1
Design of Universally Accessible Playground Equipment With a Spinning Component
By Alexander P. Kramer, Rachel Reifer, Long Lai
The Pennsylvania State University
October 28, 2016
Technical Report
Abstract:
There is currently a lack of playgrounds in the State College area that offer an equal
experience for children (aged between 6 and 12) of all abilities and disabilities to enjoy. To
address this current need for equal and fair playgrounds, this report will present a series of
analysis and drawings of equipment that will be usable by children with hearing, visual, and
motion-based impairments. Our design will be part of a complete playground that is being
constructed by our class, each group designing according to a principle of what makes a
playground fun. Our group has decided to focus on equipment that spins with our design then
joining the other groups to form a new and accessible playground for children of all abilities. The
spinning equipment that we developed, known as the Sun Spin, was able to effectively meet the
majority of the stakeholder specifications except for keeping the costs low, this being an issue
that our group plans to correct if selected by the grant to enter production and testing.
2
Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..…....1
List of Figures...……………………………………………………………………………………….…2
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………..……4
Introduction……………………………………………………….………………………………………5
Methods, Assumptions,
Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………………..….19
Results and
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..…………………...28
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………...43
References………………………………………………………………………………………...…….47
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………….…….…..…50
List of Figures
Radio Park Elementary School Playground……………………………………..............................6
Accessible Equipment from Radio Park Elementary School……………………………….….…...7
Example Image of Equipment Shown in Figure 2……………………………………......................7
Bernel Road Park……………………………………...……………......……………......…….….……8
Inspiration for Sun Spin……………………………………...……………......…………….................8
Sun Spin…………………………………….................................……………................................20
Using the Sun Spin……………………………………...……………......……………......................20
Oscillator……………………………………...……………......……………......……………......…….21
Using the Oscillator……………………………………………..............................................……...21
Oscillator Motion………………………………………………………………………………………...22
Passive/Relaxation Zone…………………………………………………………….………………...24
Zero Gravity Spiral……………………………………………………………………………………...27
Sun Spin Isometric……………………………………………………………………………………...30
3
Zero Gravity Spiral Isometric……………………………………......………….....…………...........30
Sun Spin Handle Dimensions…………………………………………….....…………………..…...31
Sun Spin Cylinder Dimensions…………………………………………….....……………………...32
Sun Spin Pole Dimensions……………………………………………….....…………………….....32
Sun Spin Dimensions for Top Components…………………………….....…………………….....33
Sun Spin Drawing by Hand……………………………………………….....…………………....….34
Prototype of Sun Spin……………………………………...........……….....……………................35
PolyStar TumbleTurf Rubber Sidewalk……………………………….....……………………….....35
Rubberwalk Rubber Pathway………………………………………….....……………………….....36
Engineered Wood Fiber……………………………………………….....…………………………...38
Human Sundial……………………………………………………….....…………………………......39
Model of Human Sundial………………………………………….....……………………………….39
Final Prototype of Playground…………………………………….....……………………………....42
List of Tables
Table of Stakeholders and Needs…………………...…….....……………………………………..10
Survey Results……………………………………………….....……………………………………..11
Decision Matrix……………………………………………….....……………………………………..12
Table of Requirements……………………………………….....……………….……………….......14
Specifications from Requirements……………………….....…………………..……………….......16
Analysis of Needs………………………………………….....………………………………………..22
Triax Surface Test Results………………………………….....……………………………………...37
Table of Costs……………………………………………….....…………………………………........40
4
Executive Summary:
There is a great lack of accessible playgrounds in State College, which can be shown by
the fact that there are only two playgrounds in State College that are accessible to disabled
people, according to National Public Radio (Kaplan, 2013). Hence, a research study was made
by our group in an attempt to design universally acceptable playground equipment. At the same
time, capital investments were required in order to make the design come to reality. Therefore,
the design is not just going to be fun for children, but also appealing to the project’s
stakeholders. These stakeholders are the children who are going to interact with the design.
Most of the time, universally accessible playgrounds are designed for children whose
ages are between six to twelve years old (“Outdoor Playground”, 2013).
Therefore, our design would mainly focus on children in this age group. The main
themes of the design are space, a “spinning” motion and a quiet, thought-provoking, and nature
based playground experience that encourages creativity and exploration. This decision was
made based on a conclusion from the Natural Playgrounds Company which stated that children
prefer to have freedom to explore (“Outdoor Playground”, 2013).
Following procedures were done in order to generate ideas for the design:
1. Research on existing accessible playgrounds equipment.
2. Deciding the criteria for safety, accessibility and fun.
3. Brainstorming and discussion on possible designs that would match with the theme and
criteria.
After these procedures, we came up with the design of “Sun Spin”, which is a cylindrical
structure standing at 10’ with a bar wrapped around it at an appropriate height where all
children, standing or sitting in a wheelchair, have access to it. This bar must then be able to spin
the whole structure, with an applied force, so that the chimes and acrylic plastic will produce
5
sound and a colorful display. For the material making the equipment, it was decided that
materials which are safe and have a great durability would be used in order make the design
meet safety requirements and the cost of these materials were also considered. Transparent
acrylic plastic was used instead of glass since glass could break and cause damage to a child.
Our group also decided that a safe landscape will meet our requirement of a safer and
more accessible playground. After conducting research, Engineered Wood Fiber was decided to
be used as it has features that make the landscape exceed ASTM regulations (these
regulations discussed in further detail in the introduction).
●
Project was mostly a success due to the positive survey results from the users
●
Main concept, the “Sun Spin” passed all testing and exceeded expectations from
stakeholders
●
Playground equipment and landscape was expensive
●
Not all equipment met standards for accessibility and will require further research
Introduction
The introduction shall discuss how our group was able to conduct research on the
existing conditions concerning accessible playground equipment in the vicinity of State College.
Furthermore, our group shall discuss the methods and processes used to discover and analyze
our stakeholders. This analysis will be conducted with the purpose of generating requirements
and then specifications to use in the design of our equipment and the overall playground.
a.) Existing Conditions
Playgrounds were first introduced in the United States in 1887 at Golden Gate Park,
located in San Francisco. The idea of the playground was to provide a way for children to
exercise, interact with other children, and safely explore and learn about the world without
having to face the dangers of being in the street (Hart, n.d.). The benefits of a safe and
enjoyable area for children to play are significant for any locality since these playgrounds can be
6
critical areas for the social and mental development during a child’s early years. All children
deserve the human interactions and experiences that playgrounds offer, but often times children
who possess disabilities do not get these opportunities due to the equipment built for
playgrounds not being equally accessible to able-bodied and disabled children. This idea was
the motivation for beginning to explore the accessibility of playgrounds in State College and for
thinking about the way this barrier is being addressed by the community.
After conducting research, our group discovered that state College has a significant lack
of accessible playgrounds. This is evident by the non-profit organization National Public Radio
stating that there are only two accessible playgrounds in State College (Kaplan, 2013). Figure 1
below shows one of the parks, this being the playground for the Radio Park Elementary School.
Figure 1.) Radio Park Elementary School Playground
The piece of equipment that qualified this park to be accessible is shown in figures 2 and
3 below, both illustrating the minimal level of accessibility offered by the park (Kaplan, 2013).
7
Figure 2.) Accessible Equipment from Radio Park Elementary School
Figure 3.) Example Image of Equipment Shown in Figure 2
Upon the realization that this playground was only usable by students attending the
elementary school, our group decided to then research the other playground to see if it was
accessible to the public and also accessible in the sense of accommodating children with
disabilities. This park was Bernel Road Park, located approximately five-and-one-half miles from
Radio Park Elementary School and only offering a smooth surface that was acceptable for
children in wheelchairs (Kaplan, 2013). Figure 4 below shows Bernel Road Park and again
illustrates the lack of accessible equipment that would make the park enjoyable for children of
all ages and abilities.
8
Figure 4.) Bernel Road Park
To resolve this issue, our group performed research on accessible equipment that
already exists, an example shown in figure 5.
Figure 5.) Inspiration for Sun Spin
Our group discovered this piece of equipment from Game Time, a playground equipment
company, and saw value in its simple way of providing children experience with manipulating
sunlight to produce colorful displays (“Shadow Play Flower”, n.d.). This piece of equipment also
was appealing because it appeared to be easily accessible to children in wheelchairs since the
bar to spin the equipment was at a low height. However, this piece of equipment did not have
9
any features that would accommodate blind children, for the equipment was purely a visual and
motion-based experience.
b.) Stakeholder Analysis
With this deficiency in mind, we further looked into the individuals who would be
interested in the building of a playground in State College. The universally accessible
playground equipment would be designed for children between the ages of six and twelve,
these children also being the main stakeholders of this project. Other stakeholders would
include the borough of State College, the parents, and the manufacturers; these organizations
being stakeholders due to their investments in our equipment to provide a more enjoyable and
fair playground experience in State College.
Each group of stakeholders had a unique list of needs and desires. For our primary
stakeholders, the children between the ages of six and twelve, the desired situation was found
to be a quiet, thought-provoking, and nature based playground experience that encouraged
creativity and exploration. This conclusion came from the Natural Playgrounds Company, who
conducted a survey to see what children in grades one through four enjoyed doing when they
were outdoors. They found children did not appear to enjoy the adult-constructed equipment
and preferred to have the freedom to explore and create their own “rides” and amusements,
such as sliding down a hill and collecting sticks. (“Outdoor Playground”, 2013)
State College, another stakeholder, will desire the ideal situation of a cost-effective
playground that encourages visitors and enhances the lives of those living in the State College
area. To provide proof of this situation, we will supply a volunteer survey to the children that will
be used to supply feedback to State College (Example survey included in Appendix E). We also
will watch the park’s usage over a six-month period and calculate the average number of
children who visit the playground each month as well how long the average child uses our
specific equipment. Finally, our group will send a cost analysis that contains the cost of
producing our equipment as well as the projected maintenance costs.
10
The parents of the children who will use this park are also stakeholders, for these
individuals will expect a safe and accessible park that is fun for children of all different abilities.
To ensure the safety of the equipment, current standards for materials will be used when
selecting the plastics and aluminum that will be used in the construction of our equipment.
Furthermore, height considerations will be made for children in wheelchairs and the moving
components of the equipment will be designed to not pose a danger to any children or adults
who may not possess optimal hearing and vision. These considerations will be passed on the
final stakeholders, the construction companies that will be responsible for properly interpreting
and implementing our group’s designs and ideas. These stakeholders will desire direct and
thorough designs and drawings so that they can quickly and easily produce the equipment with
as low of a cost as possible. A table summarizing the stakeholders and their needs is shown
below, the children’s needs being derived from the results of the National Playground Company
survey and the Parents and Manufacturer needs coming from a survey that will be sent out to
the parents located in the State College borough and local manufacturers. This survey is
included in Appendix E located at the end of the report.
Table 1.) Table of Stakeholders and Needs
Stakeholder
Needs
Children
Quiet
Children
Ability to Freely Move Around and Explore
Children
Shade and Comfortable to Use in the
Summer Time
Manufacturer
Easy-to-Construct
Manufacturer
Cost-Efficient Solution
11
Manufacturer
Clear Plan for Landscape
Parents/State College Borough/Children
Safe
Parents/State College Borough/Children
Accessible
State College
Environmentally Conscious
State College
Easy to Maintain
The significance for the parents and the manufacturers was determined by the same
survey that was sent out to potential manufacturers and parents in the State College Borough.
The survey requested the parents and manufacturers list their needs in their order of
importance. For the needs of the children, the survey from Natural Playgrounds Company was
analyzed for the most prominent desires that were expressed by the children. This list from
Natural Playgrounds Company and a copy of the survey used to rate the needs of the parents
and the manufacturers are provided in Appendices I and E (respectively) and our group’s
analysis of the results from the surveys is summarized in table 2 below.
Table 2.) Survey Results
Needs
Importance
Quiet
2
Ability to Freely Move Around and Explore
5
Shade and Comfortable to Use in the
4
Summer Time
Easy-to-Construct
4
12
Cost-Efficient Solution
5
Clear Plan for Landscape
3
Safe
5
Accessible
5
Environmentally Conscious
3
Easy to Maintain
1
In order to prevent issues when certain aspects of the needs from our stakeholders
conflicted (an example being whether to compromise safety to fulfill the need for a cost-efficient
solution), the following decision matrix (table 3) was created by our group. The order of
precedence then was determined by the total score each stakeholder received, the highest
score having highest precedence and the lowest score having the lowest precedence.
Table 3.) Decision Matrix
Criteria
Weight
Children
Children
Parents
Parents.
.
Primary
Manufactur
Manufact
State
State
er
urer.
College
College.
Rating
Score
Rating
Score
Rating
Score
Rating
Score
(Out of
(Out of
(Out of
(Out of
(Out of 5)
(Out of
(Out of
(Out of
5)
25)
5)
25)
25)
5)
25)
5
5
25
1
5
3
15
3
15
4
5
20
2
8
3
12
3
12
Stakeholder
Number of
Needs
13
Influence on
4
1
4
1
4
2
8
5
20
4
5
20
1
4
3
12
2
8
2
1
2
2
4
5
10
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
20
18
72
8
26
19
60
20
65
Design
Acceptance
Influence on
Design
Decisions
Ability to
Provide
Evidence That
Need Was
Met
Ability to Get
Feedback
During Design
Total:
The weights that were assigned to each criteria were determined through rigorous
discussion within our group, each member contributing multiple methods of comparing the
stakeholders that were previously discussed. The criteria pertaining to the primary stakeholder
was deemed the most important criteria since this was the stakeholder that this project was
created to serve and satisfy. The number of needs was based on table 1, where each
stakeholder was listed with their particular needs. The assumption was made that a stakeholder
with more needs would have a higher expectation for the finished product, this expectation
needing to be considered when making design decisions. Under the same logic, the criteria
pertaining to the influence on acceptance was given the same weight as the number of needs
since a higher number of needs would mean that the stakeholder would want these needs met
14
before accepting the design to potentially develop our group’s equipment, this meaning that for
the playground to be implemented these expectations would have to be considered. Further
expanding on this idea was the next criteria, this being the stakeholder’s impact on the design
decisions that our group would be making in the construction of the playground. This was seen
as equally important to the previous two criteria since the needs would be broken down into
requirements, as shown in table 4 below, that would become the basis for the majority of
decisions that would be made during the design process. Lastly, while seen as important
enough criteria to have in the decision matrix, the last two criteria were given relatively lower
weights than the previous criteria since the feedback and evidence were not seen as very
significant when deciding which stakeholder would motivate our decisions when their needs
came into conflict. The feedback criteria were included since it would make resolving conflicts
with the needs easier if a communication channel with the stakeholder existed and the
conflicting stakeholders could be contacted to have their input in the final decision that would be
made for the playground. The ability to get evidence that the need was met was seen as more
important than the ability to get feedback because of the idea that being able to prove, through
tests and inspections, that our designs satisfy the specifications in table 5 is critical to moving
from the designs proposed in this technical report to the actual creation and implementation.
Table 4.) Table of Requirements
Needs
Requirements
Quiet
1.) Needs to be within acceptable decibel levels
Ability to Freely Move Around and Explore
1.) Surface that is free of trip hazards
2.) Surface that allows children in wheelchairs to easily
maneuver
Shady and Comfortable to Use in the Summer
1.) Surface needs to be relatively heat-resistant
Time
2.) Proper use of trees to keep ground surface
15
temperature from dangerous levels.
Easy-to-Construct
1.) Need clear instructions on how to build the surface
of the playground
2.) Test Results from Proposed Manufacturers
Cost-Efficient Solution
1.) Fits within proposed budget
2.) Optimized Dimensions to allow for minimal cost
Clear Plan for Landscape
1.) Clear plans for Layout of Playground
2.) Materials explicitly listed for use along with
explanations of why these materials were selected
Safe
1.) Surface is approved to surface standards
2.) Surface will not cause severe injury from falls at
reasonable heights
3.) Equipment is designed to take into consideration
the potential for falling
4.) The equipment will not have toxic materials
5.) The equipment will not have any element that can
easily shatter (such as glass)
Accessible
1.) A child in a wheelchair can easily move around the
playground
2.) A child in a wheel can easily use the proposed
equipment
3.) A blind and/or deaf child must be able to safely
move around the playground
4.) The equipment cannot create the potential for injury
to a deaf and/or blind child.
Environmentally Conscious
1.) A Plan will be developed for the materials to be
recycled after their lifetimes
16
2.) The materials, if possible, will be made from
sustainable materials
3.) Any new trees or plants that are introduced must be
indigenous to the Pennsylvania and not destroy local
trees and plants
Easy to Maintain
1.) Once installed, only needs to be maintained yearly
2.) Need low maintenance trees
3.) Durable materials used to construct playground
In order to assist with our design process, the requirements were then explored with the
purpose of creating a list of specifications that our group would utilize in deciding between the
proposed concepts for the universally accessible equipment. The results of this analysis are
shown below in table 5.
Table 5.) Specifications from Requirements
Specification
TARGET VALUES
ASTM F2075
For 12-in diameter Sieve with Sieving Area of 0.7 (ft^2) and a Sieve Opening Size of
4.75 mm, only 1.75 ft^2 of material may be retained on a Sieve for Engineering Wood
Fiber. Also, using a metal Sieve, the following metals are only allowed in the amounts
shown in parenthesis: Antimony (60 mg/L), Arsenic (25 mg/L), Barium (1000 mg/L),
Cadmium (75 mg/L), Chromium (60 mg/L), Lead (90 mg/L), Mercury (60 mg/L), and
Selenium (500 mg/L). Lastly, using a magnetic metal wand, no metal pieces with a
dimension of 1/2 inch shall be present in a 50 yd^3 sample of Engineered Wood Fiber
(ASTM F2075-15 Standard Specification for Engineered Wood Fiber for Use as a
17
Playground Safety Surface Under and Around Playground Equipment, 2015).
ASTM F1292
If Engineered Wood Fiber is 8'' thick, the surface must have an impact force of less
than 155 G and HIC less than 1000 (ASTM F1292-13 Standard Specification for
Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground
Equipment, 2013).
ASTM F1951
Average Work per Foot for straight propulsion and turning on flat surface is less than
average work per foot of a surface with an incline of 1:14 (ASTM F1951-14 Standard
Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around
Playground Equipment, 2014).
Pittsburgh Zoning Code,
Between the times of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., no more than 65 dBA for a public zone
Title Nine, Article VI,
(CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA CODE OF ORDINANCES, 2001).
Chapter 917.02-Noise
ASTM F2223
If surface is 8'' thick, the surface must have an impact force of less than 155 G and
HIC less than 1000. (F1292 as applied to Poured-In-Rubber Surfaces).
Furthermore, Poured-In-Place rubber will require maintenance such as the removal of
snow and ice (ASTM F2223-15 Standard Guide for ASTM Standards on Playground
Surfacing, 2015).
18
State College Borough
A permit is required for planting a tree in a public space. Also, the tree's drip line (a
Shade Tree Ordinance
set of horizontal lines that extend from the center of the tree trunk to the outermost
1618
branches) defines a tree protection zone that must be declared safe by a certified
arborist (Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan for State College Borough, n.d.).
ASTM F2479
Color of the surface can be provided through the pigmentation of the polymer binder.
Also, the Poured-In-Place surface requires compliance with ASTM F1292, with the gforce allowance being modified to a maximum of 200. Also, for ASTM F2479
compliance, the surface must meet ASTM F1951 in order to be accessible by ADA
standards. Furthermore, Poured-In-Place Rubber surfacing must be installed in a
location where the temperature range is, on average, between 35 and 90 degrees
Fahrenheit. Lastly, the width of a walkway on a playground, to be considered
accessible, should be a minimum of 5 feet (ASTM F2479-12 Standard Guide for
Specification, Purchase, Installation and Maintenance of Poured-In-Place Playground
Surfacing, 2012).
In summary, our group was able to analyze the stakeholders and, through the use of
decision matrices, derive tables that assisted in prioritizing the stakeholder needs when working
on the design of the equipment. Furthermore, it was established through our group’s research
that State College does have a lack of accessible playgrounds and that the work of our group
would help to expand children’s access to more fair playground experiences.
Methods, Assumptions, and Procedures
In the methods and procedures section, our group shall disclose the details of how the
concepts for the equipment were created and will then show the process followed to move
towards the design of the final prototype, this being the Sun Spin. Then, in the assumptions
section, certain assumptions that were made during the process will be explained for the reader
19
to better understand the decisions used in the making of the equipment and design of the
playground.
a.) Methods and Procedures
The needs of stakeholders were identified based on the needs that were derived in table
1. These needs were then researched to find requirements (given in table 4 above) and then
specifications (given in table 5) that could be quantitatively met to show that the qualitative
needs stated by the stakeholders were met. Using these specifications, our group developed
two concepts that had potential for meeting the criteria stated in tables 4 and 5. Since our
primary stakeholders were the children, we decided that that this group’s needs would be first
considered in our design. The children desired a fun and quiet experience that inspired creativity
and could relate to nature and the world surrounding them (“Outdoor Playground”, 2013). These
needs led to our group doing further investigation into the equipment shown in figure 5, since
the equipment displayed appeared to meet the fun, quiet, creative, and nature-based needs that
were expressed in the Natural Playgrounds Company survey (“Outdoor Playground”, 2013). The
equipment in figure 5, however, was experience-based, which conflicted with our prediction for
the survey results from the parents and manufactures. Our group speculated that the majority of
the returned surveys would state that a ride-based experience was more desired.
To address this conflict, our group decided to create concepts for both experience-based
and ride-based equipment in order to properly evaluate which direction would better meet the
needs of the stakeholders. First, our class produced a list of attributes of a playground that was
associated with the idea of having “fun” at a playground. From this list, each group selected a
concept, our group choosing to focus on developing spin-based equipment. This is the
motivation behind our first piece of equipment, the experience-based “Sun Spin”. As one can
see in figures 6 and 7, the idea was to create a larger and more exciting version of the
equipment shown in figure 5.
20
Figure 6.) Sun Spin
Figure 7.) Using the Sun Spin
21
The Sun Spin was then compared to our group’s concept for a ride-based piece of
playground equipment, this being named the “Oscillator”. This concept is illustrated below in
figures 8, 9, and 10.
Figure 8.) Oscillator
Figure 9.) Using the Oscillator
22
Figure 10.) Oscillator Motion
These two concepts appeared to meet the needs of all of the stakeholders but in varying
degrees, thus requiring our group to analyze each individual need of the stakeholders against
the two concepts. The results of this analysis are shown below in table 6.
Table 6.) Analysis of Needs
The weights given to each of the criteria were derived from tables 2 and 3, where the
needs were compared to each other to see which would be considered relatively more important
and stakeholders were compared to each other in order to determine which stakeholder needs
would be more significant in the design of the playground. For the excitement criteria of table 6,
our group discussed what made each concept exciting and decided that factors such as the
23
perceived risk and ability to maintain a child’s attention span would be considered. Next, safety
and accessibility were both needs of the municipality of State College. These needs were
considered two of the most important criteria in table 2 but were not as important as the need for
excitement, since the purpose of the playground is to try and maximize the enjoyment the
children receive from the playground equipment our group develops. Finally, the manufacturer
was the third most important stakeholder in table 3 and was therefore given the lowest weight
for their needs in table 6. The parents and the municipality of State College had the same needs
and specifications, so the parents were largely ignored in the weighting of table 6 because their
needs were already acknowledged. The parents, however, represented an example of the
necessity for table 6, since the parents had mostly been the ones stating they had liked ridebased equipment such as swings and slides rather than experience-based equipment such as
forts and adult-made play structures. Despite the desire expressed by the parents to have a
ride-based experience, the tables created above showed the the higher priority stakeholders
had needs that would be best met through an experience-based piece of playground equipment.
Therefore, our group decided to continue doing research and experiments with the Sun Spin
concept shown in figures 6 and 7. Further details on the creation of the prototype as well as
more in-depth drawings and images of the Sun Spin are included in the results and discussion
section of the report.
For the property, a walkway will be created within the park as shown in Appendix G. The
main walkway located in the center of the plot will be the main method of moving up and down
the playground, with elevated ramps used at each change in elevation and the rest of the
walkway being flat and level with the surface to allow easy access and egress from the
walkway. The materials chosen for the walkways and ramps were determined with a decision
matrix, an example shown in the construction section of the results and discussion. This
decision is derived from State College’s need for an accessible playground, which was
expressed through the feedback that was gathered from the survey included in Appendix E.
24
Furthermore, in another attempt at encouraging the children to experience nature and
manipulate sunlight in practical way, there will be a Passive/Relaxation Zone included in the
playground. Its precise position in the playground is shown in Appendix G and the concept for
the Passive/Relaxation zone is shown below in figure 11.
Figure 11.) Passive/Relaxation Zone
As can be seen in figure 11, the plan is for the Passive/Relaxation zone to have trees
surrounding the area with benches for children and adults to sit in while relaxing. The passive
aspect of the park comes from the way that the analemmatic sundial will be used, analemmatic
meaning that the shadow used to keep track of the time comes from an object that is vertical
(Pruss, 2011). The measurements and analysis involved in the creation of the Human Sundial is
included in the appendix, a website specifically designed to allow one to design these types of
sundials being used for its creation. The sundial will be meant to allow children to see how the
25
movement of the sun is related to time and is also meant to encourage the children to find sticks
or different vertical objects to make the sundial work, since the numbers will likely be too far for
the child’s shadow to show the time (despite an effort to make the circle only 6 feet wide and
therefore not require an additional object). This addition serves the purpose of allowing children
to explore the trees for sticks while also teaching the children about time in a creative and
unique fashion that may also influence the parents to interact with their children while at the
park, since the function and purpose of the sundial would provide an optimal opportunity for
student-teacher or student-parent interaction. The sundial would be created using different
colors of the rubber-material used to construct the walkway that leads to the Passive/Relaxation
portion of the playground. Outside of the sundial area, the surface will again consist of the
Engineered Wood Fiber that is being used for the majority of our group’s portion of the
playground.
b.) Assumptions
We were given a 30 x 60-foot property with a total incline of 5 feet and the ability to
modify our land by trading site segments with other groups or by adding and taking out soil to
alter the incline level. Our group decided to not modify the elevation of our land since the current
plot resembles a natural hill, this being advantageous since our primary stakeholders (the
children) stated they enjoyed natural landscapes compared to adult-made structures (“Outdoor
Playground”, 2013). However, this meant there was a need for ramps and walkways due to the
difficulties that a child in a wheelchair would encounter when attempting to move from the
bottom of the playground to the equipment located at the top of the playground. The solution
was shown in the image of the property included in Appendix G and is discussed in further detail
in the results and discussion section.
For the surveys that were discussed earlier, the data has been fabricated to allow one to
see how our group would analyze real data and execute our strategies. It should be noted that,
while the fabricated results attempt to match the results our group would expect to see, the
26
actual implementation of the survey may lead to responses that are different than the results
assumed in this report. Next, we are limiting the disabilities that can be accommodated to
children in wheelchairs, blind children, and children who are hearing-impaired. Other disabilities
are not being considered for the purpose of keeping our designs simple and practical, since
accommodating cognitive disabilities would require a new series of analysis and research that
would consume too much time to be included in this report. Creating equipment to
accommodate children with cognitive disabilities, however, is certainly an area of interest that
with more time and funds our group would be able to explore.
Small portions of the cost and materials analysis being conducted is also fabricated,
although it will be noted in the results and discussion when the analysis uses data that was
found during our group’s research. Furthermore, the test data that is presented in the results
section is also fabricated for the purpose of illustrating the process our group would go through
in order to show how such tests would be conducted with an actual prototype playground.
Lastly, it should be noted that group 8 (another group of designers working on a different
area of the same playground) came to our group to collaborate on creating a piece of equipment
known as the “Zero Gravity Spiral, shown in figure 12, that would be placed in such a way
where it could be a part of both groups’ site segments (As shown in the appendix). Our group
has assumed that the design decisions given to our group (such as the drawings) were derived
from a similar stakeholder and safety analysis that we performed on our playground equipment.
There is evidence to support this assumption, since the equipment does appear to meet our
stakeholder criteria of being creative, easy and quick to construct, cost-effective, and easy to
maintain. However, the major issues with this equipment is accessibility, since the equipment is
difficult to use when in a wheelchair. Our group and group 8 have both agreed that with more
time and research, the funds from the grant would be partially used in finding an appropriate
design for the Zero Gravity Spiral that would be more inclusive and true to the original objective
27
of our project, this being to create a truly accessible playground for children of all abilities to
enjoy.
Figure 12.) Zero Gravity Spiral
In summary, the methods and procedure detailed the methods used to select the Sun
Spin as our group’s main piece of equipment. The equipment is meant to provide enjoyment
through the manipulation of sunlight and sound that will enable children with a variety of
physical disabilities to have the same playground experience has able-bodied children. In
addition to the Sun Spin, our group has found an innovative way to allow children to interact with
sunlight through the Human Sundial, which will be a part of the park that is considered the
passive/relaxation zone. The designs and concepts that were developed with group 8 were also
discussed, since this piece of equipment will be located between our two adjacent properties
and will incorporate a spinning and jumping theme. Finally, the assumptions on such subjects
28
as cost analysis, survey results, test results, and other related information were asserted for the
reader to be able to fully understand the basis for our results that will be discussed in the results
and discussion section of the report.
Results and Discussion
In the results and discussion section, the final prototype will be discussed in detail with
dimensions and technical drawings provided in order to communicate to our stakeholders the
piece of equipment that our group has developed for the universally accessible playground.
Furthermore, this section of the report shall contain a discussion and interpretation of the results
of our final prototype that will include subjects such as what aspects of the project were
successful and what aspects of the project will require further work and study.
a.) The Final Prototype/Construction
Our group has developed the “Sun Spin”, a universally accessible piece of playground
equipment that is capable of spinning and projecting visuals onto the ground using transparent
acrylic plastic. The Sun Spin will also have three sets of aluminum wind chimes that will be
evenly spaced out around a bar 11.2’ above the ground, this height being chosen since our
research showed that the tallest child was expected to be about 5’ (Average Height to Weight
Chart - Babies to Teenagers, n.d.). In addition to this bar will be another bar 2.6’ down from the
bar holding the chimes, this bar’s function being to hold the customizable transparent acrylic
plastic displays. Furthermore, the Sun Spin will also have a bar at a height of 3.4’ above the
ground, this bar being used to spin the central cylinder structure of the equipment and this
height being chosen to accommodate children who are in a wheelchair (“ACCESSIBLE PLAY
AREAS”, n.d.). The material used to construct the main structure of the Sun Spin will be
polyethylene, which was chosen due to its high durability and low cost. Also, polyethylene is
non-toxic and a thermoplastic, meaning that the material is easy to mold since it will melt
instead of burn at high temperatures (“Everything You Need To Know About Polyethylene”,
n.d.). The Sun Spin will work with other equipment in the playground by having a space theme
29
to match the rest of the equipment in the park and will also be accompanied by another piece of
equipment that was developed between our group and a fellow group of playground designers
(group 8). This piece of equipment is known as the Zero Gravity Spiral and it will consist of a
plastic tower that will have a plastic ring placed at the top of the structure. This ring will have
four ropes attached to it, these ropes being used by the children to spin themselves until
reaching a speed that enables the children to temporarily hover in the air before returning to the
ground. The simple and effective thrill provided by the Zero Gravity Spiral will provide a wider
variety of activities for the children to enjoy and will nicely complement that experience provided
by the Sun Spin. It also allows our group to incorporate a ride-based experience, the childdriven excitement of this piece of equipment being inspired from our original ride-based
concept, the Oscillator. A SolidWorks representation of the Sun Spin and the Zero Gravity Spiral
are provided below in figures 13 and 14, respectively, as well as a SolidWorks created drawing
in figures 15a, 15b, 15c, and 15d that show some of the dimensions created for the Sun Spin
(all dimensions are in inches since the scaled model used a ¼’’ per foot scale).
30
Figure 13.) Sun Spin Isometric
Figure 14.) Zero Gravity Spiral Isometric
31
Figure 15a.) Sun Spin Handle Dimensions
32
Figure 15b.) Sun Spin Cylinder Dimensions
Figure 15c.) Sun Spin Pole Dimensions
33
Figure 15d.) Sun Spin Dimensions for Top Components
Our group also created the following Third Angle Projection of the main cylindrical
structure for the Sun Spin in figure okay in order to show further detail of the equipment.
34
Figure 16.) Sun Spin Drawing by Hand
To Further illustrate the Sun Spin, an image of the model created is shown in figure 17
below.
35
Figure 17.) Prototype of Sun Spin
After conducting research on different materials for the walkway, our group decided to
use a decision matrix on two different alternatives: PolyStar Tumble Turf, a rubber material that
would be poured to create the pathway, and Rubberway Rubber Walkways, a rubber sidewalk
that would also be poured into the pathway and would offer a slip-resistant surface (“Poured in
Place Rubber Playground Surfaces”, 2000). In order to decide between the two alternatives, a
decision matrix (shown in Appendix B) was created using the needs of the stakeholders. An
image of the PolyStar TumbleTurf is shown in figure 18 and an image of the RubberWay
Rubber Sidewalk is shown in figure 19.
Figure 18.) PolyStar TumbleTurf Rubber Sidewalk
36
Figure 19.) Rubberwalk Rubber Pathway
From the results of the decision matrix, the PolyStar TumbleTurf was used as the
surface for the playground pathway. The PolyStar TumbleTurf surface used for the pathway
would need to meet ASTM F1292, which is the specification regarding impact attenuation. To
conduct this test, we assume that a device known as the Triax Surface Impact Tester would be
dropped from the tallest height in the playground to see what the deceleration value is relative to
gravity. If the object decelerates at a rate that is 155 times the acceleration of gravity and/or has
a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) over 1000, the surface is considered unqualified for use in a
playground due to the high potential for injury if a child falls from the tallest height in the
playground. HIC is calculated using special mathematical formulas that have been included in
Appendix A for completion. HIC can be viewed as the maximum average acceleration from the
beginning of the collision (head meets the surface) to the end of the collision (head is back at
rest).
37
Our group used the Triax Surface Impact Tester by dropping it from 10’, this height being
the tallest point on the Sun Spin. Table 7 shows the data that was collected from the test (“Safe
Playground Mulch & Wood Fiber Playground Chips”, n.d.).
Table 7.) Triax Surface Test Results
From table 7, one can see that the HIC is below the target value of 1000 (our average
HIC being 325 m2/s at 10 feet) and that the G-force is below 155g (our value being 31.67g at 10
feet), therefore showing that the situation of a child falling from the top of the Sun Spin (which is
designed to prevent a child from reaching the maximum height) has a very low chance of
resulting in a serious injury. In order to be thorough with our testing and to ensure that safety
was being met, our group also conducted tests at 12 feet and 14 feet. This was done due to the
fear of a child jumping from the top of the Sun Spin, our assumption being a child would add 2
to 4 feet to their fall height if this situation were to occur. As can be seen in table alpha, our tests
still conclude that (while the forces felt are significantly higher than at 10 feet) the children would
still not sustain serious or fatal injuries since the HIC and G-force were below the target values.
After the successful testing of the walkway, our group has decided that the walkway will be built
5 feet wide in order to comply with ASTM F1951, which requires that the walkway be wheelchair
accessible (“ASTM F1951-14 Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility of
Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment”, 2014).
For all other surfaces of the park, our group’s research on ASTM F1951 led to
Engineered Wood Fiber, shown below in figure 20.
38
Figure 20.) Engineered Wood Fiber
This material was already shown to have passed the tests needed for ASTM F1951, the
results of the manufacturers test being included in Appendix C. Also, as can be seen in the
report included in Appendix C, the Engineered Wood Fiber was able to pass accessibility testing
required for specification ASTM 1951. Since this material was able to show evidence of ADA
compliance and offered a natural atmosphere to the playground, it was the surface material
chosen for the playground outside of the walkways (“Safe Playground Mulch & Wood Fiber
Playground Chips”, n.d.).
Next, the Passive/Relaxation Zone will consist of a walkway that leads to this area and
then becomes the Human Sundial, the numbers and place-markers being indicated by the use
of different colored Polystar Tumble Turf (as shown above in figure 21). The process of getting
the positioning for the month and time markers is included in Appendix D, with the final result
being shown below in figure sundial.
39
Figure 21.) Human Sundial
The sundial shall be placed in the direct center of the Passive/Relaxation Zone, its
placement shown in image of the proposed playground design shown in the appendix. Figure 22
below shows the actual scaled model that was produced to demonstrate the playground.
Figure 22.) Model of Human Sundial
40
Our group then conducted research on the types of trees that are currently found in
parks with our objective being to find a tree that would be easy to maintain and tall, in order to
make it difficult for children to climb up the tree and potentially fall down and hurt themselves.
The tree that was chosen was the Wildfire Black Gum Tree due to its low cost (cost shown in
table 8), ability to provide a large amount of shade, roots that will grow deep into the ground and
not cause trip hazards, and low maintenance required to keep the tree alive (“Wildfire Black
Gum Tree for Sale”, 2005).
For the cost analysis, our group contacted local manufacturers to obtain quotes and
generate table 8 below the of prices that were of interest.
Table 8.) Table of Costs
Using these prices, our group was able to determine that it would cost approximately
$17,000 for the initial construction of the playground and would cost $2000 to maintain the
41
playground every year. Our group considered the need for low-cost production when looking for
materials and utilized a series of decision matrices to make our final decision on the materials,
some of the prices not always being optimized to try and meet other needs such as safety.
Finally, to elaborate on the discussion of maintenance, our group made sure that the
suggested materials for the Sun Spin would be easily recycled to allow the equipment to be
environmentally friendly, a consideration that was made from State College’s need for an
environmentally conscious playground.
b.) Discussion
The equipment that our group has developed will be synced with the rest of playground
being designed by our class through a common space theme and an agreement that the scaled
down model would be set to 1/4th-of-an-inch being equal to one foot. This agreement allowed
the scaled model, shown below in figure 22, to be created that displays our portion of the
playground along with an image of the scaled prototype of the Sun Spin, human sundial, and
Zero Gravity Spiral.
42
Figure 23.) Final Prototype of Playground
In summary, our group has come to the conclusion that we have developed playground
equipment is able to outperform the existing solutions for accessible playgrounds, especially in
the State College area. Our equipment serves children in wheelchairs, children with hearing
disabilities, and the visually impaired, all conditions that previously were only being met with a
single accessible swing at a public Elementary school (see figure 2 in the Introduction) and a flat
surface at Bernel Road Park (see figure 4 in the introduction). Our equipment was able to pass
the necessary testing to be ADA qualified and the dimensions and materials were selected in a
fashion that would optimize the satisfaction of our stakeholders. Furthermore, the park we
developed offers a unique approach to creativity and intellectual stimulation that the parks of
43
State College are currently missing, this being provided by the Sun Spin and the Human Sundial
located in the Passive/Relaxation Zone.
Our group, however, does acknowledge the drawbacks to our playground, an example
being the high cost required to construct and maintain the playground. This cost, however, is
based on the overall needs of the stakeholders, reflected in the more expensive materials
having greater durability and also being easier to maintain. Since the materials used are
stronger and therefore more weather and abuse-resistant, the low maintenance cost is the
argument our group would use when questioned on why this initial price is beyond what was
expected. Furthermore, our group does recognize the drawbacks to the Zero Gravity Spiral,
which does not appear to offer a large amount of accessibility. Working with group 8, our future
plans do involve a renovated design for the Zero Gravity Spiral that could replace the current
prototype and allow children to have the same ride-based experience while simultaneously
being a fairer and enjoyable experience for children with disabilities.
Conclusion
In the conclusion, our group reviews the analysis and design sections as well as
provides our group’s comments on the final prototype and how successful it was relative to the
specifications that were derived in the introduction. We also elaborate on the areas of concern
for the piece of equipment and provide the reader with our group’s future plans for the project.
The issue of State College having a lack of accessible playgrounds was the motivation
behind the process that led to the development of the Sun Spin, a universally accessible piece
of playground equipment that effectively creates a musical and visual experience for the user in
a way that can accommodate a large number of disabilities, ranging from being wheelchairbound to possessing hearing and visual disabilities. This decision was made through a process
of first developing and drawing ideas for a spinning piece of playground equipment that would
be exciting for the user while also accommodating children of all abilities. This process began
with our group conducting research to see what equipment already existed and was being
44
utilized for the purpose of allowing children with disabilities to enjoy the same playground
experience as able-bodied children. This search found a number of different solutions, ranging
from swings that, with the assistance of a parent or guardian, were big enough to secure a
wheelchair-bound child to experience based equipment where acrylic glass was placed at the
top of a plastic pole to create an array of color on the ground. These solutions became the
inspiration for the Sun Spin, our group’s main piece of equipment that focuses on providing the
children with the capability of producing a variety of different light and sound combinations.
The Sun Spin was developed from the previously discussed solution of having a pole
with acrylic glass. To make this solution more exciting, our group attempted to design a rotating
cylinder with a circular bar around the top, this bar being used to hang the acrylic glass and
provide the light array on the ground. Another bar would be placed around the cylinder at an
appropriate height for a wheelchair bound individual to be able to spin the equipment. After
comments received from the other groups of designers, our group did research on other
transparent and colored materials and discovered acrylic plastic, a cheap and safer alternative
to acrylic glass. While tests still need to be conducted to see if the acrylic plastic can provide the
same visual experience as the acrylic glass, it currently appears that the acrylic plastic will work
as an appropriate substitute.
Further discussion amongst the members of our group led to the conclusion that, while
the equipment could be made easily usable by wheelchair-bound and hearing-impaired children,
it lacked any accommodation for visually impaired children. In order to address this concern, our
group included into the design a third bar below the original top bar that would be capable of
holding wind chimes. These wind chimes now being able to offer a musical component to the
experience that would allow a visually impaired child to spin the equipment and enjoy the
creative freedom to create melodies by changing the force used to turn the equipment.
Another concept that was investigated was the potential development of a ride-based
piece of equipment known as the Oscillator. This piece of equipment would work as a seesaw
45
that would also be capable of spinning the two users around in a circle as the children using the
equipment worked together to achieve maximum velocity. This idea was pursued through
research on how to dimension the ride and drawings of the concept were created in an attempt
to convey the use of the equipment. This idea, however, was not used after it was evaluated
against the experience-based Sun Spin using the decision matrix in table 6. This led to our
group focusing on the development of the Sun Spin, out intention being to have multiple Sun
Spins with different light and sound combinations spread around our section of the playground.
To provide a ride-based experience that would be more practical than the Oscillator, our group
decided to work with another group of designers who were attempting to construct equipment
that focused on the concept of jumping.
This joint concept became known as the Zero Gravity Spiral, the simple but effective
piece of equipment consisting of a pole with a rotating disk at the top with six ropes hanging
down. These pieces of rope would be held onto by the users as they worked together to rotate
around the pole faster and faster, the idea being to achieve a high-enough velocity to have all of
the users simultaneously jump up and hang in the air for approximately ten seconds before
coming down to the ground to repeat the process.
Our solutions were able to solve the majority of the previous issues that existed in State
College by providing children a space where able-bodied and disabled children can have the
same playground experiences. The problem, however, was not fully solved, since our group
was not able to modify the Zero Gravity Spiral into an accessible form, therefore making our
portion of the playground lack an accessible ride-based experience. Despite this issue, the Sun
Spin and Human Sundial offer enough creative experience-based enjoyment that our group is
confident the Zero Gravity Spiral’s deficiency would not greatly impact our stakeholders.
With further time and funds, our group would focus on the development and further
testing of the prototypes as well as a redesign of the Zero Gravity Spiral. Also, our group would
take the actual data that we would receive from the survey and analyze the information using
46
the processes that were detailed in the methods and procedure section of the report. We would
furthermore conduct real impact attenuation tests as well as have inspectors do professional
material stress tests on the materials that were proposed in the results section to see if their
durability can be experimentally verified. Lastly, we would attempt to start work on actually
constructing the playground according to the designs that have been included throughout this
report.
In summary, our group was able to successfully develop playground equipment that was
able to meet the majority of the requirements. Certain needs, such as cost and accessibility with
the Zero Gravity Spiral, were also explained in the conclusion with a plan to address the
deficiencies discussed in the above text.
47
References
ACCESSIBLE PLAY AREAS - United States Access Board. (n.d.). Access Board. Retrieved
October 28, 2016, from https://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/1369/playguide.pdf
ASTM International. (2013). ASTM F1292-13 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of
Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment. Retrieved October
28, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1520/F1292
ASTM International. (2014). ASTM F1951-14 Standard Specification for Determination of
Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment. Retrieved
October 28, 2016 from https://doi.org/10.1520/F1951-14
ASTM International. (2015). ASTM F2075-15 Standard Specification for Engineered Wood Fiber
for Use as a Playground Safety Surface Under and Around Playground Equipment.
Retrieved October 28, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1520/F2075-15
ASTM International. (2015). ASTM F2223-15 Standard Guide for ASTM Standards on
Playground Surfacing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1520/F2223-15
ASTM International. (2012). ASTM F2479-12 Standard Guide for Specification, Purchase,
Installation and Maintenance of Poured-In-Place Playground Surfacing. Retrieved
October 27, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1520/F2479-12
Average Height to Weight Chart - Babies to Teenagers. (n.d.). Disabled-World. Retrieved
October 28, 2016, from http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-weightteens.shtml
48
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan for State College Borough. (n.d.). State College Borough
Online. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_20030615.pdf
Everything You Need To Know About Polyethylene (PE). (n.d.). Creative Mechanisms.
Retrieved October 27, 2016, from
https://www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/polyethylene-pe-for-prototypes-3d-printingand-cnc
Fast-Growing-Trees.com. Wildfire Black Gum Tree for Sale. (2005). Fast Growing Trees.
Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.fast-growing-trees.com/Wildfire-Black-GumTree.htm
Freedman, S., & Freedman, C. (n.d.). Fire Mountain Gems and Beads. Retrieved from
http://www.firemountaingems.com/itemdetails/H20B2676FN?engine=google&campaign=
[ADL] [Non-Brand] [PLA] [Shopping]&adgroup=[PLA] [Shopping] Best
Sellers&kwid=productads-adid^146369997035-device^c-plaid^138335408180sku^H20B2676FN-adType^PLA
GameTime. Shadow Play Flower. (n.d.). GameTime. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from
http://www.gametime.com/product/shadow-play-flower/
Hart, K. (n.d.). History of Playgrounds. AAA State of Play. Retrieved October 24, 2016, from
http://www.aaastateofplay.com/history-of-playgrounds/
Hogan, P. (n.d.). Landscape Online| Testing with Triax. Retrieved from
http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/article.php/866
49
Kaplan, M. (2013). National Public Radio. Retrieved 2016, from
http://www.playgroundsforeveryone.com/search.html#address=State College,
PA&latitude=40.7933949&longitude=-77.8600012&zoom=14&nearby=false
M. B. (2015, January 10). Head Injury Criterion (HIC) pt 2: HIC Index, example. IntMath.
Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.intmath.com/applications-integration/hicpart2.php
Pellegrini, D. R. (2001). CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA CODE OF ORDINANCES.
Municode.com. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from
https://www.municode.com/library/pa/pittsburgh/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CIP
IPECOOR
Poly-Manila Rope 1-1/2" size. (n.d.). WebRiggingSupply.com. Retrieved from
http://webriggingsupply.com/pages/catalog/rope/poly-manila-rope1.5inch.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjw4rbABRD_gfPA2uQqroBEiQA58MNdOo1foM88vevmZyOe5VwyknOGdaAdIXfmLotC3AWp6YaAjw38P8H
AQ
Pruss, A. R. (2011). Analemmatic Sundial PDF Generator. Source Forge. Retrieved October 24,
2016, from http://analemmatic.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/sundial.pl
Safe Playground Mulch & Wood Fiber Playground Chips - Fibar. (n.d.). Fibar. Retrieved October
28, 2016, from http://fibar.com/Playgrounds/ewf.htm
The Natural Playgrounds Company. (2013). Outdoor Playground. Natural Playgrounds
Company Retrieved October 24, 2016, from
http://www.naturalplaygrounds.com/kidstalk.php
50
USSA - Poured in Place Rubber Playground Surfaces. (2000). USSA. Retrieved October 24,
2016, from http://sustainablesurfacing.com/products/playground-surfaces/poured-inplace-rubber
Appendix A: Calculations for HIC from Interactive Mathematics (M., 2015)
1
1/
2
2
2
1 ∗
1 ∗
.
Appendix B: Decision Matrix Used for Pathway Surface Material
51
Appendix C: Testing for ASTM F1951 and ASTM F1292 for Engineered Wood Fiber
52
Appendix D: Dimensions for Human Sun Spin (Pruss, 2011)
53
Appendix E: Survey for Parents, Manufacturers, and Municipality of State College
54
UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND DESIGN SURVEY
Purpose: The students at the Pennsylvania State University believe that there is value to
ensuring that children of all abilities can have the same experiences and enjoyments. However,
in the State College area, there is a severe lack of universally accessible playgrounds.
According to National Public Radio, there are only two playgrounds considered accessible in
State College, the accessibility being due to an accessible swing at one of the parks and a flat
surface at the other park. As part of our introductory design course, we have decided we could
put our engineering skills to work by creating the solution to this problem: a completely universal
playground where all of the equipment can used by both able and disabled children.
We ask for a few minutes of your time to assist us on our design by answering the
questions presented below and then listing (in the order of importance, first being the most
important and last being the least important) what you desire in this playground on the back of
this sheet.
Thank you for helping in our design and for potentially contributing to the lives of the
future children of State College.
1.)
There is value in having playgrounds for children to enjoy
(Agree/Mostly Agree/Neutral/Slightly Do Not Agree/Do not agree)
2.)
Having accessible playground equipment would benefit the largest number
of children
(Agree/Mostly Agree/Neutral/Slightly Do Not Agree/Do not agree)
3.)
Safety must be priority over the level of “fun” the child feels
(Agree/Mostly Agree/Neutral/Slightly Do Not Agree/Do not agree)
4.)
What were your favorite pieces of playground equipment growing up?
(Please list below)
55
Answer:
5.)
What were your least favorite pieces of playground equipment growing up?
(Please list below)
Answer:
6.)
Accessibility is an issue that greatly matters to me
(Agree/Mostly Agree/Neutral/Slightly Do Not Agree/Do not agree)
7.)
Do you believe ride-based or experience-based playground equipment is
more fun for children? (Please explain below)
8.)
Should playground equipment cater to those who are hearing and visually
disabled?
(Agree/Mostly Agree/Neutral/Slightly Do Not Agree/Do not agree)
9.)
Are you interested in keeping in contact to learn about the progress of the
project?
Yes/No
If interested in contributing to the design of this project, please list below your desires for
the playground as well as characteristics that you believe are important. You do not have
to provide ten desires and if you have more than ten needs, please feel free to add them
in the space below.
1.)____________________________________________________________________
2.)____________________________________________________________________
56
3.)____________________________________________________________________
4.)____________________________________________________________________
5.)____________________________________________________________________
6.)____________________________________________________________________
7.)____________________________________________________________________
8.)____________________________________________________________________
9.)____________________________________________________________________
10.)___________________________________________________________________
Thank you!
Appendix F: Original Plot of Land
57
Appendix G: Concept for Plot of Land
58
Appendix H: Survey to Gauge Engagement with Equipment
SUN SPIN SURVEY!
59
Purpose: This new playground was designed with children in mind, so we want YOUR opinion
on how much you enjoy the new Sun Spin, Zero Gravity Spiral, and Human Sundial?!
Please take a minute and fill out the following survey to help us learn what you like and dislike
about the Sun Spin!
1.) What made you try the Sun Spin?
Answer:
2.) Would you use the Sun Spin again next time you visited the park?
Answer:
3.) Did you use the Human Sundial?
Answer:
4.) If you had to choose, would you rather use the Sun Spin or the Zero Gravity Spiral?
Answer:
5.) Please rate the playground on a scale from 0 to 5, 0 being the worst score and 5 being the
best score!
Answer:
Thank You and We Look Forward to Seeing You Again!
Appendix I: Survey of What Children Enjoy From the Natural Playground Company
60