of the 2 mm dia. extended piston rod had been
250
increased, there would be tendency for erroneous results due to
buckling of the rod while pushing it into the soil. For that
200 reason, only the 3 mm dia. extended piston rod with a
Pressure, P: kN/m2

reference mark at 24 mm was used to calculate the PRs. The

P = 48.539 δ – 6 × 10–14
estimated PRs of all the mini pitches measured with the 3 mm
150
dia. modified pocket penetrometer are listed in Table 8.

100
50
2 mm dia. piston rod of penetrometer
3 mm dia. piston rod of penetrometer
0
0 1 2 3
Penetration,δ: mm
Figure 11. Calibration of modified pocket penetrometer
penetrometer reading from the plots for the two different
diameter piston rods.
The second calibration issue was the penetration depth, a refer-
ence mark for extended pistons. To calibrate the penetration
depth of the modified pistons, they were allowed to penetrate
the Bulli soil until the new piston rod reached the estimated
penetration. For the 3 mm dia. piston rod, the average
penetration was 24 mm. However, for the 2 mm dia. piston
5.2.3 Measurement of moisture content
In situ moisture content plays an essential role in the estimated
PR and rebound height. As already mentioned, the top surface
of a cricket pitch tends to dry out due to evapotranspiration,
while the lower surface remains moist due to the capillary flow
4 5 6 of water. Moreover, any lateral cracking due to drying disrupts
the moisture flow at various locations. According to Tainton
and Klug (2002), a pitch’s top surface usually has uniform
moisture. Therefore, moisture contents were measured at the
top and bottom layers according to ASTM D 2216-10
(ASTM, 2010) and the results are presented in Table 9.
5.2.4 Crack measurements
After constructing the mini pitches, the development of cracks
and their patterns were closely observed. Table 10 shows the
measured average crack widths in the pitch surfaces with the
different crack-control systems. The first crack occurred for soil
combination CB1. The crack widths were measured using slide
calipers and average maximum crack widths were calculated.
The average crack width increased with an increase of

Table 8. Penetration test results for the three different pitch conditions
No crack controla Natural crack control Geotextile crack control

Soil Penetration: mm PR: kN/m2 Penetration: mm PR: kN/m2 Penetration: mm PR: kN/m2

CB1 22.2 1078 22.4 1087 27.5 1334

CB2 26.0 1261 24.9 1208 25.4 1232
CB3 29.5 1431 26.5 1286 22.3 1082
CB4 32.5 1577 28.6 1385 37.6 1822
CB5 38.4 1860 30.0 1455 43.9 2130

a
Measured using the 3 mm dia. load piston

11
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

Table 9. Penetration test results for the three different pitch conditions
Moisture content: %

No crack control Natural crack control Geotextile crack control

Top layer Bottom layer Top layer Bottom layer Top layer Bottom layer

CB1 13.1 17.2 15.3 17.5 13.3 18.3

CB2 13.4 18.0 13.5 15.4 13.8 19.6
CB3 12.4 16.7 14.1 17.5 14.7 20.6
CB4 12.1 16.5 12.1 14.9 12.4 19.2
CB5 11.5 17.3 11.2 14.4 11.8 19.0

Table 10. Crack width and development in the pitch surfaces

Crack width: mm

No crack control Vegetation crack control Geotextile crack control Crack development sequence Gs Void ratio

CB1 10.2 8.2 13.0 1 2.58 0.50

CB2 15.7 14.3 10.2 5 2.59 0.57
CB3 19.3 17.9 7.8 4 2.60 0.52
CB4 25.6 19.2 16.5 2 2.61 0.56
CB5 28.9 23.1 21.8 3 2.62 0.66

bentonite in the soil mix for the pitches with no control and
natural crack control. A possible reason for this could be the
release of adsorbed water from the fine particles during the
drying process, which might have caused the soil to shrink in
volume and diminish the capillary stresses, resulting in tensile
cracks in the pitch surface. The pitches with geotextile crack
control generally had smaller crack widths than the other two
pitch types (see Table 10). The geotextile roofing felt layer thus
acted as a reinforcing element. Although the grass roots also
acted as a reinforcing element, they were not uniformly distrib-
uted over the entire pitch. In addition, the tensile strength of
the geotextile roofing felt layer was higher than that of the
grass roots. It is for these reasons that the crack widths and
numbers were significantly lower in the pitches equipped with
geotextile. The presence of the geotextile may have interrupted
capillary flow from the bottom to the topsoil, resulting in no
tensile stresses during drying.
5.2.5 Measurement of field density
Field density tests were performed as per ASTM D 1556-15
(ASTM, 2015). The laboratory maximum dry density and
OMC were determined as per ASTM D 698-12 (ASTM,
2012). The compaction of the soil layers was also determined
(Table 11).
6. Experimental results
The interdependency of the rebound height of cricket balls
on some contributing parameters was examined. Statistical
analysis of the test data’ yielded a strong dependency between
the parameters, with a minimum coefficient of correlation (R2 )
of 0.65–0.95.
6.1 Effect of CC on CoR of pitch soil
The energy before and after the cricket ball’s impact with the
pitch was estimated from the basic principles of kinetic energy
and photogrammetry to determine the ratio of rebound energy
to falling energy, termed the CoR (Nawagamuwa et al., 2009).
The CoR was estimated for all three crack-control systems.
Neglecting frictional force due to air, the theoretical CoR (CR )
is estimated as:
rffiffiffiffiffi
h
1: CR ¼
H
where h is the rebound height and H is the falling height.
Figure 12 shows the variation of CoR (CR ) with CC for
the three types of pitches. Apart from the pitch with
geotextile crack control, the CoR was found to increase with
an increase in CC of the soil. However, the effect was insignifi-
cant for the natural crack-control ground conditions. For the
geotextile pitch, the relationship between CoR and CC was
found to comprise two parts: a linear decrease for CC < 62.7%
and a linear increase for CC > 62.7%. In other words, a
threshold CC of 62.7%. From the measured data, correlation
equations were developed for the different crack-control
systems (Equations 2–4); the minimum R 2 was found to be
0.65.
For pitches with no crack control:
2: CR ¼ 0:0037CC þ 0:1628 ð48%  CC  79%Þ

12
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

Table 11. Results of density tests on soil combinations 2500

Laboratory dry Field dry Relative
density: kg/m3 density: kg/m3 density: % Sp = 66.2CC – 3049.1; 62.7 ≤ CC ≤ 79
2000
CB1 1734 1723 99
CB2 1652 1652 100
CB3 1540 1713 100 Sp = 23.759CC – 66.89
1500
CB4 1519 1672 100

Sp: kN/m2
CB5 1519 1581 100 Sp = 11.554CC + 550.54

1000 Sp = –15.937CC + 2101.7; 48 ≤ CC ≤ 62.7

0.7
No crack control
Natural crack control 500
No crack control
Geotextile crack control
Natural crack control
0.6 Geotextile crack control
CR = 0.0117CC – 0.393; 62.7 ≤ CC ≤ 79
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5 CC: %
CR = 0.0037CC + 0.1628
CR

Figure 13. Variation of PR with CC for pitches with different

crack-control systems
0.4
CR = 0.0034CC + 0.1726

0.3 CR= –0.0047CC + 0.6394; 48 ≤ CC ≤ 62.7 the results, the following correlations were found relating the
PR (kN/m2) with the CC (%); the minimum value of R 2 was
found to be 0.95.
0.2
40 50 60 70 80 90
For pitches with no crack control:
CC: %
5: Sp ¼ 23:759CC  66:89 ð48%  CC  79%Þ
Figure 12. Variation of CoR with CC for pitches with different
crack-control systems

For pitches with natural crack control:

For pitches with natural crack control:
6: Sp ¼ 11:554CC þ 550:54 ð48%  CC  79%Þ
3: CR ¼ 0:0034CC þ 0:1726 ð48%  CC  79%Þ

For pitches with geotextile crack control:

For pitches with geotextile crack control:
7a: Sp ¼ 15:937CC þ 2101:7 ð48%  CC  62:7%Þ
4a: CR ¼ 0:0047CC þ 0:639 ð48%  CC  62:7%Þ

7b: Sp ¼ 66:2CC  3049:1 ð 62:7% , CC  79%Þ

4b: CR ¼ 0:0117CC  0:393 ð62:7% , CC  79%Þ

6.3 Effect of CC on crack width of pitch soil

6.2 Effect of CC on PR of pitch soil
The relationship between CC and the PR of the pitch surface
(Sp )’ for the three different pitches is shown in Figure 13. For
both natural crack control and no crack control, the PR was
observed to increase with CC. For the geotextile pitches, the
value of PR initially decreased with an increase in CC, but
beyond a threshold CC of 62.7%, the PR increased. Based on
The effect of CC on crack width (C w ) for all the mini pitches
is illustrated in Figure 14. For similar proportions of clay and
sand in the pitch, the crack widths for the pitches with natural
crack control were smaller than those in the pitches with no
crack control. This may be because of the moisture held in the
grass roots and the lateral rigidity provided by the grass’s
vigorous rhizomes. The average crack width for the pitches

13
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

35 6.4 Effect of moisture content on CoR of pitch soil

No crack control
Natural crack control Moisture content (w) was found to affect the CoR of the pitch
30 Geotextile crack control soils, as shown in Figure 15. With an increase in moisture
content, all the pitches with various crack controls converged
25 CW = 0.4385CC – 11.296 to the same CoR value. The test results show that the pitches
with geotextile crack control generally provided a higher CoR
20 for the same moisture content. Statistical analysis of the test
Cw: mm

CW = 0.5977CC – 18.00
data showed a curvilinear correlation between the CoR (CR )
15 and moisture content (w in %), as shown in Equations 11–13.
The minimum R 2 was found to be R 2 0.65.
10
CW = 0.8845CC – 47.78; 62.7 ≤ CC ≤ 79 For pitches with no crack control:
5 CW = –0.3285CC + 28.59; 48 ≤ CC ≤ 62.7
11: CR ¼ 0:0162w2  0:4578w þ 3:5896 ð 11:5%  w  13:9%Þ
0
40 50 60 70 80 90
CC: %
For pitches with natural crack control:
Figure 14. Variation of crack width with CC for pitches with
different crack-control systems 12: CR ¼ 0:0025w2  0:0923w þ 1:1747 ð11:2%  w  15:9%Þ

with geotextile crack control was found to be smaller than that For pitches with geotextile crack control:
of the other two types of pitches. This could be because of the
uniform lateral resistance provided by the geotextile sheets. 13: CR ¼ 0:0142w2  0:4377w þ 3:7172 ð 11:8%  w  14:9%Þ

In general, the crack width increased with an increase in CC

for the pitches with no crack control and with natural crack
control. However, for the pitches with geotextile, the crack 6.5 Effect of moisture content on PR of pitch soil
width initially decreased up to a threshold CC of 62.7%; Moisture content was also found to have a significant influence
beyond this CC, the crack width increased. Correlations on the PRs of the clay soil. As shown in Figure 16, an inverse
between crack width C w (mm) and CC (%) for the different relationship between moisture content and PR was found for
crack-control systems are presented in Equations 8–10; the all the pitches with the different crack-control systems. For the
minimum R 2 was found to be 0.95.
0.7
For pitches with no crack control: No crack control
Natural crack control
Geotextile crack control
8: Cw ¼ 0:5977CC  18:004 ð48%  CC  79%Þ 0.6
CR = 0.0142w2 – 0.4377w + 3.7172

0.5
For pitches with natural crack control:
CR = 0.0025w2 – 0.0923w + 1.1747
CR

9: Cw ¼ 0:4385CC  11:296 ð48%  CC  79%Þ 0.4

CR = 0.0162w2 – 0.4578w + 3.5896

For pitches with geotextile crack control: 0.3

10a: Cw ¼ 0:3285CC þ 28:59 ð 48%  CC  62:7%Þ 0.2

10 11 12 13 14 15 16
w: %

Figure 15. Variation of CoR with moisture content of the top

10b: Cw ¼ 0:8845CC  47:787 ð 62:7% , CC  79%Þ layer for pitches with different crack-control systems

14
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

3000 40
No crack control No crack control
Natural crack control Natural crack control
Geotextile crack control 35 Geotextile crack control
2500

30

2000
Sp: kN/m2

Sp = –372.93w + 6445.1 Cw = –7.749w + 117.87

25

Cw: mm
1500 20
Cw = –3.3806w + 61.315
Sp = –89.929w + 2475.2
15
1000
Sp = –310.79w + 5369.2
10
Cw = –4.7113w + 76.08
500
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 5
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
w: %
w: %
Figure 16. Variation of PR with moisture content of top layer for
pitches with different crack-control systems Figure 17. Variation of crack width with moisture content of the
top layer for pitches with different crack-control systems

pitches with no crack control and with geotextile crack- and moisture content (w in %) of the top layer for the three
control, the PR reduced sharply with an increase in moisture different pitches are presented in Equations 17–19; the
content. In contrast, the change in PR with moisture content minimum R 2 was found to be 0.93.
in the pitches with natural crack control was very gradual. The
relationships between PR (Sp in kN/m2) and top-layer moisture For pitches with no crack control:
content (w in %) are shown in Equations 14–16; the minimum
R 2 was found to be R 2 0.94. 17: Cw ¼ 7:749w þ 117:87 ð11:5%  w  13:9%Þ

For pitches with no crack control:

For pitches with natural crack control:
14: Sp ¼ 310:79w þ 5369:2 ð11:5%  w  13:9%Þ
18: Cw ¼ 3:3806w þ 61:315 ð11:2%  w  15:9%Þ

For pitches with natural crack control:

For pitches with geotextile crack control:
15: Sp ¼ 89:929w þ 2475:2 ð11:2%  w  15:9%Þ
19: Cw ¼ 4:71136w þ 76:08 ð 11:8%  w  14:9%Þ

For pitches with geotextile crack control:

16: Sp ¼ 372:93w þ 6445:1 ð11:8%  w  14:9%Þ
6.6 Effect of moisture content on crack width of
pitch soil
Figure 17 shows plots of moisture content of the top layer
against the average crack width. The crack width was inversely
related to the top-layer’ moisture content for all the pitches.
For the same moisture content of the top layer, crack propa-
gation was greater for the pitches with no crack control and
with natural crack control than for the pitches fitted with
geotextile. The correlations between crack width (Cw in mm)
6.7 Effect of crack width on CoR of pitch soil
As shown in Figure 18, the CoR was found to vary linearly
with crack width for all the crack-control systems. The pitches
with geotextile crack control exhibited a higher CoR than the
other pitches. The presence of the geotextile roofing felt
appears to have influenced the soil’s stiffness and the subgrade
reaction. The correlations between the CoR (CR ) and crack
width (C w in mm) are presented in Equations 20–22; the
minimum R 2 was found to be 0.60.
For pitches with no crack control:
20: CR ¼ 0:0061Cw þ 0:275 ð10:2 mm  Cw  28:9 mmÞ

15
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.

0.7 2500
No crack control No crack control
Natural crack control Natural crack control
Geotextile crack control Geotextile crack control

0.6 2000
Sp = 78.641Cw + 429.88

CR = 0.0135Cw + 0.2359 1500

0.5

Sp: kN/m2
Sp = 25.377Cw + 864.35
CR

1000
0.4
Sp = 39.145Cw + 660.89

CR = 0.0072 Cw + 0.2716

500
0.3 CR = 0.0061Cw + 0.2745

0
0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5 10 15 20 25 30
Cw: mm
Cw: mm

Figure 19. Variation of PR with crack width for pitches with

Figure 18. Variation of CoR with crack width for pitches with different crack-control systems
different crack-control systems

For pitches with geotextile crack control:

For pitches with natural crack control:
25: Sp ¼ 78:641Cw þ 429:88 ð7:8 mm  Cw  21:8 mmÞ
21: CR ¼ 0:0072Cw þ 0:272 ð8:2 mm  Cw  23:1 mmÞ

For pitches with geotextile crack control: 6.9 Effect of PR on CoR of pitch soil
The correlations between PR (Sp in kN/m2) and CoR (CR )
22: CR ¼ 0:0135 Cw þ 0:236 ð7:8 mm  Cw  21:8 mmÞ are shown in Figure 20 and Equations 26–28; the minimum R 2
was found to be 0.65.

6.8 Effect of crack width on PR of pitch soil 0.7

No crack control
Figure 19 shows the relationships between the crack width and Natural crack control
Geotextile crack control
PR of the pitches with the different crack-control systems. The
0.6
test results show that PR is linearly proportional to all crack- CR = 0.0002SP + 0.1732

control systems’ crack width. The PR of pitches with geotextile

CR = 0.0003Sp + 0.0138
crack control was higher than that of pitches with no crack
0.5
control and natural crack control. The relationships between
PR (Sp in kN/m2) and crack width (Cw in mm) for the
CR

different pitches are shown in Equations 23–25; the minimum 0.4

R 2 was found to be R 2 0.96.
CR = 0.0002SP + 0.1754

For pitches with no crack control: 0.3

23: Sp ¼ 39:145Cw þ 660:89 ð10:2 mm  Cw  28:9 mmÞ

0.2
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Sp: kN/m2
For pitches with natural crack control:
Figure 20. Variation of CoR with PR for pitches with different
24: Sp ¼ 25:377Cw þ 864:35 ð8:2 mm  Cw  23:1 mmÞ crack-control systems

16
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
For pitches with no crack control:
26: CR ¼ 0:0002Sp þ 0:1754 ð1078 kN=m2  Sp
 1860 kN=m Þ 2
For pitches with natural crack control:
27: CR ¼ 0:0003Sp þ 0:0138 ð1087 kN=m2  Sp
 1455 kN=m2 Þ
For pitches with geotextile crack control:
28: CR ¼ 0:0002 Sp þ 0:1732 ð1334 kN=m2  Sp
 2130 kN=m Þ 2 diameter of 3 mm, can effectively measure the PR of a
7. Conclusions
In usual practice, curators predict the bounce on a cricket
pitch prior to a game based on their feelings and experience.
For these predictions, in most cases, keys are used to
penetrate the pitch soil and cracks on the pitches are observed.
There is no technical grounds for such predictions. One of the
prime objectives of this study was to shift the dependency
away from curators’ ways of practice and to develop an
engineering procedure for developing a sound cricket pitch. To
this end, miniature pitches with three types of crack control
were constructed and assessed: no crack control, natural
crack control (grass) and the novel crack-control method
of using geotextile reinforcement. The properties of all the
pitches were assessed through field experiments and laboratory
tests. The following major conclusions were drawn from this
study.
(a) An increase in the CC of the pitch Bulli caused an
increase in the pitch’s PR and bounce height. The PR
and CoR of all three types of Bulli crack-control can be
estimated using the correlation equations developed from
the results of this study.
(b) An increase in the CC of the pitch Bulli led to an
increase in crack width for the pitches with no crack
control and natural crack control. However, in the
geotextile-reinforced pitches, the crack width initially
decreased with an increase in CC up to a threshold of
62.7%; beyond this value, the crack width increased with
an increase in CC. In other words, applying geotextile as
a crack-control measure necessitates a CC greater than
the threshold percentage.
(c) An increase in the moisture content of the pitch Bulli
decreased the crack width and the PR linearly for all
three crack-control systems. However, a non-linear
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.
relationship was found to exist between the moisture
content of the Bulli with the CoR of the pitch.
(d) The first crack was delayed until the CC reached about
50%. Then, the maximum bounce was noted at a CC of
80% CC. However, with 80% CC, there is a chance of
excessive cracking, which could result in an unplayable
cricket pitch. Hence, the preferable CC of a cricket pitch
with significant bounce should be in the range 50–65%.
(e) The least crack development and maximum compressive
strength under cyclic wetting–drying were obtained with
soil CB2 sample, with a CC of approximately 56%. The
crack pattern changed when geotextile roofing felt was
used. For the geotextile pitch, the minimum crack width,
CoR and PR were observed for a CC of 64%. However,
for the pitches with no crack control and natural crack
control, the optimum CC was 56%.
(f ) The modified penetrometer device, with a plunger
cricket pitch. However, a smaller plunger diameter
(<3 mm) provided erroneous results.
(g) The correlation between crack width and CoR (the ratio
of rebound energy to falling energy) is of practical
importance for curators when measuring the bounce
characteristics of a pitch. Both properties are
dependent on moisture content, but it can sometimes be
impractical to collect moisture content samples from a
pitch immediately before a game. Moreover, moisture
content varies with time and weather conditions.
Therefore, measuring the crack width is a useful tool for
predicting the amount of bounce earlier and throughout
a game.
The threshold CC of 62.7% for pitches with geotextile crack
control conditions is still under study by the authors. Further
details will be presented in a future publication.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Civil
Engineering of Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, the Department of Botany of the University of
Dhaka and Mr Gamini de Silva, national pitch groundsman
of Bangladesh Cricket Board, for the financial, technical and
academic supports.
REFERENCES
Alam KA, Sadiq MF and Abedin MZ (2020) Effect of organic
content on the stiffness of cricket pitch soil. Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Civil Engineering for
Sustainable Development (ICCESD 2020). KUET, Khulna,
Bangladesh.
Arsyad M, Mochtar IB, Mochtar NE and Arifin YF (2020) Road
embankment full-scale investigation on soft soil with geotextile
stabilization. International Journal of Geomate 19(71): 145–152.
ASTM (2010) D 2216-10: Standard test methods for laboratory
determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by
mass. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
17
 Geotechnical Engineering
ASTM (2012) D 698-12: Standard test methods for laboratory
compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2014) D 1883-14: Standard test method for CBR (California
bearing ratio) of laboratory-compacted soils. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2015) D 1556-15: Standard test method for density and unit
weight of soil in place by sand-cone method. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Baker SW, Cook A and Binns DJ (1998a) The effect of soil type and
profile construction on the performance of cricket pitches. I. Soil
properties and grass cover during the first season of use. Journal of
Turfgrass Science 74: 80–92.
Baker SW, Cook A, Binns DJ, Carré MJ and Haake SJ (1998b) The effect
of soil type and profile construction on the performance of cricket
pitches. II. Playing quality during first season of use. Journal of
Turfgrass Science 74: 9–23.
Baker SW, Hammond LKF, Owen AG and Adams WA (2003) Soil physical
properties of first-class cricket pitches in England and
Wales. I. Classification system for soil characteristics. Journal of
Turfgrass and Sports Surface Science 79: 2–12.
Carré MJ, Baker SW, Newell AJ and Haake SJ (1999) The dynamic
behavior of cricket balls during impact and variations due to grass
and soil type. Sports Engineering 2(2): 145–160.
Ekwue EI, Lall DZ and Stone RJ (2006) Engineering properties of major
soils used in cricket pitches in Trinidad. West Indies Journal of
Engineering 28(2): 27–40.
Ekwue EI, Ramsumair A and Birch RA (2017) Effects of water
content and compaction on ball movement on major cricket
pitch soils in Trinidad. West Indian Journal of Engineering 39(2):
83–89.
Eudoxie G and Nagassar D (2012) Influence of cricket pitch preparation
on resulting pitch surface hardness. Tropical Agriculture 89: 1–6.
Ghosh M, Choudhary PK and Sanyal T (2009) Suitability of natural fibres
in geotextile applications. In Proceedings of IGC Geotide, Guntur,
India, pp. 497–501.
Harwood MJ, King MA and Yeadon MR (2017) The influence of cricket
pitch length on ball release by junior bowlers. ISBS Proceedings
Archive 35(1): 73.
Islam MR, Roy P, Ahmed MA and Sadi R (2020) Local soil improvement
with bentonite to make cricket pitch speedy and bouncy.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Civil
Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD 2020). KUET,
Khulna, Bangladesh.
James DM, Carré MJ and Haake SJ (2004) The playing performance of
county cricket pitches. Sports Engineering 7(1): 1–14.
James DM, Carré MJ and Haake SJ (2005) Predicting the playing
character of cricket pitches. Sports Engineering 8(4): 193–207.
Kamaluddin M, Abdullah ABM and Rahman MH (1998) A possible uses
of presently available jute material as geotextiles. Proceedings of
International Seminar on Jute and Allied Fibres Changing Global
Scenario, Kolkata, India. National Institute of Research on Jute
and Allied Fibre Technology, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, Kolkata, India, pp. 171–177.
Koerner R (2016) Geotextiles: From Design to Applications. Woodhead
Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
McAuliffe KW and Hannan BK (2001) Effects of root zone construction
and preparation methods on cricket pitch performance.
International Turfgrass Society Research Journal 9: 553–558.
Nawagamuwa UP, Senanayake AIMJ, Silva SA and Sanjeewa DMI (2009)
Improvement of local soils in order to make “fast & bouncy”
cricket pitches. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka
42(4): 46–55.
NZC (New Zealand Cricket Inc.) (2010) The Turf Managers Companion.
NZC, Christchurch, New Zealand.
18
Downloaded by [ University of Alberta] on [31/05/22]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Performance of geotextile roofing felts
and natural grass roots in a cricket pitch
Yeasin Mostafiz, Islam, Kausar Alam et al.
NZC (2010) Cricket Umpires Training Officers Companion. NZC,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Patel A (2019) Geotechnical Investigations and Improvement of Ground
Conditions. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
Perera WSU, Nawagamuwa UP and Wijerathna HWN (2016) Study on
Properties of Locally Available Clays to be Used in Fast and
Bouncy Cricket Pitches. The Institution of Engineers, Colombo,
Sri Lanka, pp. 19–25.
Sabiri NE, Caylet A, Montillet A, Le Coq L and Durkheim Y (2020)
Performance of nonwoven geotextiles on soil drainage and
filtration. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering
24(5): 670–688.
Sen Gupta AK (1991) Geotextiles: opportunities for natural-fibre
products. International Trade Forum 27(1): 10–15 (in Spanish).
Shannon J (2010) Basic Guide to Turf Cricket Pitch Preparation.
Cricket Victoria, St Kilda, Australia.
Shipton P and James J (2009) Guidelines for Rolling in Cricket. Centre
for Sports Surface Technology, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, UK.
Singh SB (2014) Cricket pitches – science behind the art of pitch
making. International Journal of Science and Research 3(7):
1830–1835.
Swanton EW, Swanton EW and Woodcock J (1980) Barclays World of
Cricket: the Game From A to Z. Collins, New York, NY, USA.
Tainton N, Klug J, Edmondson D et al. (1998) Cricket Pitches: Principles
and Practice of Pitch Preparation. United Cricket Board of South
Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. See http://static.espncricinfo.
com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/PITCHES/PREP_OF_PITCHES.
html (accessed 11/05/2022).
Tainton N and Klug J (2002) The Cricket Pitch and its Outfield.
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Usman H, Hamza MM, Hamid PM and Ahmad T (2016) Improvement of
geotechnical properties of cricket pitches. Journal of Civil and
Environmental Engineering 6: 256, https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-
784X.1000256.
Wu H, Yao C, Li C et al. (2020) Review of application and
innovation of geotextiles in geotechnical engineering. Materials
13(7): 1774.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.