6-Skyview High School Stadium Field Condition Assessment 2026-06-11 RPT CCSD 102043 reduced.pdf

ON-SITE TESTING

CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Unit D5●78 Londonderry Tpk●Hooksett●NH●03106

(603) 715-5453 ● contact@fireflysportstesting.com

Project Information

Job No 102043/12217s Test Date 6/11/2026

Field Reference Sky View High School

Stadium Field Client

Cache Country School District

Field Address 520 South 250 East

Smithfield, UT 84335 Client Address

84 E 2400 North North Logan, UT 84341

Report Date 6/22/2026 Project Manager Michael Rocheleau

Report Status Final Technician(s) Keegan Sanborn

Brian Carter

Substrate Type n/a Field Orientation End A= South

Product Name n/p Infill Type Rubber & Sand

Pile Height (mm) n/p Shock Pad None

AM PM AM PM

Air Temperature (°F) 52 65 Humidity (%) 40 20

Surface Temperature (°F) 72.9 82.4 Wind Speed (mph) 3 4

Weather Conditions Clear & Sunny Test Condition Dry Notes:

1. This report has been prepared by Firefly Sports Testing with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the contract with the Client and within the limitations of the resources devoted to it.

2. This report is confidential to the Client and Firefly Sports Testing accepts no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

3. This report shall not be used for engineering or contractual purposes unless signed by the Author and the Checker and unless the report status is “Final.”

Background Firefly Sports Testing was commissioned to perform this on-site condition assessment per the protocol developed by Firefly Sports Testing. Standard test methods are performed together and held against a scoring system to provide a quantitative look at a range of important attributes. This broader perspective allows for more informed decision making.

Assessment Introduction At Firefly Sports Testing we understand the need for a qualitative approach to a quantitative assessment of sports surface condition. Therefore, we have created our surface scorecard condition assessment program. We have used our experience of testing thousands of surfaces to provide a qualitative look at surface condition using quantitative indicators.

This report has two main parts. The first part is the surface scorecard. This surface scorecard is a subjective scoring system that uses criteria based on commonly accepted ranges regardless of age to assess field condition.

Our surface scorecard is a cumulative point system that will yield a letter grade to reflect your surface's condition. The points awarded are based on 9 different surface properties tested / measured on-site. The results from each test are measured against four corresponding ranges of values to score each result. The ranges are classified as Poor (0 points), Fair (1 point), Good (2 points) and Excellent (3 points). This can be viewed in the results criteria.

Since each property has a different importance, it is assigned a "weight factor" based on the intended use and significance to the overall condition of the surface. For example, the impact safety tests have the highest weight factor. The weight factor can be viewed in the scorecard table.

The second part of this report contains background information and results graphs for each test performed. If you are not familiar with surface performance testing, then part 2 might be a good place to start to gain an understanding of the tests applied to the surface scorecard.

Table of Contents Project Information Background Assessment Introduction Overall Photos Location Map Overall Results Part 1: Condition Assessment Criteria Condition Assessment Results Condition Assessment Scorecard Part 2: Individual Test Background and Results Graphs HIC Critical Fall Height (Hemispherical Drop Form) – ASTM F3146 Turf Impact Attenuation (g-max) – ASTM F1936 Force Reduction – ASTM F3189 Advanced Artificial Athlete Protocol Vertical Deformation - ASTM F3189 Advanced Artificial Athlete Protocol Rotational Resistance – EN 15301-1 Vertical Ball Rebound - EN 12235 Horizontal Ball Roll - EN 12234 Infill Depth Evaluation – EN 1969 40 Infill Depth Evaluation – EN 1969 Surface Regularity – EN 13036-7 Testing Location Photo Sequence End of Report

Methods used within this assessment:

Test Type Test Method Test Description

Critical Fall

Height

ASTM F3146-18

Standard Test Method for Impact Attenuation of Turf Playing Systems Designated for Rugby g-max ASTM F1936-19 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Turf Playing Systems as

Measured in the Field

Infill Depths EN 1969:2000 Surfaces for Sports Areas – Determination of Thickness of Synthetic Sports

Surfaces

AAA ASTM F3189-20

Standard Test Method for Measuring Force Reduction, Vertical Deformation, and

Energy Restitution of Synthetic Turf Systems Using the Advanced Artificial Athlete

Vertical Ball

Rebound EN 12235:2013 Surfaces for Sports Areas – Determination of Vertical Ball Behavior.

Ball Roll EN 12234:2013 Surfaces for Sports Areas – Determination of Ball Roll Behavior

Modified: windspeeds exceeded maximum velocity during time of testing

Rotational

Resistance

EN 15301-1:2007

Surfaces for Sports Areas- Part 1: Determination of Rotational Resistance

Modified: Lightweight rotational resistance apparatus used

Planarity EN 13036-7:2003 Road and Airfield Surface Characteristics – Irregularity Measurement of

Pavement Courses – The Straightedge Test

For the benefit of comparison, each of these tests were performed on the same locations specified by ASTM F1936.

Therefore, many of these methods Results graphs and background information can be found in part 2 of this report.

Overall Photos

Location Map

Overall Results Below are the results of each of the tests performed per location along with a field average. Background and results graphs for each test can be found in part 2 of this report.

Property Test Position

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

Critical Fall Height (m) 0.81 0.85 0.91 0.82 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.75 1.11 0.87

F1936 g-max (g's) 173 151 162 122 154 143 152 138 184 140 152

Infill Depth (mm) 30 34 33 34 35 34 34 34 26 36 33

Force Reduction (%) 53 56 56 51 54 51 55 56 49 61 54

Vertical Deformation (mm) 6.8 7.3 7.0 6.0 6.9 6.1 6.8 7.1 6.0 8.3 6.8

Vertical Ball Rebound (m) 0.93 0.85 0.93 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.93

Horizontal Ball Roll (m) 10.8 9.7 9.4 10.3 10.6 9.9 10.5 9.6 10.5 9.5 10.1

Rotational Resistance (Nm) 32 28 28 31 27 30 28 29 37 26 30

Part 1: Condition Assessment Criteria

Legend Excellent Good Fair Poor

3pts 2pts 1pt 0pts

Property This criteria is based on commonly accepted ranges applicable regardless of age.

Impact Tests

Critical Fall Height (m) < 0.80 0.80 to 0.99 1.00 to 1.30 > 1.30

F1936 G-max (g's) < 120 120 to 165 166 to 200 > 200

Player Interaction

Force Reduction (%) < 50 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 70 71 to 75 > 75

Vertical Deformation (mm) < 3.0 3.0 to 3.9 4.0 to 4.9 5.0 to 10.0 10.1 to 11.0 11.1 to 12.0 > 12.0

Rotational Resistance (Nm) < 20 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 45 46 to 50 51 to 55 > 55

Ball Interaction

Vertical Ball Rebound (m) < 0.50 0.50 to 0.54 0.55 to 0.59 0.60 to 0.85 0.86 to 1.00 1.01 to 1.10 > 1.10

Horizontal Ball Roll (m) < 3.0 3.0 to 3.9 4.0 to 4.9 5.0 to 8.0 8.1 to 10.0 10.1 to 12.0 > 12.0

Infill Deviation and Surface Regularity

Infill Deviation from avg (mm)

< 2.0 2.0 to 5.0 5.1 to 8.0 > 8.0

Surface Regularity # of deviations found

0 1 to 4 5 to 9 > 10

Condition Assessment Results

Property Test Position

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Min Max

Impact Tests

Critical Fall Height (m)

0.81 0.85 0.91 0.82 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.75 1.11 0.87 0.75 1.11

F1936 g-max (g's) 173 151 162 122 154 143 152 138 184 140 152 122 184

Player Interaction

Force Reduction (%) 53 56 56 51 54 51 55 56 49 61 54 49 61

Vertical Deformation (mm)

6.8 7.3 7.0 6.0 6.9 6.1 6.8 7.1 6.0 8.3 6.8 6.0 8.3

Rotational Resistance (Nm)

32 28 28 31 27 30 28 29 37 26 30 26 37

Ball interaction

Vertical Ball Rebound (m)

0.93 0.85 0.93 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.93 0.85 0.99

Horizontal Ball Roll (m)

10.8 9.7 9.4 10.3 10.6 9.9 10.5 9.6 10.5 9.5 10.1 9.4 10.8

Infill Deviation and Surface Regularity

Infill Deviation from avg (mm)

3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 7.0

Surface Regularity # of deviations found

This test is not location dependent and applies a uniform score based on the # of deviations.

Condition Assessment Scorecard

The criteria is based on commonly accepted ranges applicable regardless of age.

Property Weight Factor

Test Position Score %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Impact Tests Critical Fall Height (m) 17.5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 10 / 30 33%

F1936 g-max (g's) 17.5% 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 18 / 30 60%

Player Interaction

Force Reduction (%) 12.5% 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0 3 15 / 30 50%

Vertical Deformation (mm)

12.5% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30 / 30 100%

Rotational Resistance (Nm)

12.5% 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 24 / 30 80%

Ball Interaction

Vertical Ball Rebound (m)

7.5% 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 / 30 70%

Horizontal Ball Roll (m) 7.5% 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 15 / 30 50%

Infill Deviation and Surface Regularity

Infill Deviation from avg (mm)

5.0% 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 25 / 30 83%

Surface Regularity # of deviations found

7.5% 0 This test is not location dependent and applies a uniform score based on the # of deviations.

0 / 3 0%

Total Score: 58%

Grade: F

Part 2: Individual Test Background and Results Graphs

HIC Critical Fall Height (Hemispherical Drop Form) – ASTM F3146 The ASTM F3146 standard establishes a test method to be used when testing a synthetic turf field’s impact attenuation property for assessing its suitability for rugby and other sports. The method is similar to the method commonly used for assessing playground surfacing in the United States. The test device calculates the Head Injury Criteria (HIC). This is used to gauge the probability of head injury potential resulting from a surface impact. This device is a hemispherical 10 Ib “drop form” with a tri-axial accelerometer. The hemisphere is dropped from (4) different heights to determine the height at which the HIC would be 1000. This height is referred to as the critical fall height. It is recommended that the critical fall height values be greater than 1.3 m. The critical fall heights determined can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg: 0.87

Min:

0.75

Max:

1.11

0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00

Critical Fall Height (m)

0.81 0.85

0.91

0.82

0.86 0.87 0.89

0.86

0.75

1.11

0.87

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.10

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

C ri ti ca l F al l H ei gh t

(m

Location Number

Average HIC Critical Fall Height per Location

Turf Impact Attenuation (g-max) – ASTM F1936 The ASTM F1936 impact attenuation test method specifies the official device / method for assessing the hardness of synthetic turf athletic fields. It is used to gauge impact attenuation based on a predetermined head / body impact. The device uses a 20 Ib “drop form” with a tri-axial accelerometer dropped from a height of 24 in. The ASTM recommends that the g-max values be less than 200 g’s. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg: 152

Max:

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 g-max (g's)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg g -m ax g 's

Average g-max per Location

Force Reduction – ASTM F3189 Advanced Artificial Athlete Protocol Force Reduction measures the shock absorption provided by the surface to a player under foot as they run. A lower value describes a surface that is harder underfoot and higher value describes a surface that is softer underfoot. As a field ages, these values will become harder (lower) over time. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg: 54

Max:

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Force Reduction (%)

56 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

Fo rc e R ed u ct io n

Average Force Reduction per Location

Vertical Deformation - ASTM F3189 Advanced Artificial Athlete Protocol Vertical Deformation measures the amount a surface compresses as an athlete runs across it. This value is often related to speed of play and surface stability. As a field ages, these values will become lower over time. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg: 6.8

6.0

Max:

8.3

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0

Vertical Deformation (mm)

6.8 7.3

7.0

6.0

6.9

6.1

6.8 7.1

6.0

8.3

6.8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

V er ti ca l D ef o rm at io n m m

Average Vertical Deformation per Location

Rotational Resistance – EN 15301-1 Rotational Resistance measures the torsional resistance of a weighted apparatus with a standard cleat pattern that is rotated on a surface. The resistance is measured 5 times at each test location. A lower value reflects a surface with a low level of cleat release and a higher value describes a surface with more “grab” or cleat resistance. Please note that this test reflects the characteristics of the surface and does not take the athletes footwear into account. Footwear can dramatically impact the resistance experienced by an athlete. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg: 30

Max:

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Rotational Resistance (Nm)

28 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

R o ta ti o n al R es is ta n ce

N m

Average Rotational Resistance per Location

Vertical Ball Rebound - EN 12235 Vertical Ball Rebound measures how high the ball bounces when falling vertically onto a synthetic turf field. A calibrated ball is released from 2 meters and the height of its rebound from the surface is calculated. Typically, as a field ages, these values will increase over time. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg:

0.93

Min:

0.85

Max:

0.99

0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20

Vertical Ball Rebound (m)

0.93

0.85

0.93

0.99

0.97 0.96

0.98

0.90 0.89 0.86

0.93

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

V er ti ca l B al l R eb o u n d m

Average Vertical Ball Rebound per Location

Horizontal Ball Roll - EN 12234 Horizontal Ball Roll measures the distance a ball rolls on synthetic turf. A calibrated ball is rolled off a specified ball ramp.

The ball is rolled 3 times in 4 directions at each location. These values are used to determine the location average. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above.

Avg: 10.1

9.4

Max:

10.8

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0

Horizontal Ball Roll (m)

10.8

9.7 9.4

10.3 10.6

9.9 10.5

9.6

10.5

9.5 10.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

H o ri zo n ta l B al l R o ll (m

Average Horizontal Ball Roll per Location

Infill Depth Evaluation – EN 1969 Infill depth measurements were taken at each location. This test determines the depth and distribution of infill. A lack of infill and/or an uneven distribution of infill can lead accelerated fiber degradation and differential wear. The results can be found in the graphs below and the Overall Results table above. Additional infill depth information has been included on the following page.

Avg: 2.0

0.0

Max:

7.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

Infill Deviation From avg (mm)

34 34 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

In fi ll D ep th m m

Infill Depth per Location

40 Infill Depth Evaluation – EN 1969 Additional infill depth measurements were taken at each of 40 locations distributed evenly across the field. These results are supplemental to the 10 infill depths included in the Overall Results table. The results and location map can be found below.

Average (min) Range (max)

Infill Depth (mm) 33 28 to 37

Surface Regularity – EN 13036-7

This test evaluates the planarity and evenness of a surface. A 3-meter straight edge is used to check for positive and negative deviations greater than 10 mm across the entire field of play. A reference map can be found below.

X Y Depth (mm)

Length, X (ft)

Width, Y (ft)

Deviation Type Comments

C.2-K.4 1.8-6.2 360 180 FL- Loose Fibers

D.2 6.0 3 3 IH – Excess (High) Infill

E.2 5.8 0.2 0.5 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear)

E.7 5.6 0.5 0.2 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear)

K.1 5.6 0.5 10 DO-Other Black line color fading

C.4 5.1 5 8 IH – Excess (High) Infill

E.2 4.3 0.5 6 DO-Other Discoloration - Majority of Black Lacrosse lines are faded/fading

I.3 4.3 2 1 DO-Other Repair

J.0 4.3 2 8 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear)

J.5 4.3 5 0.2 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear) Worn from goal post

J.5 3.6 4 0.2 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear) Worn from goal post

J.2 3.8 5.5 4 DO-Other Repair - located within lacrosse circle

J.1 3.8 8 16 DO-Other Repair - PK line

I.6 3.8 3 30 DO-Other Multiple repairs

H.7 3.8 1.5 1 DO-Other Repair

F.6 3.8 1 1 DO-Other Repair

D.7 3.8 1 1.5 DO-Other Repair

D.4 3.8 4 6 DO-Other Repair

D.3 3.8 1.5 1.5 DO-Other Repair

D.3 3.8 0.5 0.1 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear)

C.6 3.0 20 5 IH – Excess (High) Infill

K.0 1.8 0.5 0.5 FW - Worn Fibers (High wear)

D.3 2.0 4 4 IH – Excess (High) Infill

Testing Location Photo Sequence Photos have been taken at each location and are displayed below.

Location #1

Location Map 3” to 6” Height Photo

Shin Height Photo Chest Height Photo

Location #2

Location #3

Location #4

Location #5

Location #6

Location #7

Location #8

Location #9

Location #10

End of Report