Statement of Problem 2 More than 100 varieties of commercial - PDF document

A Longitudinal Study of Playground Surfaces to Evaluate Accessibility Year One Findings Presented by Jennifer Skulski, National Center on Accessibility Statement of Problem 2  More than 100 varieties of commercial playground surfaces.  5,300 to 18,600 new & renovated public playgrounds each year.  Lack of reliable product performance data prohibits public playground owners from making informed choices. Purpose of Study 3 To evaluate a variety of playground surfaces, their ability to meet accessibility requirements, their costs upon initial installation and maintenance over 3-5years. 1

Research Questions Installation 4 How well do various playground surfaces meet the 1. accessibility requirements upon installation? What are the costs for the various playground 2. surfaces and are the costs related to performance? What accessibility issues arise out of initial 3. installation? Research Design 5  Within 12 months of installation  NCA longitudinal study  Advisory committee  RPTS faculty  NCA staff  U.S. Access Board staff  National Playground Safety Institute  Beneficial Designs  Members of the Access Board Reg Neg Committee or ASTM F08.63 Playground Subcommittee Playground Selection 6  Municipal park settings  Limited within driving distances of IU-Bloomington;  Accessibility to children with and without disabilities;  Surface materials consistent with study;  Geographic location;  Seasonal weather conditions; and  Willingness of owner/operator to participate. 2

Limitations 7  Sample size, recruiting technique and ability to generalize findings to general population;  Visitor use and impact on surface conditions;  Weather;  Risks of liability affecting playground owner’s willingness to participate in the study. 5 Categories of Surfaces 8 Engineered wood fiber product; 1. Shredded rubber / crumb rubber; 2. Unitary rubber mat / tile surfaces; 3. Unitary rubber “poured in place” surfaces; 4. Combination or hybrid surface systems under 5. development. Initial Surface Requirements 9 ADA-ABA 1008.2 Accessible Routes; 1. ADA-ABA 1008.2.6 Ground Surfaces; 2. ASTM F1292-99 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface 3. Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment as determined by the surface manufacturer in laboratory testing; ASTM F1951-99 Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility 4. of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment as determined by the surface manufacturer in laboratory testing; and ASTM F2075 Standard Specification for Engineered Wood Fiber for Use as 5. a Playground Safety Surface Under and Around Playground Equipment. 3

Instrumentation 10 Installation form 1. On-site visual inspection 2. Rotational Penetrometer measurements for firmness 3. & stability TRIAX 2000 measurements for impact attenuation 4. (optional) On-site inspection 9 Critical Areas 11 Entry to playground where playground surface starts 1. Accessible route connecting accessible play elements 2. Egress point of slide(s) 3. Swings 4. Entry point(s) to composite structure(s)/transfer stations 5. Climber(s) 6. Ground level play element(s) such as spring rockers, play 7. tables, interactive panels, etc Sliding poles 8. Other areas (i.e. water play elements, etc) 9. Accessible Routes & Walking Surfaces 12 Slope  403.3 The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The cross slope of walking  surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Floor and ground surface (403.2 refers to 302)  302.1 Floor and ground surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant.  Openings  302.3 Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch  (13 mm) diameter. Changes in level (403.4 refers to 303)  303.2 Changes in level of 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical.  303.3 Changes in level between 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) high minimum and 1/2 inch (13 mm) high maximum  shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2. ASTM F1951-99. Ground surfaces shall be inspected and maintained regularly and  frequently to ensure continued compliance with ASTM F 1951. ASTM F 1292  4

1 st On-site Measure Surface Deficiency Score (SDS) 13  Slope exceeds 1:16 (6.25%)  Cross slope exceeds 1:48 (2.08%)  Change in level greater than ½ inch  Opening greater than ½ diameter ASTM F1951-99 14  A lab test in a controlled environment  Wheelchair work method  7% ramp used as baseline  Measures work per sq ft for straight propulsion and turning  Manual rehabilitation wheelchair with rider 165 + 11 lbs  Records data applied to pushrim over 6 ½ ft distance ASTM F1951-99 15  The surface “passes in the lab” if the work to propel across the surface and to turn is less than the work required to propel across a 7% ramp. PASS = WORK on surface sample < WORK on 7% ramp 5

2 nd On-Site Measure Firmness & Stability 16  Rotational Penetrometer  Developed by Beneficial Designs as a portable field test to replace ASTM 1951.  Wheelchair caster set in spring loaded caliper.  Measures the vertical displacement of the penetrator. Sample Values for Various Surface Types* 17 Surface Type Firmness Stability Concrete .15 - .17 .17 - .19 Turfgrass .55 - .65 .69 - .79 Carpet .32 - .43 .41 - .55 ( ½ inch cut pile w/ ½ inch pad) Sand 1.13 < 1.13 *The values are from sample surfaces that are not part of a playground installation. 3 rd On-Site Measure Impact Attenuation (Optional) 18 6

Data Report 19 TRIAX Report – ASTM F1292 20 Findings 7

Playground Sites 22 Surface Area Cost / sq ft Total PIP 2,400 to 6,600 sq ft $6.59 to $19.80 $30,019 to $136,065 Tile 1,100 to 2,571 $8.96 to $15.29 $15,950 to $27,971 EWF 4,000 to 12,510 $1.08 to $2.50 $4,200 to $12,500 Hybrid 6,031 to 8,500 $7.50 to $12.65 $74,000 to $111,626 N = 25 sites PIP $6.59 -19.80 SDS Mean = .00 Mode = 0 Firmness .36308 Stability .40876 Sum .77184 Failure for impact attenuation 23 Tiles $8.96-15.29 SDS Mean = .36 Mode = 0 Firmness .27805 Stability .31687 Sum .59492 Changes in level Separation at seams Punctures 24 8

EWF $1.08 – 2.50 SDS Mean = 2.16 Mode = 3 Firmness .34206 Stability .78200 Sum 1.12406 Undulating running & cross slope Displacement Installation instructions 25 HYB $7.50 – 12.65 SDS Mean = .04 Mode = 0 Firmness .43969 Stability .49385 Sum .93354 Minimal accessibility deficiencies 26 Table 4 Surface Deficiency Score (SDS) within One Year of Installation Surface by Type N Mean Mode PIP 50 .00 0 TIL 39 .36 0 EWF 70 2.16 3 HYB 26 .04 0 27 9

Surface Deficiency Score (SDS) 28  ANOVA, Post hoc test: multiple comparisons of SDS  Significant difference in the number of identified deficiencies between EWF and the other three surfaces. Firmness & Stability 29 Table 2 Firmness and Stability by Surface Type Std. Deviation Std. Error N Mean Min. Max. 50 .36308 .060747 .008591 .228 .480 Firmness PIP 39 .27805 .028579 .004576 .216 .342 Tiles 70 .34206 .051741 .006184 .258 .568 EWF 26 .43969 .060899 .011943 .336 .566 HYB 50 .40876 .069118 .009775 .264 .598 Stability PIP 39 .31687 .056598 .009063 .246 .596 Tiles 70 .78200 .130442 .015591 .518 1.162 EWF 26 .49385 .069247 .013580 .372 .606 HYB Firmness & Stability 30  ANOVA, Post hoc test: multiple comparisons of means for firmness & stability  Firmness: NO statistical difference between PIP & EWF  All other comparisons by surface type show a statistical difference in mean values for firmness and stability. 10

Firmness & Stability 31  ANOVA, Post hoc test: multiple comparisons of standard deviation for firmness & stability  Only statistical difference is between EWF and the other three surface types in the sample.  Future questions:  Is there a statistical difference between unitary and loose fill surface materials when SD is compared?  Do surfaces with greater variability require more maintenance over time? Sum of Firmness & Stability 32 Table 3 Sum of Firmness and Stability by Surface Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum 50 .77184 .128745 .018207 .492 1.078 PIP 39 .59492 .079460 .012724 .462 .908 Tiles 70 1.12406 .168176 .020101 .782 1.730 EWF 26 .93354 .127251 .024956 .708 1.168 HYB 185 .89054 .248761 .018289 .462 1.730 Total Sum of Firmness & Stability 33  ANOVA, Post hoc test: multiple comparisons of the sum of firmness & stability  There is a statistical difference between all surface types when firmness & stability are added together. 11

SDS Compared to Firmness & Stability 34  Pearson Correlation, bivariate correlations between the sum of firmness and stability with the surface deficiency score (SDS)  There is a bivariate correlation between all of the surfaces EXCEPT the hybrid surface systems.  This does NOT suggest that the SDS or Firmness & Stability have an effect on one another. SDS Compared to Stability 35  Pearson Correlation, bivariate correlations between the stability with the surface deficiency score (SDS)  There is a correlation between the stability measurement and the SDS with all of the surfaces in the sample. Future question: Could this suggest/predict that surfaces measured with greater  stability will have fewer number of accessibility deficiencies while surfaces with lesser stability will have more identifiable accessibility deficiencies? Key Finding(s) 36  There is NO perfect surface. 12