5 Comparing Surface OpƟ ons Can Assist Planning Team in SelecƟ on Process Like any big Ɵ cket purchase, comparison shopping is essenƟ al in the planning process. The planning team should embark on a purposeful mission to determine the playground surface system most appropriate for their site and operaƟ onal resources. Some agencies may have more capital dollars at the front of the project for a surface system that costs a liƩ le more but requires less maintenance. Others may have a smaller project budget for a less costly surface, but have more operaƟ onal funds for daily/ weekly maintenance. The planning team should engage with all representaƟ ves from all surface systems under consideraƟ on. Decision-makers should dialogue with the surface supplier regarding realisƟ c, objecƟ ve measurements to evaluate surface performance and maintain the surface material over the life span of the playground. Decision makers must ask very specifi c quesƟ ons to fully benefi t from the advantages and costs-savings of a surface system. The dialogue with the manufacturer or sales rep should address: • Specifi c wriƩ en instrucƟ ons for installaƟ on. • WriƩ en descripƟ on of the base, sub-base and required drainage system. • Results of ASTM F1951-99 laboratory tests, including the values for the baseline, straight propulsion and turning runs. The test results should also include a descripƟ on of how the surface was prepared for the lab tests and should be consistent with the installaƟ on instrucƟ ons. • Results of ASTM F1292-99/04, with wriƩ en confi rmaƟ on of the criƟ cal fall height for the surface material. These test results should include the depth of the surface material for drop heights. The criƟ cal fall height shall be higher than the fall height of the highest equipment on the playground. • WriƩ en descripƟ on of the maintenance and frequency necessary to maintain the accessible route and clear ground spaces. • The fi eld test procedures to assess the surface for impact aƩ enuaƟ on and accessibility upon iniƟ al installaƟ on and periodically through the life of the product. This should include selecƟ on of an independent tesƟ ng agent and opƟ mum values for ASTM F1292-99/04 and ASTM F1951-99 when fi eld tested. • A minimum 5-year warranty that sƟ pulates compliance with ASTM F1292-99/04 and ASTM F1951-99, fi eld tesƟ ng strategy, limitaƟ ons, exclusions or precondiƟ ons, remedies available to the playground owner, and process for making a claim. The playground owner should also ask the manufacturer for a list of customers in the area that have installed the surface material in the last 5-10 years. The planning team should talk to those customers and visit older installaƟ ons to fi nd out what issues may have come up with installaƟ on and maintenance. 14 If the surface system is to be installed by a contractor, those customer sites should also be visited to view the contractor’s experƟ se and craŌ smanship. It is important to visit older installaƟ ons to see how the product has aged and what maintenance issues may have arisen over Ɵ me. The chart provided on pages 8-9 describes the playground surfaces included in the NCA surface study: poured in place rubber, rubber Ɵ les, engineered wood fi ber and hybrid systems. Other surface materials such as sand, pea gravel and shredded rubber have been used in playground construcƟ on. However, if used as part of the ground level accessible route, these surface materials must meet the accessibility standards, including the referenced ASTM standards. Many manufacturers conƟ nue to use technology and research to develop new and improved surface systems. The planning team should be on the lookout for new innovaƟ ons, but at the same Ɵ me ask quesƟ ons and visit site installaƟ ons. This inquiry will give the decision makers a greater understanding of what to expect from diff erent products over the lifespan of the playground.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTkzMzk=